8/3/2019 "Thank You For Smoking" PHE 455 Christopher Harley Quick Critique 1

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/thank-you-for-smoking-phe-455-christopher-harley-quick-critique-1 1/2

PHE455 Lockwood 1

ChristopherHarley QuickCritique#1 ThankYouForSmoking

PositiveAspects

Ienjoyedthisfilm.ThisisthesecondtimeI’veseenitandIappreciatedthechance

towatchitagainwithamorecriticaleyethesecondtimearound.ThecharacterofNickNaylor,playedbyactorAaronEckhart,isimmediatelydislikablebecauseofhisenthusiasticadvocacyofsmokingandhislobbyistwork,fortheindustrythatbrings

usthehabit,isequallydistasteful.Butthere’ssomuchnuancetobeplayedoutthat

it’sactuallyhardtoremainaversetoNaylorandthephilosophiesthatguidehisthinkingandhiswork.Lobbyistscanbeeasytargetsofscornwhenthey’retryingto

championacausethatwedisagreewithandyettheydisappearintothefabricofpoliticswhentheyworktowardissuesthatwebelievein.InNickNaylorwesee

exactlythesortofadvocatewewouldwantonourside,regardlessofwhetherwe

agreewithhissubjectcauseornot.He’salwaysthinking,nevertires,andgoesafter

hisopponentswithtacticsthatwouldmaketyrantscringe.IlikethatNaylorisn’ta

completesociopath.Hedoesn’tneedtobelievethatsmokingisharmless;heknowsit’sdreadfullyharmful.It’sfreedomofchoicethathechampionsandthatfactalone

createsalevelofanxietythatI’msuremanyaudiencemembersfeeluncomfortable

facing.AtfirstglancewemaybeinclinedtorelegateNaylortoaworldofblackand

white,rightorwrong,goodorbad.Butthat’snotthetruth.Oratleastit’snotthe

truthforhim.Itmayindeedbethetruthforus,theaudience,becausewewanteasy

answersandvalidationforthingsweknowtobepersonallyharmfulandthereby

harmfultosocietyaswell.ForNaylorthereareaninfinitenumberoffactorsthat

allowforonetoarguethepointonanysubject.Thisisbestdemonstratedinan

exchangeNaylorhaswithhisyoungsonwhoisaskingaboutaschoolproject,

wordedthusly,“Dad,whyistheAmericangovernmentthebestgovernment?”

Naylor’sanswer;“Becauseofourendlessappealssystem.”Iappreciatehowthisstoryultimatelyasksustoacceptaheftydegreeofpersonalresponsibilityandto

accountforouractionsandtheirattendantramifications.

InterestingAspects

Thescriptandthedirectionwerebothinterestingtome.Ithinkthiswouldbea

difficultstorytotellwithoutmakingNaylorouttobeacompletestrawman.How

canwequestionourownbeliefsandattitudesifwe’regivenaneasycharacterto

detestandonewhoissoeasilydefeated?Naylorneededtotriumph.American

audiencesliketohavevillainsvanquishedjustliketheyenjoywatchingthelofty

amongusfallfromourperches.TotellNaylor’sstory,Eckhart’snarrationwascentral.Attimeshealmosthadan“ahshucks”sortofcadencetohisvoiceovers.It

wastheonlytimewecouldseehimwaver,butonlyforamoment.Butagain,that’s

theinterestingpartofthisstory.Anotherexamplethatkepttheaudienceonitstoes

camewhenNaylordeliveredthesuitcaseofmoneytotheMarlboroMan,playedby

actorSamElliot.AsAmericansIthinkwe’reusetotheideathatapay-offcancontinuetopayoff.TheMarlboroMancouldhavetakenthemoneyandcontinuedto

railagainsttheindustrythatcausedhiscancerorhecouldgiveallthemoneyaway

8/3/2019 "Thank You For Smoking" PHE 455 Christopher Harley Quick Critique 1

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/thank-you-for-smoking-phe-455-christopher-harley-quick-critique-1 2/2

PHE455 Lockwood 2

tocharityandreallynailthemessageandcontinuehiscrusadeinafashion

honorablyaltruistic.Butno,greedgotthebestoftheMarlboroManandintheend

hekeptthecashandacquiescedtoNaylor’srighttoinfinitelyappealthefoundations

ofhisargument.Again,Ithinkthisaskstheaudiencetoqualifytheirintentionsin

anycircumstancewherewecansaywedidn’tknowgravityofouractionsbutin

realityweonlyendeavortofeignnaivety.IthinkonceweseeNaylorexplainhimself,operateinhislobbyistworld,argueforpersonalfreedomandmaybeeventakeafewknocks,wewarmuptohim.Wecan

stillunderstandwhyhe’dbedivorced.Thatpersonalitycan’tbeeasyto

accommodateinmarriage.ButIthinkwehavetoadmitthatheloveshissonandthathe’sultimatelyagoodfatherfortryingtodescribetohissonadangerously

subjectiveworldthatvehementlydefendsitselfassternlyobjective.Ithinkittakesaverylovingandconscientiousfathertoevenattempttounravelthatsortof

discrepantworld.IthinkNaylorknowsthatit’snotenoughtosaythisisgoodand

thisisbad,inanobjectivesense,ifheknowstheretobeachasmofsubjectivity

betweenthosetopoles.

ThesubjectoffemininepoweranditsgravitationalpullwasperfectlydemonstratedbythereporterplayedbyKatieHomes.SheneverliedtoNaylorandyettheyboth

speakthesamelanguagethatrefusestofaultone’sfellowspeakerforalieby

omission.Holmes’characterknowsthatshe’llgaingreateraccesstoNaylorifshe

positionsherselfasinnocentlycuriousabouthiswork.Butthat’stheonlywaytoget

Naylortospeakclearly.Helivesinaworldofspinandpoint-of-saleconcoction.If

askedtoopenup,he’dsimplygivetheelevatorpitchorpamphletlanguagehe’s

accustomedtousing.He’simpenetrableinhisownelementbutwhenstrippedofhis

armor,he’sdefenseless.That’salikeabletraitinhischaracterandyetthe

manipulationsthatgethimtherearewhatillustratealikeabletraitinHolmes’

character.InmanyrespectsNaylorhastotryanddefendwhatheknowsis

indefensiblefromanormativestandpoint.Holmesmakeshimstandbythatconvictionbyusingthepowerthatisgrantedtoherbyhergender.Shecouldn’tdo

whatshehastodowithouttappingintothatquality.

NegativeAspects

ThoughIadmireboththeactors,J.K.SimmonsandRobertDuvall,Ididn’tseethe

needtopositiontheircharactersastheywere.Tometheyrepresentedaspectsof

thetobaccoindustryremovedbyoneandtwogenerations,respectively.Duvall,The

Captain,wastotobacco’sgoldenyearswhatSimmonswastotheyearswhenthe

federalgovernmentfinallygotBigTobaccoontheropes.Duvallwaspositionedas

cocksureandsatisfiedwithanindustrythathesomehowknewwouldcontinuetoflourishregardlessofwhatwasthrownatit.Simmonscameoffasunderhandedand

duplicitous,neversurewhatwasaroundthecornerandalwayswillingtoassume

theworst.Thoughthesetwocharacterizationsmightstillrepresentrealplayersin

BigTobacco,heretheyseemedhollowandforcefullyshoehornedintothestory.