Thank You for Smoking

There haven’t been too many films made about Big Tobacco apart from Michael Mann’s superb The Insider in 1999, which focused more on the ideological struggles of two men rather than the industry as a complex entity. With Syriana having tackled Big Oil as a sprawling influence and the upcoming Fast Food Nation lambasting that expansive industry with sincerity, it’s surprising that the first film to look at Big Tobacco on a broader canvass is a comedy: Jason Reitman’s Thank You for Smoking.

Nick Naylor (Aaron Eckhart) is a lobbyist for a major tobacco company, spinning the company and smoking in general as being a maligned practice via every possible media and political outlet. He initially seems amoral and unconcerned with the genuine ramifications of smoking, instead relishing the thrill of arguing on behalf of a hated institution. But his relationship with his 12-year-old son complicates matters: he wants to remain a role model, even when Joey wants to accompany him on trips to a similarly morally flexible Hollywood agent (Rob Lowe) and the inspiration for the Marlboro Man (Sam Elliott), now disgruntled at Big Tobacco’s manipulation of him. Plus, Nick must contend with a vehement anti-smoking senator (William H. Macy) and a journalist (Katie Holmes) looking to profile him despite her ever-so-slightly suspicious seduction of him during an interview.

Thank You for Smoking needs to be commended for having the balls to make a comedy about a pretty dark subject – Nick and others throw the statistics of tobacco usage and related deaths around frequently, but there are few moments of genuine pathos in the film. The comedy is either very subtle or very black, and the actors carry it off tremendously. After some fairly dull roles, Aaron Eckhart scores as Nick Naylor, revealing his flexibility and even slapstick potential, all while anchoring the film with ease. The supporting cast, including Maria Bello, Robert Duvall, and J.K. Simmons are as good as you’d expect (although Duvall is sadly wasted, especially since he’s barely on screen these days). Reitman did well to attract such a major cast for his first feature, and for delivering a more topical, funny, and entertaining film than his father Ivan (Ghostbusters, Twins) has in years.

Where the film falls short is in failing to assert a unique style, choosing a flashy range of on-screen captions, freeze-frames and others that have been used many times before by Guy Ritchie and others, but here aren’t deployed in an innovative way. A more sedate style allowing the distinctive script and performances to carry the weight may have worked better, because Reitman is aping rather than creating.

But the film is still notable for that courage, not just for addressing this subject matter but also for avoiding an indictment of Big Tobacco. While such an inquisition would theoretically be welcome in cinema, its corruption and manipulation is well enough known to its opponents that a film would have difficulty offering anything new. Instead the film takes the interesting stand of defending everyone’s right to choose, even if the decision is detrimental to one’s health. After all, the facts are out there in abundance, but cigarettes aren’t going anywhere. There are plenty of smokers who assert and defend their right to choose, and Thank You for Smoking celebrates that, but without any kind of support for Big Tobacco. It’s an intriguing position, and what makes this comedy so thought-provoking.

3 thoughts on “Thank You for Smoking

  1. Theeph says:

    A very intriguing position for a film to take indeed.I can’t help but think it’d reduce my enjoyment somewhat. I’m all in favour of ambiguity in movies, and I don’t need a Hollywood director to hold my hand and tell me smoking is bad, but pro-choice messages are in general a bit irritating pour moi.I am in no doubt that the people who are actively making choices in their lives with full cognisance of the ramifications, are not the ones that have to hold Pro-choice placards and prance around.Besides smoking isn’t a personal choice issue really, though it can be oversimplified to be percieved as such, because of second hand smoke. A shitton of non-smoking bar workers have gotten lung cancer from this, and this was a driving force in getting smoking restricted (or banned in some countries) from pubs.Well I suppose that this is all a bit besides the point from a movie review perspective but I just can’t see it hooking me. I’d be interested to hear your perspective on my opinions with regards to the likelyhood of me enjoying the film.

  2. Jack Reed says:

    That’s a great point that I hadn’t considered – secondhand smoke is a crucial side of the issue that the film more or less sidesteps. This does seem to invalidate the film’s stance, unless the proportion of secondhand smoke-related deaths is a tiny proportion of smoking-related deaths in total. But then, the question is how tiny? Should the proportion even matter when people are dying through the inconsideration of others enjoying their right to choose?It’s a very intelligent movie and it’s great that it was made, but I don’t think it offers anything hugely constructive, so I wouldn’t bother on those grounds. But it’s an enjoyable film with wit, so it’s worth seeing on that level.

Leave a comment

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s