Smoke Gets in Your Eyes

Fire of Liberty

If you're like me, then you've probably been disappointed about the countless films coming out of Hollywood that are just more remakes of the same films thus erasing any sense of originality that once was the gold standard of the Tinsel Town. (There are some good and original ideas but they seem to be on T.V.- Ex. Lost, 24, My Name is Earl). We'll it seems that a small gem has slipped out of Hollywood that seems to be an original and refreshing film, which is Thank You For Smoking. This interesting film is a film adaptation of Christopher Buckley's 1994 book by the same title and shows how the folks within the tobacco industry do what they have to do to promote their products while taking on the "do-gooders" activists, media and Congress who do what they want to do to completely eliminate the sale and use of tobacco within the US.

Now while we generally are presented with movies like The Insider, The Constant Gardener, Syriana, The Manchurian Candidate (The crappy Denzel Washington version) that presents all corporations as some evil incarnate that wants to control the world and do what it wills towards people, Thank You For Smoking shows the warts of both sides but presents a more libertarian plot line that advocates one's choice and discretion with regards to smoking and tobacco in general rather than the current "smoking should be banned" gambit.(For folks so used to calling people Nazis, Hollywood is more than will to side with the Nazis ban on smoking.) It's great to finally have a product that allows the viewer to think rather than experience two hours of an oh so predictable product of the Left Coast. If you want a more detailed take on Thank You For Smoking, then I suggest you check out Brooke Oberwetter's , great review over at Reason. I found this part of the review really interesting:

Although the movie doesn't stake out much new ground in the tobacco debate, Reitman delivers an explicit message of personal responsibility and individual choice that rarely comes from Hollywood and is almost never associated with smoking in polite company. Whereas the novel's version of Nick Naylor views personal responsibility as a convenient diversion from the unfortunate lethal side-effects of smoking, Reitman's Naylor comes to see that it's the other way around: The emotional nature of the health appeals obscures the importance of individuals taking responsibility for their own choices—and parents taking responsibility for teaching their kids to make informed decisions.

Ironically, it's the tobacco companies themselves that are to blame for letting health——rather than personal responsibility——dominate the debate. When the enormity of the lies the tobacco companies had told came to light in the mid to late 1990s, it was all too easy for the anti-tobacco advocates to frame the debate in terms of innocent victims (who were shocked, shocked! to learn that smoking was addictive and harmful) versus the evil tycoons who had sent them to their graves. The way anti-smoking activists continue carrying on about the lies, you'd think the tobacco executives were still plotting away——but the reality is that the tobacco companies are funding a significant number of tobacco control efforts in one way or another, either through state programs funded from the proceeds of the Master Settlement Agreement, or by direct advertising against their own products. This too is a nuance that the film ignores.

I'm looking forward to the movie and suggest you read this fine book as well.