Why is thank you for smoking a satire

Jeff Megall: Probably. One line of dialogue. The dialogue from the movie Which device is being used? What is being satirized? The job is almost done for us. Condescension — Nick is classing psychopaths in the same category as Europeans The way Europeans are being looked at by other cultures.

Exaggeration — Nick is talking about the German scientist Von Mundt who is trying to disprove smoke kills. That he can not disprove gravity he just a scientist. The Satire The Quote suggest that people have the rights to choose but the argument is slight twisted so that they either have something or nothing.

You are commenting using your WordPress. You are commenting using your Google account. You are commenting using your Twitter account.

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Notify me of new comments via email. Notify me of new posts via email. Three examples from the movie are required in the following format: The dialogue from the movie?

Nick Naylor: Few people on this planet know what it is to be truly despised. Can you blame them? I earn a living fronting an organization that kills people a day. Twelve hundred people. Were talking two jumbo jet plane loads of men, women and children. The face of cigarettes, the Colonel Sanders of nicotine. Share this: Twitter Facebook. Like this: Like Loading Fraser, for your assignment you need to be a lot more analytical and insightful.

Satire: This is mocking the way Americans view the stereotypical European. Technique: Reversal: Joey is argueing with his mum like his dad a spin-doctor would.

Satire: This is mocking the way spin doctors make others fill guilty to win an argument. Child: No. Nick Naylor: A scientific researcher of some kind? Dialogue My job requires a certain… moral flexibility. Device The Satire The Quote suggest that people have the rights to choose but the argument is slight twisted so that they either have something or nothing.

Tell us what you think! Cancel reply Enter your comment here Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:. Email required Address never made public. Nick reports to BR his boss and as shown BR though a strong person is unethical in a certain way.

Also Captain himself makes Nick bribe Lorne Lutch the Marlboro man, to curb him down speaking with media against them. Bribery and unethical issues come across clearly within the top management and the industry he works for. On the other hand Heather Holloway comes across as unethical reporter too; she gets secrets out from Nick from their affair. Nick is always pressured from Senator Finistirre — who is their biggest threat as he plans to introduce the symbol of skull in all cigarette packs denoting it as poison, which would invariably run against the promoters of smoking.

Further looking deeper into the industry where Nick works, the Academy of Tobacco Studies, is financially supported by the Conglomerates who primarily comprise of the cigarette companies and hence they indirectly play a major role in promoting smoking. Besides the different facets of this industry you also see Nick being kidnapped by some thugs which adds to the riskiness of this business.

In all the industry works around no real rules and has many grey areas of functioning. There are basically 2 industry drivers of change in the movie. Nick believes Hollywood movies can re-create the concept of smoking cigarette as a cool and desirable product in the consumers mind. Hence for him the driver of change is creating an image through Hollywood movies. On the other hand for the Senator, the industry driver is the skull symbol which he believes if put on all cigarette packs would curb smoking.

Overall the movie is entertaining and gives us the story from a lobbyist point of view. It also hones on to the fact that if you can argue correctly, you can never be wrong irrespective of it being unethical. Thank You For Smoking reveals the dark side of business; although the director depicted it in a funny way with ridiculous dialogue, still, the movie hits the point so straightforwardly that a business could do whatever it takes to make the profit grow. In this movie, these cigarette companies must have a very clear strategic vision which is to keep the tobacco industry growing so they use any kind of strategy to make sure this objective can be reached.

So, they hired Nick Naylor who might be the most successful lobbyist to work for them. Moreover, they bribed the old Marlboro guy who is suffering from cancer. Furthermore, they also wanted to insert the product into the movie trying to create a image that smoking is cool and targeting at those people who blindly follow the information they got from the big screen. So the businesses basically can do anything to approach the objectives they set without caring about moral issue. How cool is that?

Thank you for smoking is a movie about the life and inside facts of a lobbyist. Also, it covers lots of conflicts of interest in cigarette industry. How to distribute and grasp benefits of amongst politics and business? This is what the main character, Nick Naylor, is doing in the film, the middle man between government and the big tobacco company. This black comedy reveals how to twist tremendous commercial benefits by sacrificing numerous public benefits.

We are all in the generation which could receive information easily. One single misinform might be generate tons of money by lobbyists. Furthermore, all these incremental advantages created by misinformation are coveting by lobbyists and corporations.

When soaking this environment, it is easy to lose your mind to tell right from wrong. Nick Naylor found what he truly want in the end of movie, however; it is tough for people to find their really needs in reality. A lobbyist who is supposed to who is supposed to influence the thinking of public officials for or against a cause is a talent vested upon very few people and in the movie Nick Naylor is believed to be the best in it. He was the key person of driving the tobacco industry.

Yes whether he should have promoted Cigarettes was right or wrong is a complete different moral issue but his job was to do and his promotion depended on how he performs like any other job. After all all businesses are profit orientated and tobacco industry is no exception.

Industry drivers are supposed to drive the industry towards profits and Nick Naylor could convince anyone to smoke. The movie raises many ethical issues but I think we can keep them aside and see the art of convincing.

