[NEohioPAL]Smoking ban in public ...

Mon Apr 16 12:01:27 PDT 2007

--=====================_27511709==.ALT
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

This is in response to part of Matthew Sprosty's recent post:

 >The fact is- you are more likely to get cancer=20
from the sun walking into the show, than you are=20
breathing the dissipated cigarette smoke that=20
reaches you in the front row.  (Just because you=20
can smell the cigarette doesn't mean you are=20
breathing in the second hand smoke...)
I don=92t think the point is that people can get=20
cancer from the bit of smoke we=92re talking about=20
=96 I don=92t know enough about that to argue one way=20
or the other. However, from my point of view just=20
smelling the cigarette smoke in the theater takes=20
away from the experience for me =96 as it does when=20
I smell cigarette smoke in any place where I can=92t escape it.
 >if a production company can find a better way=20
to have the actor "feign" cigarette smoking, but=20
still  have it so I am not taken out of the play-=20
more power to them, and I would be highly impressed with the ruse.
As several people have noted, there are fake=20
cigarettes that, while not perfect, at least give the effect of smoking.
 >We, as theatrical artists, are supposed to=20
create a world on stage.  You want to ban smoking=20
in a Parisian play set in Bohemian times?  That's just ridiculous.
Michael Sepesy had the best answer for this=20
argument: we fake just about everything else=20
onstage =96 why should smoking be exempt?
 >They smoked then.  They were carefree then.
They did a lot of things back then that we=20
wouldn=92t dream of portraying honestly. Again,=20
smoking is just one more thing actors need to=20
pretend to do, if it=92s central to the story.
--Linda Ryan

--=====================_27511709==.ALT
Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<html>
<body>
This is in response to part of Matthew Sprosty's recent post: 
>The fact is- you are more likely to get cancer from the
sun walking into the show, than you are breathing the dissipated
cigarette smoke that reaches you in the front row.  (Just because
you can smell the cigarette doesn't mean you are breathing in the second
hand smoke...)
<dl>
<dd>I don=92t think the point is that people can get cancer from the bit of
smoke we=92re talking about =96 I don=92t know enough about that to argue on=
e
way or the other. However, from my point of view just smelling the
cigarette smoke in the theater takes away from the experience for me =96 as
it does when I smell cigarette smoke in any place where I can=92t escape
it.
</dl>>if a production company can find a better way to have the actor
"feign" cigarette smoking, but still  have it so I am not
taken out of the play- more power to them, and I would be highly
impressed with the ruse.=20
<dl>
<dd>As several people have noted, there are fake cigarettes that, while
not perfect, at least give the effect of smoking.
</dl>>We, as theatrical artists, are supposed to create a world on
stage.  You want to ban smoking in a Parisian play set in Bohemian
times?  That's just ridiculous. =20
<dl>
<dd>Michael Sepesy had the best answer for this argument: we fake just
about everything else onstage =96 why should smoking be exempt?
</dl>>They smoked then.  They were carefree then.=20
<dl>
<dd>They did a lot of things back then that we wouldn=92t dream of
portraying honestly. Again, smoking is just one more thing actors need to
pretend to do, if it=92s central to the story.=20
</dl>--Linda Ryan</body>
 
</html>

--=====================_27511709==.ALT--