As vaping becomes increasingly popular, it’s no surprise that it has begun to seep into television and film. Movies like Everything Everywhere All at Once and shows like Mare of Easttown feature characters who vape. In the movie Blink Twice, Channing Tatum’s frequent vape use is a critical plot device central to the story. Yet cigarettes still reign supreme as the preferred nicotine delivery system for most on-screen characters. If anything, smoking on screen has experienced a resurgence over the last five years. Movies like Materialists and Sinners, and shows like The Bear and Stranger Things, prominently feature smoking. So why are cigarettes still so common—and vaping so rare—in popular entertainment?

In the past, smoking on screen was a reflection of the times. In the 1950s, over 40% of Americans smoked, consuming a whopping 2,000 cigarettes per capita per year. Naturally, characters on screen would smoke in an era when nearly everyone did. Today, we know the dangers of cigarettes, and smoking rates have declined by over 70% since their peak in the mid-20th century. By 2022, fewer than 12% of Americans smoked. Around 2015, vape use began to skyrocket with the introduction of the Juul. Viewed as a healthier alternative to traditional cigarettes, vaping among adults has steadily increased over the past decade. Despite these trends, vaping remains scarcely depicted in television and film.

It’s hard to deny the aesthetic that tobacco companies have cultivated around smoking. The design of the cigarette, as well as its packaging, has been refined over decades to become one of the most aesthetically pleasing consumer products ever created. Further, the persona surrounding cigarette smokers was carefully crafted to project a certain type of “cool”—an image that undoubtedly left a mark on generations of filmmakers. From the rough-and-tumble cowboy to the mysterious femme fatale, cigarettes have long been used to broadcast character traits. Mystery, intrigue, toughness—all can be implied through the simple act of smoking.

The physical ritual of smoking—lighting, holding, ashing, and dragging a cigarette—gives actors subtle ways to deepen a character’s persona. Al Pacino’s smoking in The Godfather is used to emphasize Michael Corleone’s composed, calculating nature. Michael Fassbender’s final cigarette in Inglourious Basterds illustrates defiance in the face of certain death. Cigarettes often highlight a character’s “cool factor”—that classic, dangerous kind of cool where actions are taken without regard for consequences.

Vaping, on the other hand, is often used to signal a character’s lack of cool. Vapers are typically portrayed as juvenile, immature, or obnoxious (see Channing Tatum in Blink Twice or Pete Davidson in Bodies Bodies Bodies). Despite its rising popularity, vaping hasn’t cultivated the same mystique as cigarettes. Products like the Elf Bar—a small, colorful rectangle with a straw-like nozzle—don’t convey “cool” quite like a Marlboro Red. The act of vaping also lacks the cinematic flair of smoking. You can pull a vape out of your pocket and puff immediately—there’s no ritual, no rhythm. It’s the logical evolution of smoking for the modern age: instant gratification on demand.

The visuals and sounds of cigarette smoking also translate better on screen. The glow of the ember, the way smoke hangs in a confined space—these elements contribute to a mood of a scene. Vaping, by contrast, is often accompanied by the annoying crackle of the coil and vapor that disappears in seconds. It’s simply not as cinematic. Cigarettes also benefit from a unique on-screen advantage: the absence of smell. In reality, cigarettes stink. If Mad Men aired with “smell-o-vision,” it would have been canceled after three episodes.

The continued use of cigarettes on screen is also tied to another current trend in film and television—the period piece. These days, many popular movies and shows are set in the past. This reliance on earlier eras likely stems from a combination of nostalgia, the narrative complications smartphones introduce in certain genre plots, and a broader demand for escapist content. Smoking remains common on screen because the stories themselves are still set in times when people smoked. As long as films and shows are set in the past, smoking will persist on screen to maintain historical accuracy.

Like all fiction, television and film omit parts of reality when they’re inconvenient to the story. The truth is that smoking is a dangerous habit with countless ugly side effects. We’re used to watching characters smoke, but we’d be repulsed if we saw them with brown teeth or coughing up a ball of phlegm. Filmmakers only show us the act of smoking—never the consequences. Maybe it’s time to find new ways to express the themes traditionally conveyed through cigarettes. Or maybe smoking will continue to exist solely within the four corners of the screen as a relic of past cinema. Regardless, its prevalence is a reminder of the false realities we craft for entertainment.