On March 13, our class continued watching the movie Thank You For Smoking and filling out our Pre-Production page to answer these questions:
How does the film use satire to to make arguments about the tobacco industry and/or the government's attempts to to control the industry?
How might the satire paradox affect the way audiences interpret this film's argument?
Today, we watched as Nick Naylor persuades victim of cigarettes Lorne Lutch to not talk against his tobacco company by dumping huge piles of cash on the floor of his living room. After watching his father do this, Joey asks "Why did he take the money?", and Nick answers, "Because he is not crazy". This scene goes to show that in the real world, no matter how badly one might have been screwed over, money can almost always solve that issue (as long as they are not crazy).
However, we watch as Nick is later screwed over by his romantic partner, a reporter who uses her body to get Nick to tell the dirty secrets about his own personal life and his company's. Because of the published article, Nick is removed from the congressional hearing by his boss, and is now drinking and eating his sorrows away. Luckily, Nick's son comes in to tell him to stop acting like a baby and fight back.
So far, I have really enjoyed the film and how it uses satire to poke fun at both liberals and conservatives. What I really am impressed with by the film how it creates sympathy for Nick, an unfeeling and manipulative lobbyist. When he is alone in his apartment after his "firing", the audience can't help but feel sorry for the guy. In fact, the last scene we watch as Nick gets an idea on how to get back into his job, the audience feels joy.
Thank You For Smoking makes the audience truly question their own beliefs by creating a character like Nick, who should be hated, but instead makes him the protagonist of the film.
No comments:
Post a Comment