Order from us for quality, customized work in due time of your choice.
Introduction
The movie Thank You for Smoking is about the work and activities of the main character, Nick Naylor (Aaron Eckhart). Nick is an infielder working for The Academy of Tobacco Studies. He is meant to acknowledge researchers’ work about the effects of cigarettes. The organization is funded mainly by tobacco companies, so they are determined not to find any association between smoking and occurrences of major diseases in people (Sedederman, 2006). It actually became apparent that their findings are in favor of cigarettes, hence Nick’s job focuses on promoting and encouraging the use of cigarettes.
However, Naylor finds himself in the center of the conflict between executing his duties of defending against smoking and being a good role model for his son’s moral and social development. This essay will demonstrate the propaganda, dishonesty, immorality, unethical behaviors, and societal conflicts all covered in the movie through the power of persuasion. Additionally, it is supposed to sensitize the general public especially adults that the excellent persuasion exhibited in the movie, could dangerously lure them into smoking habits while watching without realizing it. The primary sources of information will be articles written by experts in film studies.
The intended Audience
This movie intends to encourage those already smoking to continue doing so because cigarettes have no bad effects on their health. Likewise, for those who might watch this movie, it could lure them to begin smoking since the episodes of the movies are flawless without any negative incidences on people’s health caused by smoking (Ebert, 2006). Its title alone is a satire that appreciates smokers in a way to cover the dangers of smoking. Propaganda
The ubiquitous advert campaigns on television warning of the dangers of smoking and the evil empire of smoking companies are legion and offer very little on the other side of the coin. Not even a single character in the movie is demonstrated through actions such as either smoking or coughing. Only one person is seen in the movie holding a cigar like a thread while smiling, and very optimistic about what he is doing. Although smoking is dirty unhealthy and tobacco companies do nothing but cheat the public while trying to make money (Schroeder, 2006). The struggles Naylor faces about raising his son while working for “Big Tobacco” companies. He tries to separate work and family by telling his son that all those people who are against cigarettes are only giving half the truth. Nick does so in a nice way meant to tone down drama associated with framing the bigger issues the movie is projected to tackle.
Moral aspects of the movie
The movie demonstrates that one doesn’t have to believe in the cause they represent, as demonstrated by Nick, who faced a moral dilemma in his promotion of cigarettes, but he still did it. Whatever his reasons, he was successful in lobbying and arguing in favor of smoking across the political divide and all other organizations. At the same time, he managed to convince his son not to see his work in a negative way. It also heightened his persuasive prowess in making bad things look good in the eyes of society. Nick revealed to his son how he managed to convince people, both politicians and the general public, that smoking cigarettes were not bad. This brings to the face the argument that persuasion can override facts, and the ambiguity of the information presented can make the act of persuasion more powerful.
Freedom of Choice
This movie seems to project the freedom of choice, which allow every adult to choose for themselves what suits them, what to consume, and what not to take. It illicit strong opposition from anti-smoking campaigns from environmental conservationists, health organizations, and sections of politicians who starts serious lobbying against smoking tobacco. The film promoters, big tobacco companies and their opponents, as well as taking a swipe at Hollywood, congress, political correctness, and the media in equal measures. It turns out that even the political class has no agenda to make laws prohibiting smoking cigarettes but is leaving it an independent choice to be made individually. Nick managed to confuse every other opposing side such that people end up not seeing the bad aspects of smoking cigarettes (Sedederman, 2006). However, people should look for information about certain things in society so that they make up their minds on what is good for them. Self-education by reading materials or through sensitization is a better way to get the right and not biased information like adverts on media and popular campaigns.
Dishonesty in American Politics
The issues represented in this film are very relevant today and demonstrate the film’s unending power by covering or talking about universal topics that can be linked with time and time again. For instance, dishonesty in United States politics; politicians being deceitful has been a normal part of American Politics for some time now. The movie used extreme instances in order to highlight that fact and got the points across well (Sedederman, 2006). Further, it shows how overstuffed and overloaded information about politics is, such that it is normally hard for ordinary Americans to know what is really going on in the county. Particularly because of a lot more is happening concurrently, and somehow the government takes advantage of that, like in the film, to effect some changes without the public knowledge.
Bribery to conceal evidence against tobacco
The movie brings out the extent to which tobacco companies were willing to go to dominate those who were out to campaign against the use of cigarettes. They were willing to donate cash in dollars to silence those affected and who are suffering from tobacco-inflicted diseases (Tubs, 2006). This is reflected when at some point, Nick went to meet Lorne Lutch (Sam Elliott), who was dying of cancer and was speaking out bitterly against smoking cigarettes. In their meeting, Nick offers him to cash in a briefcase full of $100 bills so that he should refrain from talking badly against cigarettes. Nick cleverly explained to Lorne that what he offered was not but a gift. At the same, he expected that while accepting the bribe, he must not continue attacking tobacco smoking for such acts amount to being ungrateful. Nick additionally told him that once he accepts the gift, he must be on board as one of the promoters of tobacco, and he must not reveal to the media that Lorne accepted.
Ethical issues in the movie
The actions of Nick present the ethical issues in the movie, he comes out as one person lacking ethical behavior and takes pride in his ability to ignore moral and ethical guidelines about cigarette smoking. Nick describes this deficiency in ethics as flexibility, so he strongly uses his persuasion power so that he does not appear wrong (“Ethical Analysis,” 2015). At some point during the movie episodes, Nick also spoke about the inner-working of the Academy of Tobacco Studies as full of “sharks” (lawyers) whom they use to navigate the laws. This demonstrates how Nick and those working are prepared to bribe anybody whom they bring on board to follow the same unethical behaviors. Another aspect is where a journalist Heather Holloway (Katie Holmes), who is investigating Nick and his actions, goes to the level of sleeping with him on many occasions and loses her credibility in the process.
Societal Conflicts
The film forces those watching to focus on the way messages are ‘sinned’ through word twisting and other communication and negotiation strategies that are only meant to make people believe in them. These are the activities of advocacy, selling, and persuasion with which people are flooded on a daily basis in our ‘infomercial’ society. It is not the fact that the manipulative and deceptive strategies used in the movie are less troubling, rather that the strategies are not used for the good of the public. In this movie, the underlying conflict is between Nick and his son (“Ethical Analysis,” 2015). He is not concerned about teaching his son right from wrong, as the way he teaches him why and how he does his job. Nick comes out as one who enjoys defending tobacco corporates and is not even bothered to apologize to the son.
Conclusion
The movie presents the deceitful nature of Tobacco Academy Studies that use the persuasive skills of their lobbyist Nick Naylor to confuse the public and other opponents that cigarette smoking is good for their health. In the end, people seem to agree that no argument is right or wrong, but people should let free to make personal choices regarding whether to smoke or not to smoke cigarettes. Throughout the movie, other vices like immorality, unethical behaviors, dishonesty among politicians and government institutions, and societal or family conflicts due to the nature of work people do are brought out perfectly through Nick’s behaviors. Lastly, those tobacco companies were willing to use all means, including bribery, to have their way also captured well.
References
Ebert, R. (2006). Death for sale. Ebert Prime. Web.
Ethical analysis: “Thank you for Smoking.” (2015). Media Ethics in the Morning. Web.
Sedederman, P. (2006). Waiting to inhale: “Thank you for Smoking.” Competitive Enterprise Institute. Web.
Schroeder, M. (2006). Key issues raised in “Thank you for Smoking.” The Observer. Web.
Tubs, G. (2006). “Thank you for Smoking.” Good Faith Media. Web.
Order from us for quality, customized work in due time of your choice.