Directors need to rethink smoking in productions

Wednesday, May 8, 1996

Take into account health of actors and play-going audience By
Dr. Richard P. Usatine

I recently had the pleasure of seeing the UCLA theater
department’s production of the Pulitzer Award-winning "Kentucky
Cycle." The acting and direction were superb, and the play is a
powerful and thoughtful piece that spans 200 years of Kentucky
history. In the middle of Part II, the lead actor lit up a
cigarette. The coughing in the audience noticeably increased. The
smoke came wafting in my direction, and suddenly against my will, I
was breathing tobacco smoke. I rubbed my eyes and asked myself, "Is
this necessary in 1996?"

The director might answer that the smoking creates a certain
effect or mood and establishes an important aspect of the
character’s lifestyle. I dispute this. The play and character were
strong before the actor lit up the cigarette, and there was no
dramatic advantage to subjecting the actors and audience to over
400 carcinogens and irritating substances.

In 1996 there is indisputable evidence that active and passive
smoking leads to death and disease. Smoking is still the number one
preventable cause of death and disease in our nation. Only the
tobacco industry will deny this. On the strength of this evidence,
UCLA became a non-smoking campus in 1995.

Why are students, faculty and the audience still subjected to
tobacco smoke in our own theater? As a family physician that
teaches at the UCLA School of Medicine and has devoted my life to
the health of my patients and the public, I say it is time to
critically analyze why we allow the theater special dispensation
from providing a smoke-free indoor environment.

As a faculty member that influences the lives of my students, I
can’t imagine asking my students to smoke as a requirement for a
class or role. Medicine is not without its occupational hazards,
and it is my job to minimize these risks for my students.

Some might say that theater mirrors life, and people smoke in
real life. People have bowel movements in real life, and how often
are we subjected to watching this on stage? Actually, that would be
safer for the actors and audience.

Sometimes theaters post warning signs that the play contains
smoking and loud noises. How often do people read these signs and
say "Well, I guess we will go home and sit this one out." I have
been purchasing season tickets for the UCLA theater department’s
plays for 10 years now, and I can’t imagine leaving the theater
upon seeing such a warning. These warnings are about as useful as
the warning labels found on cigarette packs. They don’t work!

If the warning sign said, "Some actors will be shooting real
automatic weapons into the audience," I would miss that play. The
dangers of smoking are more insidious and far less visible.

How about the actor’s health? To be an actor in 1996 you still
must know how to smoke comfortably and naturally without coughing.
This comes with practice and leads to higher rates of tobacco
addiction among actors. I can’t imagine there are many actors that
have the luxury of turning down a part because it requires them to
smoke. The student actor in "Kentucky Cycle" had the lead role.
Would he have turned that role down to protect his health? His role
required loud oration and long speeches. This strain on his voice
and vocal cords was only compounded by the irritating effect of the
smoke he was required to inhale.

What if this student actor was trying to stop smoking? As a
physician, I know that one cigarette a night for each performance
is enough to foil the efforts of the most committed person. Does
that mean we can resign ourselves to another generation of actors
dying of lung cancer like Lucille Ball, Yul Brenner and John
Wayne?

When will this madness end? We now protect the rights of waiters
in Los Angeles to work in smoke-free environments. According to an
article published in the Journal of the American Medical
Association, waiters subjected to passive smoking in restaurants
have a 50 percent increase in lung cancer risk. Ironically, many
waiters in Los Angeles are actors. They are now safer waiting
tables than landing a lead role in a play or movie. An acting job
may require them to smoke actively or passively, but not so in
waiting tables.

I am asking directors and heads of theaters and theater
departments to rethink the risk-benefit ratio of smoking in
theaters. UCLA as an institution should be responsible for the
health and well-being of its students and needs to act on this
issue.

Dr. Usatine is the director of predoctoral education for the
UCLA Division of Family Medicine.