Crusading Against Drugs on the Big and Little Screens
A conversation with Susan Kendall Newman, 33, daughter of actor Paul Newman and executive director of the Scott Newman Foundation. The anti-drug organization is named after her brother, who died in 1978 of a drug and alcohol overdose. It is financed in part by profits from sales of her father’s salad dressing, spaghetti sauce and popcorn. Q: What is the foundation’s purpose? A: The foundation’s main objective is to get the entertainment (business) and all other areas of the media to depict any substance-related issue--tobacco, alcohol, illicit drugs or misused prescription drugs--in a way that does not glamorize, in a way that is accurate, in a way that does not lead children to believe that this is a kind of rite-of-passage phenomenon. We are trying to sensitize those people to the incredibly important and powerful role-modeling potential that they possess.
We (the Newman family) made a very conscious decision to stay within our own level of expertise, which is communication, film making. We looked at what was available in the marketplace, and we laughed about the terrible propaganda-type, scare-tactic-level films that still exist in the marketplace. What’s hard for the educators to recognize is the fact that these children were raised on “Star Wars.” They know production value. For the millions of children who’ve been smoking dope for years and are still pulling off Bs in school, you have no credibility.
So what we try to do is say, “Let’s be realistic about where these kids are in terms of their sophistication and try and create in-house films that address drug-related problems and decision-making and resistance-type training.” When we first started--we’ve been in operation for six years--there was not a warm reception by the industry. There was mainly denial. And there was mainly a sense of “Good work, Newmans”--lots of back-patting and eyes glassing over. And what we had to do was to work very hard to convince them that we’re not here to be watchdogs, you know. We’re not here to take away any constitutional rights. But the industry does not formally recognize its impact on the culture.
On the one hand, they firmly deny that violence in movies and television is affecting behavior at any age, that social norms are accelerated or changed by what is depicted in the media. And yet, look at a real recent scenario: “Miami Vice.” Those long Italian jackets were on the racks at Sears within 2 1/2 months after that show debuted. Q: Influencing the networks must be difficult. How do you accomplish that, and why should they listen to you? A: One of the ways was to initiate the Scott Newman Drug Abuse Prevention Awards. That was basically to serve as an enticement to people in the industry and on some levels put the burden on the writers to do their homework, to be sensitized--I keep using that word. If the writer takes the time to do his homework, and the programming head or the network is responsible in wanting to show that kind of (anti-drug) programming, we will acknowledge it at a big awards dinner, the writer will walk away with $10,000, the network, the director and the producer will receive awards. Q: How can you justify that? Wouldn’t the money be better spent on drug workshops or drug clinics? A: We have nothing to do with rehabilitation. We work solely on the prevention level. Most of the writers who have won our awards have not necessarily been well-known writers, so 10 grand is a gift from heaven. I have to tell you, also, that for an award that stands for accuracy, it’s ironic that 50% of our submissions every year are rejected for lack of accuracy. Q: You’ve been very critical of the media for promoting--or for at least not discouraging--drug use. Why should the media take the rap? They didn’t create drugs. A: Clearly, you could remove every gratuitous drug reference from every form of media, and we’d still have a horrendous drug problem. The difference is that these media reach into millions and millions of households every day. Especially in the interpretation of a young person’s mind, the more he keeps hearing it, cavalierly, as an accepted practice, the more that child or adolescent begins to think that that is the social norm. If every week his favorite TV program shows people getting bombed and making jokes and getting high, or he goes to the movies and he sees his favorite rock stars or he sees his favorite singer celebrate getting loaded in a particular lyric in a song, it becomes an accepted norm. Q: But to get back to my point, why should Hollywood be the arbiter of the social good and right and wrong? A: I personally feel that they have an obligation to do that. By the nature of the fact that they go into people’s homes. For many people, this is the only way that they get their news. This is the only thing they do for entertainment. It becomes, you know, the magic box. People don’t talk to one another anymore. Families sit down and watch the television set. They turn on the radio. I’m not saying that’s bad. It seems to be very much a part of our culture. I think this situation occasionally produces bad things. Like illiteracy rates that are higher. Our writing skills have deteriorated. But, nonetheless, television is here in a big way in terms of its influence. I believe that it has a responsibility to counteract some of the other types of programming. Q: How? A: Some people have started to do it already. Certain episodic television shows take one or two episodes a year and show one of the characters--one who’s very well known and liked--having a drug problem, a drinking problem, getting in trouble, seeking help.. I think that where television and films have perhaps been the most reckless is in not showing negative repercussions for any kind of excessive behavior, be it sexual, amoral, drug-related, drinking-related. Episodic television was notorious for doing that three or four years ago. We saw people who got drunk all the time and they never lost their jobs, they were never cranky in the morning. Or if they were, it was done in such a comedic way that it didn’t seem that it was a real consequence.
