Thank You For Smoking screenplay by. Jason Reitman from the novel by. Christopher Buckley. 7/9/ Room 9 Entertainment. Santa Monica Blvd . NOW A MAJOR MOTION PICTURE • NATIONAL BESTSELLER • NAMED ONE OF THE BEST BOOKS OF THE YEAR BY PEOPLE AND USA TODAY • A NEW. Mindless Propaganda, Thoughtful Persuasion: Thank You for Smoking Thank You for Smoking is a comedy-drama film directed by Jason Reitman and.
|Language:||English, Spanish, Indonesian|
|Genre:||Academic & Education|
|Distribution:||Free* [*Registration Required]|
Editorial Reviews. goudzwaard.info Review. "Nick Naylor had been called many things since Thank You for Smoking: A Novel by [Buckley, Christopher]. Thank You for Smoking full goudzwaard.info - Download as PDF File .pdf), Text File .txt) or read online. INT. IL PECCATORE RESTAURANT - EARLY EVENING. One word: Burgundy. Nick walks right past the reservation desk. When he reaches his regular booth, it .
But the movie is not so much about tobacco as it is about spin in general. And any organization such as ACSH, devoted to encouraging empirical assessment of risks and rational responses to them, must abhor spin -- but not all spin is equally deadly, and some may come away from the film with the impression that everything is lies and simply resign themselves to ignoring all advice, expert and otherwise.
The film depicts public relations experts representing tobacco, alcohol, firearms, landmines, logging, nuclear power, Hollywood, fast food, a senator's office, and finally cell phones as approximate moral equals in that they all spin -- though it is made clear that smoking takes the prize for killing the most people and ACSH would argue that some of the others, contrary to popular belief, kill no one at all.
So what rule of thumb would the neophyte skeptic take away from Thank You for Smoking? Don't trust the tobacco industry?
Don't trust people pushing potentially unhealthy products? Don't trust industry in general? Don't trust industry or grandstanding politicians?
Or the Fox Mulder principle: trust no one? The final rule might be tempting, but that way lies paranoid schizophrenia which may be why the paranoid schizophrenics and Mulder-like conspiracy theorists sound so similar. The best rule of thumb may be never to trust completely but adopt increasingly strong tentative beliefs based on the thoroughness with which ideas have been tested, debated, refined, and subject to potential debunking.
As the market tends to weed out bad products -- over time -- and continual debate and comment, we hope, sometimes weeds out false claims in journalism, so too the continual process of peer review and attempted replication of experiments and studies weeds out the nonsense in the scientific arena even the well-funded Tobacco Research Institute eventually became a laughingstock and closed its doors. Our most esteemed scientific journals, then, ought to be about as close to the carefully-examined truth as human beings can get -- and indeed they are generally more reliable, despite what the corner psychic or traditional Chinese medicine buff might tell you, than the intuitions of the layman.
But even participants in the scientific process can be hasty in constructing rubrics for weeding out falsehoods.
She lamented the unscientific state of the American mind, as evinced by everything from religion to postmodernism -- but curiously, when she asked "who benefits" from our mass scientific illiteracy, her answer was "big business" and the "right-wing politicians" who supposedly serve big business.
When I tried asking her how she could say big business is the prime beneficiary when, for instance, it's General Electric that has to dredge the Hudson River at a cost of some half-billion dollars because of environmentalists' unscientific fear of trace amounts of PCBs, or California utility companies that must place power lines underground because of unscientific fear that electric and magnetic fields cause leukemia, she quickly cut me off while nearly every other questioner rambled on at great length , saying that since "profits" are all that corporations care about, they will always be a threat to the truth and unreliable in their reliance on science.
With utter twist of the story, Nick survived; doctor told him that because of his smoking habit, Nicotine saved his life. But he cannot smoke cigarette anymore because of resultant hypersensitivity of drug.
The issue of kidnapping Nick made him even popular and channeled public support towards him. Nick was praised by all especially his colleagues and boss. Meanwhile, Heather Holloway, an investigative reporter, publishes all information told by Nick in their tryst. Nick thought it was off-the-record and the report will enhance his reputation even further.
The reporter got all inside information in exchange of sexual affairs with Nick. The publication of the secret information cost him dearly. Now everybody accuses Nick about his deliberation of secret information. Even the cigarette company boss rebuked him and sacked him from his position.
Nick becomes mentally devastated and quit all types of public affairs and job for the cigarette company. When Nick becomes frustrated with himself, his son motivates him by saying that why he is backtracking.
All you need is spin control. Despite losing his jobs, Nick remained determined to defend the congressional committee within few days.
However, Nick handles the senate committee very boldly and halted the bill of using head and skull images on cigarette package. Nick becomes hot cake again to the big cigarette company, and his previous company boss offers his position again but Nick refused that offer in the presence of his son thinking that is a great learning opportunity for his son to see how his father wins and earns dignity in the battle of words.
Senator Finisterre is still working on his anti-cigarette campaign by digitally removing cigarette from the classic Hollywood films. As Cigarette Company got unexpected result out of the film, the academy of tobacco research is dismantled and M.
D squads become even bigger in size as the new lobbyists join in the group from oil, fast food and hazardous waste industries. Joey wins the school debate; Nick begins a public relation training firm where he is taking on the public fear about cell phones causing brain tumors.
No doubt this has been a masterpiece of satire movie and the style of spin used by the corporate especially cigarette companies to defend its position. The cinema is nicely crafted with great sense of manipulation and spin of scientific information through media.
Cigarette company is doing research on health hazard caused by cigarette and use the information to sway public mind to smoking. Spin doctors and lobbyists are working all the times to pursue the policy makers, celebrities and even their own children for saving their vested interest.
The main character Nick who performs as a great lobbyist for the tobacco company uses spins and manipulation to win the arguments on behalf of his company. On the other hand, Nick lives in a rented house because he cannot give too much time to his son.
Nick feels his son very much and he thinks that he needs to make his son like him as a spin master. Resultantly he takes his school going son for different business trip and teaches art of spin. The effort of teaching spin to his son works effectively as his son wins the price in the school debating competition.
The striking part of the film is that Nick never directly advices anybody to smoke. But what he tells to all and even to his own son is that decision should come from the individual.
As far as narrative of the film is concerned, it has used lots of rhetoric and punch-line to control the situation. It shows the highest possible way of using the spin and control the situation. It shows how the USA currently living in spin where person like Nick Naylor doesn't hide the truth but filters it. Most importantly, we've got spin control. I get paid to talk. I don't have an MD or law degree. I have a bachelor's in kicking ass and taking names. How on earth would Big Tobacco profit off of the loss of this young man Showing the cancer boy who is suffering from lung cancer?
Now, I hate to think in such callous terms, but, if anything, we'd be losing a customer. It freezes the scene and provides voice over which seems like inner speech of the actors shared by the audience. The representation makes the story even real and engaging to the audience.
The starting of the film mixes up with the sound of symphony and a rap song singing by an aged voice which attracts audience. Followed by it shows a live television talk show to debate about the bad site of cigarette where Nick defends his company in as usual manner.
Because I think that we can all agree that there is nothing more important than America's children.