The document provides a detailed review and summary of the movie "Thank You for Smoking". It discusses the plot which focuses on a tobacco lobbyist played by Aaron Eckhart and his efforts to promote smoking. It highlights the complex relationship between various interest groups like tobacco companies, anti-smoking activists, politicians and the media. It also examines the lack of ethics displayed by many characters in their pursuit of personal agendas and how the movie effectively portrays the influence of lobbyists.

1. THANK YOU FOR SMOKING – MOVIE REVIEW Thank You for Smoking is an adaptation of Christopher Buckley's 1994 novel about the world of lobbyists. The movie is a feature debut of Jason Reitman, with a satirical and humorous depiction of politics, media exploitation and the culture of lobbyists. It was nominated for two Golden Globe Awards. The film stars Aaron Eckhart as Nick Naylor, Chief Spokesman, Vice President of the Academy of Tobacco Studies, a tobacco lobby whose stated purpose is to research the link between smoking cigarettes and lung cancer. However, the organisation was funded by cigarette companies and was the main lobby for cigarette companies in Washington DC. The movie opens with a Talk Show called Joan where Naylor was on air with a host of no-smoking advocates and a 15 year old cancer stricken boy, brought in to create awareness on teen smoking. Naylor twisted the whole scenario through his sheer skill of manipulation and made it seem like an anti-smoking advocate wanted the boy dead. Then, there was the Senator of Vermont played by William H. Macy who strongly opposed the promotion of smoking. With the decline in teen smoking, the original Marlboro man dying of cancer and the senator actively campaigning against smoking, Naylor had a lot of challenges to face. His main friends were fellow lobbyists Polly, for Alcohol and Bobby Jay, for Guns. They jokingly called themselves MOD (Merchants of Death) and they met regularly to discuss the latest news and happenings related to the world of lobbying. Naylor also has an ex-wife who despised him for inculcating his son with values which she thought was unethical. However, his son Joey hero worships him and shows huge amount of interest in understanding his profession. The film clearly depicts the relationship between various interest groups in the society who constantly are in conflict with each other to get the largest share of the pie. On one side, we have the cigarette companies who would continue to function only as more and more people take up smoking. With lesser movie stars endorsing cigarettes and the widespread awareness about the danger of smoking cigarettes, the threat of these tobacco companies going out of business has become much higher. We also have the other sections of the society, like the tobacco farmers, and the people employed in various tobacco factories, whose livelihood would be drastically affected if the government undertakes any law against their favour. These groups would do anything to protect their livelihood and this is where lobbyists like the Centre for Tobacco Studies come into the picture. They manipulate and even bribe their way out whenever the need arises. An instance of this was clearly depicted when Naylor bribed the cowboy who promoted Marlboro to shut his mouth as he was dying of cancer. The kind of expertise that he showed in persuading the cowboy to accept the suitcase filled with money was one of the most remarkable scenes for me. Even though it was an immoral thing to do, it clearly portrayed the kind of skill and the level of competence that one requires survive in the field of lobbying. Then, on the government side, there was the Senator who strongly opposed the promotion of cigarettes in a good or ‘cool’ fashion as he feels that the younger generation can be easily misled. He campaigned for cigarette covers to have a ‘Danger Sign’ which has Skull and Bones with the word Poison encrypted in bold. Even the senator has a personal self-serving purpose and was ready to do whatever he could to gain advantage. For instance, when Naylor got the upper hand at the talk show when their attempt to gain public sympathy by roping in the cancer patient backfired, he accused the person who represented him on the show of not selecting a more pathetic cancer boy with big sad eyes and a wheelchair. On the other hand, the government also gets huge campaign funds from various lobbyists and many times, these lobbyists are the ones who actually run the whole show. The fact that the US congress has not been able to implement a gun control policy is highly attributed to its close link with the gun lobby, one of the most powerful lobbies there. We can see many instances of the power of lobbyists being portrayed throughout the movie. For instance, when challenged about teenage smoking in the talk show ‘Joan’, Naylor promptly remarked that they were planning to set up a 50 million dollar programme to create awareness about the dangers of smoking among the youth. This was clearly in contrast to their intentions as inside the boardrooms, they speak openly about promoting and encouraging widespread smoking. In fact, Naylor was even sent to California to promote smoking by getting iconic movie stars to endorse smoking. We also saw the involvement of the media and the clever and scheming tactics that they use in order to get a good story. Katie Holmes played the role of a conniving reporter who went on to the extent of using her body to get a story out of Naylor. She cleverly gained the trust of Naylor and used the time that they spent alone to get confidential information from him. Later on, she wrote a story about Naylor which destroyed his career and even got him fired. This clearly shows that even though the media takes on the responsibility of exposing scams and unethical conducts to people, their means of achieving it may not always be ethical. We also saw an instance of sense making by the public when Naylor was threatened to be killed and then subsequently got kidnapped by a bunch of anti-smoking activists who pasted nicotine patches throughout his body and then left his half-naked body on the statue of Abraham Lincoln. This was the symbol that they used to show their collective apathy towards the propagators of smoking. Even the proposal to have the picture of skull and bones on cigarette packets was also a way in which symbol was used to portray the danger of cigarettes. We also saw the use of a cancer stricken patient as a symbol to portray the harmful effects of smoking. The movie clearly portrayed the lack of ethics and values that each sections of the society have in order to achieve what they want. Each person had an agenda. Even the young Joey manipulated his mother into persuading her to go to California with his dad. We also saw that BR, Naylor’s boss, stole his idea of promoting cigarettes through Hollywood, and the same person fired him as soon as he thought that he would not be of use to them anymore because of the story written about him. This clearly shows the opportunistic and fickle minded nature of people. The dying Marlboro man accepting the bribe against the wishes of his family also shows the nature of greed that is inculcated in the minds of people in the society. Reitman’s other movie ‘Juno’, about a young girl who got pregnant and was faced with the pressure of adulthood was also widely acclaimed. The movie won an Oscar along with three other Oscar nominations. His choice of movies have been socially unsafe and yet are successful and well received. This clearly shows the mindset and unconservative attitude of the American people in general. Have these movies been released 10 years ago, they may have sparked a lot of controversy. The writer of the book, Christopher Buckley is an American political satirist who has worked as a chief speechwriter for George HW Bush. His experience and knowledge about politics reflects in most of his books and he uses humour to educate the mass about the darkest sides of politics and bureaucracy. The movie does not come with a strong pro or anti smoking message, because it does not need to. Everyone knows the dangers of smoking and it is the choice of an individual to decide whether or not he or she wants to smoke. The moral of the film is more of a cry for the freedom of choice. Overall, it is an entertaining movie and I had a lot of fun watching it. Its genre is very main stream and so would be suitable for audience of all ages. However, it may not be very enjoyable for people who have a very conservative mindset, as the straightforward approach and the kind of humour used in this movie may not be very easy to digest. MALSAWMI HRAHSEL ROLL NO: 0911250