Thank You For Smoking

Have you ever walked away from a movie completely uncertain what your feelings are toward that movie? Maybe I was just in an oddly-indecisive mood last night, but when I finished watching Thank You For Smoking, I could not decide if it was an incredibly insensitive movie or a brilliant piece of satire.

The premise of the movie is as follows (copied and pasted from Moviefone): Nick Naylor (Aaron Eckhart) is the chief spokesman for Big Tobacco, who makes his living defending the rights of smokers and cigarette makers in today's neo-puritanical culture. Confronted by health zealots out to ban tobacco and an opportunistic senator (William H. Macy) who wants to put poison labels on cigarette packs, Nick goes on a PR offensive, spinning away the dangers of cigarettes on TV talk shows and enlisting a Hollywood super-agent (Rob Lowe) to promote smoking in movies. Nick's newfound notoriety attracts the attention of both Tobacco's head honcho (Robert Duvall) and an investigative reporter for an influential Washington daily (Katie Holmes). Nick says he is just doing what it takes to pay the mortgage, but he begins to think about how his work makes him look in the eyes of his young son Joey (Cameron Bright).

Today, after having slept on it and thought about it more today, I am leaning towards the latter opinion, that it is brilliant satire. However, I still have this internal question mark that I can't seem to wrap my brain around. Let me attempt to clarify my thoughts on the movie:

Positive things -

(1) The cast of the movie are brilliant. The actors that perform in the movie are like the Ocean's Eleven of the independent films in that, though they may not rise to the star level of a Pitt / Damon / Roberts / Zeta-Jones, they fit their roles perfectly and the seeming hodge-podge of actors weave together amazingly. Aaron Eckhart, whom I had seen previously only in The Core, is masterful in the role of a guy who you are supposed to hate but end up feeling sympathetic toward. William H. Macy, one of my favorite actors of all time, delivers a great performance. Cameron Bright (the kid from Birth) does a great job being the serious grounding element in this farcical world. Perhaps the best characters in the movie are the duo of Rob Lowe, the Hollywood super-agent, and his assistant Adam Brody (Seth from The O.C.). Every time they are on the screen I was laughing. Even the many side characters and cameos work great, including Joan Lunden (as herself), J.K. Simmons (typecast playing the "J. Jonah Jameson"-type character but doing it perfectly), David Koechner (alumnus from Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgundy, a favorite of mine), and Dennis Miller (as himself). The only somewhat-flat performances come from Katie Holmes and Robert Duvall.

(2) The movie is, frankly, hilarious. Often, it's that guilty "I can't believe they just said that and even more can't believe I'm laughing at it" hilarious, but funny nonetheless. It is a no-holes-barred, as-politically-incorrect-as-I-can-be, in-your-face humor. And yet, on the other hand, there are some brilliantly-subtle things about the movie. One of my favorite things, and this struck me after the movie was over on my way home, there is not a single time (correct me if I am wrong anyone who has seen it) where someone in the movie is actually shown holding or smoking a cigarette. It's a very subtle thing but obviously intentional considering the movie's subject matter.

(3) The truth about cigarette companies is presented very bluntly even in its satire. Basically, it's all about money. Everything else, including people's lives and health, is secondary.

(4) Nick Naylor's conversations with his son are fascinating and thought-provoking. I will have to watch the movie again before I can digest some of it enough to comment at length about it, but the "moral flexibility" discussion is very interesting in particular.

Negative things -

(1) The thing that bothered me the most, since I hate smoking and its destruction of so many lives, is that I found myself unwittingly feeling sympathy for Nick Naylor, whose job is to get people addicted to cigarettes. I guess the part of me that so strongly despises smoking had this desire for less ambiguity. I wanted to find the character amusing but be able to hate him. But, I walked away from the movie very uncertain what I thought of him.

(2) Along the same lines, I know my background and upbringing tends to make me see the world in terms of moral certainty, so I tend to grate at anything that speaks to a moral equivalence, that perhaps not everything is as black and white as I like to think of it. Perhaps this is not a "negative thing" in the sense of a criticism of the movie, but rather in the sense of my internal conflict after watching it.

Ok, if nothing else, this post shows that I am completely confused even about my own feelings on this movie. In one sense, I love a movie that can cause me to think about it for days afterwards. But this one surprised me at how intensely my emotions reacted (perhaps that's a good thing as it clarified even more to me the intensity of my hatred for smoking). Or maybe I got too worked up about a simple comedy.

To sum it up, I highly recommend this movie. I hope all of my friends see it. Yes, I have a selfish motivation, I want feedback from others so I can discuss it and figure out whether I should love or hate the movie, or both. It's currently in limited release but is showing at Century Theater in Evanston (where I saw it) and AMC River East downtown Chicago. Go see it, and tell me what you think!

Update: My friend Guy posted a good review on his blog, and I think he was able to verbalize a bit of what I have had trouble saying myself. He and I agreed, however, that the point the movie makes, though simple in essence, takes a long time to expound and is rather complex, so seeing the movie is necessary to grasp it completely. Here's what Guy said: "While it remains hilarious from start to finish, what is equally impressive is that it makes a great point. Notice that I didn’t say it makes a great statement, or that it wonderfully argues an issue. The point that this film makes remarkably well is that you’ve got to stop listening to all the arguments and statements that are thrown around in politically correct or incorrect circles and actually think for yourself. Intelligence and choice are the clear goals of the plot for the film. Given the topics they go after, there are no better points to make, period. Nick Naylor (played pitch-perfect by the underrated Aaron Eckhart) may be the lobbyist for big tobacco, but he works the job not only because he is simply great at it, but because the point he’s really trying to make in all his arguments is that you can argue anything from any angle, and that ultimately the choice is simply up to you. Facts can be manipulated by anyone for any purpose they desire. Nick Naylor clearly holds “facts” in utter contempt, at least in how they are used for any hot button purpose. When asked if knowing full well that cigarettes are dangerous to your health, having admitted it himself, if he would allow his son to start smoking when he turned 18, Naylor’s reponse is a genuine and believable statement that he’d buy him the first pack. It’s an interesting perspective, and one which is argued very well in the film."

Guy also made another excellent point (particularly since he and I come from the same conservative-religious background and have learned at least somewhat to think for ourselves): "This movie won’t be for everyone, since it uses the R rating fairly well (almost exclusively via language) as most dark comedies do. This isn’t as edgy as Lord Of War - or even Heathers for that matter - but I would use caution in who I’d recommend it to. (And, ironically, most of the people I’d not recommend it to are the ones that need the point the movie makes the most)."