The media have a very important role to play, but I also think that parents had better start asserting themselves as the people who make the restrictions and the boundaries and act out the consequences when those rules are broken. We also have to look at the role-modeling that’s going on in households. There are a lot of parents who do drugs in front of their kids, there are a lot of parents who are selling drugs to their kids, there are a lot of parents who are alcoholics. Q: How do you want the industry to respond? A: Perhaps by demonstrating that things aren’t resolved in 30 minutes would be a good start in terms of episodic television. People don’t have nervous breakdowns and a drug problem and within 23 minutes they’ve seen their first shrink or counselor and they’re well on their way to recovery. Q: How do you get the industry to do that? A: We have conferences and seminars. They might be for producers. They may be for writers. They may be for young actors. We delineate what’s going on with the drug problem in this country. Why the social scientists feel it’s affecting younger and younger people. What kind of positive role-modeling potential people in the industry have. Q: Are you asking for censorship? A: I’m asking for responsibility. I’ve worked in this business all my life. I’m not in it to do it in. I’m saying that the messages we’re sending out on all levels of media can be detrimental in the decision-making of young people. Q: How do you stop a guest from going on Johnny Carson’s show and saying, “I had a great weekend--I got stoned”? A: I’m not trying to stop anybody. I’m just trying to make them aware of the fact that people who are getting 5,000 pieces of mail a week or a month from kids all over the country have a responsibility. If they choose to accept that as fact, they may decide that next time they want to go on Johnny Carson and talk about how screwed up they got over the weekend, that they can just not talk about it. And the other side of that coin is that, if they’re not doing drugs and they lead pretty healthy life styles, that they acknowledge that. Q: Many sports and entertainment figures have died of drug overdoses. Isn’t that a deterrent for young minds? A: It doesn’t seem to be. After John Belushi’s death we got a lot of letters from parents or relatives who found drugs in the possession of a kid or family member. When confronted, the kid would say, in essence, “I need to know what is so hot about doing drugs that this man who seemingly had everything--talent and money and respect --what was so attractive that he was willing to risk his life, his career?” Those messages don’t, in the assimilation of the young person’s mind, necessarily achieve the deterrent that we want. Q: Nancy Reagan is coming to Los Angeles in October for a symposium on drugs and the television industry sponsored by the Academy of Television Arts and Sciences. What plan would you like to see that symposium produce? A: First and foremost, all people who are on the programming level can become more aware of how they are depicting substance-related issues. I think even the news (programs) that show drug busts. For starters, they ought to take some of the glamour out of that. Q: What’s glamorous about a bust? A: You talk to kids. They don’t see the ultimate repercussions, they don’t see the guy going through the trial, they don’t see the guy going to jail and how severe his sentence has been. What they see is a run-down house, frequently, that has $300,000 in cash, a lot of guns, a couple of bags of coke and grass or whatever sitting on a counter, and somehow, in the mind of a 12-, 14-, 16-year-old, they may not look at the downside of that. They may be caught up in the glamour of that kind of life style. Q: But that’s not Hollywood’s problem. A: It’s part of the media. My solutions are not all that popular. My solutions are to open up their public relations departments, community relations departments, to responsible people in the anti-drug movement and work more directly with them in the development of television shows and / or movies of the week in terms of developing more pro-social messages. Q: Have you taken drugs? A: (Answering that question is) a no-win situation for me, because if I say I never did drugs, the kids say: “Well, lady, who the hell are you to come in and talk to us about drugs? You’re a virgin. You don’t know what you’re talking about.” If I say yes, I was a product of my generation and clearly my exposure to drugs was probably very similar to anybody in the 30s age bracket, then I have parents who raise an eyebrow and say, “Aha, she’s really one of them.” I’m not the perfect individual, and I haven’t led the most Pollyanna-ish life. Q: Your father races cars sponsored by Budweiser. If you can’t influence him, how can you influence 11-year-olds? A: His consciousness has been changed. It has not been perfected. I do get upset with him. I’m not going to lie to you. I get a lot of mail about Budweiser’s sponsorship. Race-car driving is often sponsored by beers and wines, and by soft drinks that rot your teeth. I don’t think that’s really healthy, but that is a fact of life. I try to work on Paul just as much as I do on anybody else. Q: How cooperative are the networks and the film industry? A: Five years ago there were a lot of glassy-looking eyes. Now, because of a lot of different things--I doubt very much my harping on them was necessarily the most significant factor--at least a certain portion of the population’s change in attitude about this (has) exerted pressure and influence. And it has had an impact. The fact that our First Lady has been putting out some strong messages on drug abuse, especially as it pertains to our kids, has heightened public awareness. All of those factors working together have made a change. I sure see a lot more receptivity to more positive messages through all media channels today than I did five years ago. Q: What else are you doing? A: We have a new videotape entitled, “Drug-Free Kids: A Parent’s Guide,” which is a 70-minute videotape with everybody from Ken Howard to Jane Alexander to Paul Winfield and Bonnie Franklin. It sets up real family scenes and it opens up different kinds of communications skills for parents. We also developed a 40-page guide workbook for parents. And we have initiated a program that will be available statewide in California where 10th-grade students will be involved in developing their own anti-drug commercials. Q: Offhand, I can’t think of any show in the last few years that has portrayed drugs in a positive light. In “Miami Vice,” for instance, the druggies get busted or get killed. A: OK, the average actual hour show lasts 48 minutes. Now for 38 of those minutes, we’ve seen Learjets, gorgeous women, fancy cars. The guy gets busted in the last two minutes. I’m just saying that, rightly or wrongly, a lot of different messages are going out that can be very detrimental to developing minds. In the film “About Last Night,” we see Demi Moore talking to her girlfriend, who pulls out a joint. Demi says, “Well,”--I’m paraphrasing here--”I really haven’t been smoking any pot because my boyfriend doesn’t like it, but I’m mad at him, so let’s smoke this joint.” Now we’ve all given up something for a potential mate. I just suggest that, wouldn’t it have been better if she’d given up roller-skating, she’d given up singing in the shower because she had a crappy voice?
People get drunk. So sometimes we will see in the media people getting drunk. I’m just saying that it’s become so pervasive and so accepted. That is the danger. So whether it’s a one-line throwaway about “Ha, ha, I do Valium,” or it’s Madonna smoking dope (in the film “Desperately Seeking Susan”)--we can’t be quite so cavalier. We’ve got a lot of kids dying.
