Up in Smoke

**A good example of how irresponsible and careless cinema can be when it wants to convey messages to the public.** I have already said, in other reviews of other films, that I see cinema as a leisu... **A good example of how irresponsible and careless cinema can be when it wants to convey messages to the public.** I have already said, in other reviews of other films, that I see cinema as a leisure experience and as a form of artistic expression. At its core, this is cinema. However, there are so many films that seek to indoctrinate and convey political or social messages that it is not easy for us to forget that the industrial and propaganda machine linked to the movies is perfect for the mass “brainwashing” of crowds. It's something I don't like and it's even dangerous, taking into account that it can be used for good or bad, depending on the message being conveyed. And the message that this film sends us is one of tremendous social irresponsibility! Released in 1978, at a time when American cinema still felt the strong influence of hippies and the ideals of a libertarian and counterculture Left, the film begins by revealing two very different characters (a poor Latino and a well-born and spoiled rich man) who unite in their love for drugs, and especially marijuana (or weed). The script is non-existent and underwritten: the characters limit themselves to an incessant and eager search for more and more drugs, ending up returning from Mexico with a van made of weed and leaving a trail of smoke and people accidentally stoned, and apparently very happy with that. The film is one of those films that Hollywood should be ashamed of: it is a great apology for the consumption, liberal and recreational, of a varied cocktail of drugs, which starts with weed and ends with acids, “speeds” and heroin. The amount of substances mentioned in the film is vast and the way in which the subject is approached should have led to legal actions and arrest warrants against the actors, producers, studio and director, in order to answer for this irresponsible and inconsequential movie. And if the reader finds that too drastic, I leave you the question: would it be reasonable or good that they had released a comedy that made a sympathetic or pleasant portrayal of Nazism, or the Holocaust? Yes, one thing has nothing to do with the other! But there are reasonable limits for everything, including comedy, and there are themes that are simply not meant to make people laugh. I don't mean by this to say that I think the film was instrumental in increasing drug use, or that all the people who saw it went out and bought some weed. But if we, as a society, start to allow certain reprehensible acts and behaviors to be seen in a careless way, this gradually becomes ingrained in people's minds. In addition to this issue of moral and social irresponsibility, the film also has a perfect bad taste humor: I've never seen a film where the characters spend so much time in bathrooms, or vomiting. If that's funny, I didn't see any joke, but maybe it's my mistake, after all, I wasn't born or live in a cave, and my parents gave me a good education. Technically, the only aspects worthy of mention are the vehicles, starting with the VW Beetle modified with Rolls-Royce parts and ending with the very green van that appears in the biggest slice of the film. Cheech Marin and Tommy Chong deserve the Golden Raspberry and are absolutely deplorable, as actors and as comedians. Personally, I am in favor of banning this film, on moral and educational grounds. However, it can even be seen if it is properly framed and accompanied by explanations about the danger of drug use. Lucky for us, there are lots of films with good messages about that, and yes, cannabis is a drug like any other.