The Great Smoke Debate, Pt. II - Q&A with Carlos Murillo

Carlos Murillo, playwright, director and a professor in DePaul University's The Theatre School shares his in-depth perspective on the onstage smoking ban with Break A Leg, Chicago.

BALC: What were your initial reactions to the news that a theatre performance was asked not to smoke onstage?

CM: I think given the law that this latest controversy was inevitable - someone in the audience would complain, the city would be forced to enforce it and the controversy would play out in the press. What will be interesting to see is how they negotiate this issue - whether the absurdity of banning smoking on stage - which I do believe constitutes expressive behavior especially when it is written into a text - will be seen for what it is, an absurdity, and the folks in power will find a more reasoned, measured way of going about this.

In some ways I'm surprised it has taken this long for things to come to a head - that Jersey Boys has run so long without this kind of incident and interference. I think it's troubling that the integrity of a work in theatre can be compromised by a draconian law... there is a huge difference between walking into a crowded, smoky bar and walking into a 1500 seat theatre where a few actors smoke a few cigarettes. The law doesn't take this into account - it basically equates the health risks of both situations which any reasonable person can see are not the same.

BALC: As a playwright and director, do you see this as a First Amendment issue? Would you consider this a curtailing of artistic expression?

CM: I absolutely believe this is a first amendment issue. If a play calls for the characters to smoke - whether it is intended to reveal behavior or reflect a particular time period or has some other value - it's clearly curtailing expression if laws are put in place banning that behavior. I would be fine if there was some kind of theatrical trick - i.e. a good, viable, convincing fake cigarette - but I have yet to see one.

As a playwright, I would not be alright with the modifications that have been suggested by politicians that references be cut from the play. That's a slippery slope - I'm pretty much in agreement with the Dramatists Guild position on this. There are many examples of plays in which smoking is key to the storytelling - I recently directed a student production in which a night of marijuana smoking plays a decisive role in the action of the play... had we obeyed the ban we could not have told the story - we would have had to choose another play, which is where it really gets scary... producers deciding which plays to do and not to do based on a law that curtails what can be represented on stage.

And what about all the classic American plays written at a time when smoking wasn't the issue it is today? Do we "soften" Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf?

BALC: In your opinion, how will this ban affect the reputation of Chicago's theatre community if shows played in this city are required to modify smoking scenes while other cities allow them?

CM: Strangely, I don't think there will be that huge of an effect... I think Chicago has a great reputation for supporting theatre, and with the number of recent shows that have been exported from here to NY and elsewhere, and the city has proven that it can sustain sit-down commercial productions like Wicked and Jersey Boys - Chicago's reputation will be fine.

As long as good work is created and money can be made producers will find ways of continuing to make this a vibrant theatre community. I think producers also need to lobby for an exemption for theatres... it's kind of embarrassing to hav attention drawn to the city in this way - the Jersey Boys story is not a local one... it's appeared in blogs, and in national theatre web sites... people are talking about it. Maybe this will be a good test that will set precedents for other cities & communities. It strikes me that NYC has the most sensible law in this regard.

BALC: Would the plays, "The Graduate" and "Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf?" be the same without the smoking scenes?

No... In these plays smoking is both part of the action and reflective of the time & place in which they occur. What maddens me about this is a level of historical revisionism... our contemporary values frown on smoking... and to impose a ban is to impose these values on different time frames.

"Truthfulness", being truthful on stage, in our writing, and in the representation of life is a core value of what we teach to acting, playwriting and directing students - we ask them to stretch their imaginations & take risks... yet we have to pretend a behavior like smoking doesn't exist and expresses nothing - which the plays you cite plus countless others prove otherwise.

BALC: Would you support a "live-theatre exemption" to the ban that Downtown Ald. Brendan Reilly (42nd) is trying to spearhead?

CM: This is the most sensible approach. I believe that people regulate themselves pretty well when they are not forced by legislated regulation

The Great Smoke Debate, Pt. I

The Great Smoke Debate, Pt. III