("This isn't a pipe, it's a windmill")
I've got to say from the outset that I am not a smoker, never have been, and find it a noxious and intrusive habit; I welcomed the arrival of smoke-free working places, bars, clubs and cinemas, where before I had been subjected to other peoples' unwelcome exhaust...
Yet I am mystified by a story which I just read today, about posters on the Paris Metro featuring the French comedian and film-maker Jacques Tati, in the persona of his most famous character, Monsieur Hulot.
In order that the pictures do not run contrary to French no-smoking regulations, M. Hulot has had his trademark pipe (always kept clenched between his teeth no matter what indignity is heaped upon him)
replaced with a bright yellow toy windmill.
Now I don't want this to descend into a "political correctness gone mad!" type rant: I am sure the regulations were made with only the best intentions, and it is all too easy to rubbish the efforts of people trying to promote education against a killer product which still seems to be entrenched in the French way of life.
However, I can't help but feel that this is a counter-productive move. In adding the toy instead of simply removing the pipe, the advertiser is seemingly thumbing their nose at the authorities, and by implication rubbishing the efforts of the no-smoking campaign, and that is a pity.
If anything the "windmill" emphasises Hulot's pipe more than ever showing it would have done - I'm sure that more children for example will have questioned parents about the inclusion of the toy than would
ever have asked about smoking, or felt the need to smoke, if the pipe had been left in.
I was directed to the Tati story after reading about a similar dispute over posters of Audrey Tatou in the rôle of Coco Chanel,
also shown smoking. This - to me at least - is clearly another matter.
The film was made in late 2008 and early 2009, and I think that - although Chanel was a smoker - it would have been entirely possible to shoot publicity shots of Tatou without a cigarette in her hand.
I'm aware that there may be a contradiction in my position, but I do feel that there is a difference in limiting the uses of archival images of people smoking (that the images aren't actually being used to sell cigarettes or tobacco, and are merely depicting an historical figure in an accurate representation of them in life), and asking that new images to be displayed in public do not include smoking.
I see this as similar to control over items made of ivory, or tiger skins: those already in circulation prior to legislation remain in circulation - but we just don't allow anything new to be created.
I think the situation would be even better served if there were rules which said that, in the case of old pictures like that of M. Hulot, they could be used with pipes etc. intact, but that a health warning be displayed on the poster.
Ironically, as I see it, you couldn't use Van Gogh's painting of a skeleton with a cigarette clamped in its jaws - a potent (if perhaps inadvertent) anti-smoking image if ever there was one - on a poster which would be displayed on the Metro! Using the skull and putting an anti-smoking slogan on it, would be far better than a skull with a windmill held between its teeth.
Anyway, the reason that I brought it up here - other than to bring it to the attention of those on the boards who might enjoy the work of Tati - was to say that this obviously has implications for the use of Captain Haddock and his pipe in any advertising of exhibitions, the museum or the film...!