The Great Smoke Debate, Pt. III - Smoking Ban Good For the Arts

The recent "Jersey Boys" controversy has placed so much negativity on Chicago's smoking ban that it is easy to overlook the other side of the debate. An ordinance banning indoor smoking and smoking in public places can actually be good for the arts.

Although they acknowledge that there's a difference between onstage smoking in a large theatre and a smaller venue full of smoke, some performers say that the smoking ban has been beneficial.

Cabaret singer and cabaret show reviewer, Carla Gordon, is thankful for the ordinance, "The smoking ban has helped cabaret music, with live singers, boom in Chicago. Friends of mine who would not come to hear me sing in a smoke-filled club are now there applauding."

Gordon adds, "As a frequent audience member in theaters and small music clubs, the smoking ban has been a godsend. It is even positive that onstage smoking is being eliminated. Who wants to sit in expensive orchestra seats coughing from the actors' second hand smoke? The ban may be inconvenient for smokers, but it is good for the arts and for Chicago in general."

Pianist and vocalist, Mark Burnell, has written letters to politicians and has encouraged other singers to phone and write in support of Chicago's smoking ban. He supports the ban not only for health reasons, but for professional reasons as well.

"One large reason that the ban is good for the arts is for the health of singers. I have had to sing for over 35 years in smoky rooms. It is difficult to breathe, difficult to concentrate, and I have done damage to my vocal chords by breathing in second hand smoke. I do not smoke because I am a professional vocalist, and smoke is bad for vocal health," says Burnell.

The smoking ban was put in place to protect people's health - a fact that 28th Ward Alderman, Ed Smith regularly reminds us. "We passed it because it was a health issue and good for the city. That's what I'm gonna stay with. We've done the right thing. We will not change it," he was quoted in a Sun-Times article published on July 9th.

For some artists, that's perfectly fine.

The Great Smoke Debate, pt. I

The Great Smoke Debate, pt. II

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

The Great Smoke Debate, Part I – Chicago’s Smoking Ban and Onstage Performances

It’s not often we associate Frankie Valli with the First Amendment, nor did we ever think that he would factor in any Chicago ordinances.

“Jersey Boys” –the musical about the lives of Valli and The Four Seasons (“Sherry,” “Walk Like A Man,” “Big Girls Don’t Cry”)- appeared in the news when Chicago’s Smoking Ban forced the production to go smoke free and change several scenes where smoking appears, eliciting strong responses from theatre goers, members of the theatre community, politicians and others.

John Nothdurft, legislative specialist of the Heartland Institute, calls the ordinance a "liberty instrusive ban." "Even the most ardent second hand smoke alarmists would be hard pressed to claim such trace amounts caused by Jersey Boys could be harmful to its audience," he stated.

Chicago theatre fan, Kimberly Jackewicz, reacted by saying, “That is honestly one of the more ridiculous things I've heard with regards to the smoking ban. This is not a venue where secondhand smoke is going to be an issue. The city needs to stop trying to save us from ourselves - isn't the murder rate the highest it's been in years? Seems like that would be more worthy of our lawmakers' attention than something like this.”

Worthy of Lawmakers’ Attention

Something like this, however, has become the center of some of our lawmakers’ attention. Downtown Ald. Brendan Reilly (42nd Ward) introduced a measure at the July 9th City Council meeting that would allow actors on stage to smoke for theatrical purposes only. Other cities with smoking bans, such as New York, London and Minnesota, already have these exemptions in place.

Reilly's predecessor, former Alderman Burt Natarus, proposed an exemption that would have allowed actors onstage to smoke on May 4, 2007. The City Council’s Buildings Committee, however, rejected the proposal, 4-2.

The Ban and Artistic Expression

A January 2007 Broadwayworld.com article reported that Broadway In Chicago, presenter of shows like “Jersey Boys,” brought in $635 million dollars annually to the city of Chicago and the state of Illinois and supports more than 7,500 local jobs. It is no wonder that 42nd Ward Alderman Reilly wants to protect anything that could jeopardize the quality of these shows.

For some, however, the ban is beyond economics. As applied to "Jersey Boys," some artists say the smoking ban limits theatrical conduct and is therefore an abridgement of the rights of artistic expression.

Ralph Sevush, Executive Director of the Dramatist Guild of America, wrote in a letter that the ordinance needs to be narrowly tailored in order to avoid unconstitutional implications, "To the extent that the antismoking ordinances around the country inhibit the free expression of playwrights to create the characters they choose and to tell the stories that they wish, those statutes has the effect of censoring their work. "

Proponents of the ban deny implications of its unconstitutionality as there are alternative means to suggest smoking onstage without actually doing so. Chicago artist, Mark Burnell, asserts, "Actors are often portrayed with a gun. That certainly doesn't mean they should carry a real firearm onto the stage."

However Chicago photographer Saundra Karol, who describes herself as a non-smoker but a lover of the arts, attest that substitutes to smoking take away from the quality of the show. " I think the smoking ban during live performances is ridiculous. The last few shows I went to where there was supposed to be smoking onstage, I found it very hokey and distracting when they were snuffing out their "lit" (read, unlit) cigarettes."

Smoking ban proponents have also suggested the use of herbal prop cigarettes. But Chicago Tribune's Chris Jones wrote in a recent column that the law does not distinguish between tobacco and herbal cigarettes. And even if it did, some say that they are not adequate substitutes. In an article in PerformInk.com Stage Managers' Association member Marci Glotzer complained that herbal cigarettes don't always burn properly and won't stay lit without constant puffing.

Slippery Slopes and Loopholes

Opponents of the ban argue that the ordinance would broaden the areas that legislators' can control. Karol sums up her concern, " Next thing you know, popcorn will be banned in movie theatres because it seduces those patrons not eating into buying it, therefore adding to their cholesterol intake. "

Proponents of the ban fear that the current exemption being sought by Alderman Reilly would lead to loopholes around the current ban. Matt, a poster on the Tribune's The Theater Loop website, commented, "If they make exceptions for stage productions, then I'll just stage a production of Jersey boys at my local bar. I'm acting! " Which is exactly how bars in Minnesota used their theatre exemptions.

According to an article on the Minnesota Public Radio website, some Minnesota bar owners began calling their bars, "theatres," and patrons "actors." They then held theatre nights when smoking would be allowed. When a county judge stopped bar owners from staging theatre nights, the article quoted bar owner Robert Ripley, ""If a judge is going to rule what is and what is not theater, it's going to get sticky."

Situations are always sticky when civil liberties are concerned, and theatre smoking bans are proving to be no exception.

The Great Smoke Debate, Part II

The Great Smoke Debate, Part III