Thank You For Smoking (2005)
Directed by: Jason Reitman
Nick Naylor is the chief lobbyist for the Academy of Tobacco Studies. He has the unique gift of being able to argue his way through anything, even if he isn't right. His job has a big effect on society, causing many people to hate him and give murder threats. But these are just part of the job for Nick. He's more interesting in doing his job "to pay for the mortgage." Nick's son, Joey, looks up to him like a god and wants to be just as good at arguing as his father. Life is looking good for Nick until the reporter he's been sleeping with, Heather Holloway, releases information he told her while they were having sex. Now Nick has to get his job and respect back.
This story's narrative is told in very sarcastic voice. Its exposition scenes set up this world where Nick is the king of representing the tobacco world. The opening is filled with non-diegetic images coming off cigarette cartons and old songs of how everyone should smoke. It really sets up a world that the tobacco industry wants people to believe, so therefore, the audience must be convinced as well.
The film uses Nick's voice over several times to tell the story, his thoughts, etc. This technique is used well with the type of story being told. Since the main character's job is to persuade people, his voice is used to persuade or explain the world as he sees it. The audience is under his control in a way. They are seeing the film essentially through his eyes and thoughts. Much of it is one-sided. In other movies, this could be limiting, but I think that it helped support the voice of the film. That voice is propaganda.
My main problem with the film was the development of Nick. I don't feel like he changed at the end. He was able to admit smoking was bad, but stood his ground and was able to win the case for the idustry, even though they had fired him. Afterwards, he works to teach others how to persuade the public that other products, even though are said to have health risks, don't. Other than that, the narrative aspects of this film were told in a very satirical, entertaining way.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
This is a clear cut summary of the film in which you present issues of narrative voice, plot progression and character development.
One way to move away from evaluative claims and toward interpretive claims would be to pose a question about Nick's lack of change at the end, rather than assessing it as good or bad. For example: What does the narrative say about a character like Nick when we find that he doesn't fundamentally change at the end of the film?
Post a Comment