TOBACCO INDUSTRY ATTEMPTS TO JUSTIFY MESSAGE TO PUBLIC
BY JESSE FERGUSON
The tobacco industry’s message to the public is captured in Jason Reitman’s new full-length film “Thank You For Smoking.” Aaron Eckhart stars as lead character Nick Nayler, who plays a lobbyist on behalf of the tobacco companies. The film opened its screening at The Carnegie Building on the Wilfird Laurier,
It is a film that provokes much thought. Throughout the movie it is unclear where the bias is intended to be placed. It appears to be free of bias for nearly the duration of the film. Adding to the uncertainty of the film’s direction was the title of the film. It appears in the syllabus erroneously as “Thank You For Not Smoking” multiple times. This caused some students to wonder naively if this was just a typo, or if the teachers had correctly identified the bias.
Nevertheless, bias detection is not straightforward through the body of this piece, as the message is carefully massaged in. At the very beginning of the film, it seems the bias will be shown against the big smoking haunchos as Nayler is beat up on the talk show. This is a fairly accurate frame as smoking in the public eye has a very negative light cast on it. However, by the end of the film, it is all made clear for the viewers. It makes simple sense of the major smoking controversy. The viewfinder is in place courtesy of the tobacco industry. From the film, via Nayler, is their standpoint. It is this:
Smoking is in fact bad, but everyone knows this. Thus it should be the people allowed to make choices for themselves as to how they form an opinion on smoking.
No one is denying that it is bad for you, not even Nayler.
But is he actually correct in what he is claiming?
He is not wrong in conveying this message. However, this does not necessarily mean he is right, either. This is just his opinion. More knowledge is needed to make an informed decision.
Most directly, the film portrays the life of Nick Nayler. While being a lobbyist for the much-hated tobacco industry, Nayler understands that he is a role model for his son. He sees he should be a positive one, rather than negative. To do so, he must through responsibility. This nearly paradoxal balancing act he calls his life induces much chaos. By completing this task, the film touches all bases on the controversial issue of smoking. Less directly—though it is intended to appear discrete—it gives the above message of the tobacco industry.
Reitman uses spin by utilizing the fronting character of Nayler as a very likable man. His job, as a lobbyist on behalf of the tobacco industry, is not generally likeable though.
Nayler has the luck of any ordinary human being. This is portrayed by revealing some of his issues. They include marital problems, a complicated relationship with his son, and the showing that he has a hardass boss. Ordinary people have these types of problems. This is a good perspective for Reitman to use because it gives Nayler the humane feeling of sympathy. This character is one that for sure resonates in our world, thus his case is made appealing for the viewer. Yet this character is validated by making him appear more resonate.
More than this though, his problems shows that reality, the same kind that everyday people like you and me deal with, is apart of the lives of the people involved in the smoking industry as well. This also gives Nayler’s character validity. If Nayler seems credible, then so does their precious message. In turn, so does the industry. Reitman uses this frame of the story to precision as the viewer is molded to see the story through the eyes of Nayler, or as someone adjoined to the smoking industry.
Nayler comments on his job like so: “Every person deserves fair trial, so does every corporation.” As a lobbyist for the tobacco industry, he takes the proactive role of “defending the defenseless.”
Spin doctors intend to cast a certain ‘light’ on stories. This is Nayler’s job as a lobbyist. More appropriately, in this case, his job is to cast a certain ‘shadow’ over the light. However, it is not until the very end of the movie that the message becomes clear-cut evident. This is effective because it maximizes the effect on the viewer. By the courtroom scene at the end of the film, the viewer feels objectively neutral because they are not jabbed to be pulled either way. This is the beauty of Reitman’s piece for the smoking industry. The viewer is left agreeing with the Nayler’s testimony because of the trust that has inadvertently been built-up. This bias towards Nayler also inadvertently backs up the message of the tobacco industry.
It is likely intended for no real bias to be evident to give the film validity, to persuade the viewer to believe that Nayler, and foremost, the tobacco companies, are real.
Ultimately it doesn’t matter what a lobbyist, or anyone for that matter, has to say. Everything that culminates into a decision on the topic is dependant on the specific person’s own responsibility as to how they form an opinion on smoking. If it is from common knowledge of what they hear that their standpoint is derived from, or if they actually try it, is up to them and their own free will. If it is from what is said, it is pretty gullible. This is the ultimate message being massaged throughout this piece.
This approach is true to liberty, and Nayler lets us know this.
In spite of everything portrayed in this movie, it displays only one side of the story. Certainly, health advisers would have something different to say on this issue.
There are two sides of every story, “Thank You For Smoking” covers itself perfectly, but there is no rebuttal. Anyone can argue with themselves and win.
- Jesse Ferguson
No comments:
Post a Comment