I believe that it is passion, power of convincing, and the ability to speak up are the talents that definitely drive the industry to achieve its strategic objectives. Nick Naylor is great at his job for persuading people. I appreciate that he is always being informed and doing his job so well. No matter how the truth is right or wrong, he defends himself successfully in the debate. Someone might think he make a conquest of the tough job, while I would like to say he conquers himself.

There are outstanding characters of him to be victorious person. How commendable is he switches his attitude toward the tobacco industry in the end. Maybe he will be judged harshly by people as his doing is bad in the beginning of the film, but anyhow I like this role, especially his character so much.

This movie demonstrated how an industry tries non-stop to push their product onto the public. The main character in this movie was a tobacco lobbyist named Nick Naylor. Nick was a good business man. He is able to persuade people, thinking on the spot, and motivated.

He was able to convince people that smoking was acceptable and not dangers so that they would buy cigarettes.

This is a common thing that can be seen in industries. They manipulate the truths about their product so that they can sell their product and make large amounts of money. When Nick almost died from nicotine patches, he spun the facts that cigarettes saved his life due to his tolerance of nicotine from working in the industry. At the end of the movie, Nick begins to be a lobbyist for the cell phone company.

Nick Naylor, the Vice President of the Academy of Tobacco Studies, goes anywhere and does anything to promote smoking. As a leader, Nick Naylor certainly possesses the skills needed to get the job done. This film brought to light a lot of things that people do not really consider about big business. As a cigarette smoker, this movie had particular interest to me. I had never really considered the ways that the cigarette companies had gotten me to continue smoking over the years.

The lessons in leadership this movie brought to light is do not give up; come up with a new game plan if you have to. When a reporter brings to light many horrible things Nick has said and done, he responds and has an amazing comeback. Part of being a good leader is adaptation and thinking outside of the box.

Nick proves that he has these abilities and truly shows what being a Big Tobacco lobbyist is all about. In his world, he could turn the wrong to be right thing.

I think that such an eloquence and negotiation skills are very important in the business world. How to express your views with brilliant way to convince others to adopt your idea on critical moment is the match point. However, he eventually lost his job due to a beautiful journalist who reported every secret they shared to each other.

It is very clear that even you have the talent to persuade people all the time, if you could not keep the secret, you would be in a trouble. He revived inferior position and got his job back. It is just like the ups and downs of life. We have to face difficulties, rather than to evade.

We should resolve problems instead of thinking that the world abandons us. Never give up till the end like the actor do. Several decades ago, smoking was a cool and prevalent attribute. However, it becomes a kind of poison recently, and not only for secondhand smokers, but also for the smokers themselves. Because paying more attention to health, people begin to think that smoking is hazardous, especially for teenagers.

Then, they decide to resist the cigarette industry, not for themselves, but for their children. This is a significant industry driver of change and really strikes against the cigarettes industry. In this movie, we can see Nick Naylor, a lobbyist working for the Academy of Tobacco Studies, uses some debate tricks to reverse cigarettes from an inferior position. Actually, we probably meet the same problem as Nick, the industry drivers of change, in our future career. But we are not lobbyists, and maybe not good at argument, what can we do?

First, we have to understand the industry very well, which not only means at present, but also in the future. Thus, the correct and prompt industry analysis is very important for companies. Only when grasping the tendency towards the industry, you can set proper strategies to make the company successful. Thank you for smoking does a great job at showing that a compelling argument trumps the right position in the world of public relations.

Nick Taylor has the challenging job of making a company look good while they are selling a product that kills people. Ethically I see nothing wrong with what he does in the movie. The information about smoking is public knowledge and it is the consumers free choice that allows them to participate as consumers of cigarettes.

All Nick is guilty of is being naive. All of his arguments are will thought out and very convincing leading me to think that if he can convince people that cigarettes are not bad then it is possible to convince any investor that a business plan is sound. It gives me more confidence that anything can happen in the business world.

Thank you for smoking is a very entertaining, easy to follow movie. It showed a great example of business strategy, and vision. Tobacco industy had a vision, which was to target every kid, and have them smoke one day. Although unethical, they have painted the picture pretty good for their industry. The movie also made fun of some corruptness in the government, industries and top management. Tobacco industry hired Nick Naylor as their lobbyist, and he did a great job defending the industry and help them on their march towards their strategic plan.

He seemed to be ready to argue against any opposed thoughts on smoking. He knew the industry very well and he tried alot of different strategies to achive the goal, such as having a Hollywood movie which actors would smoke in it.

I like the way our hero does his job — he is dedicated, passionate, and goal-oriented. His arguments always win, his mind is always seeking next step in getting closer to his goal. Katy Holmes did a great job — she has her own mortgage too. The chief spokesperson and lobbyist Nick Naylor who is the Vice-President of the Academy of Tobacco Studies is a really talented speaker and defends the cigarette industry in the most difficult situations.

It was impressive to see his arguments and the confidence he presented it with. Even though the task seems daunting and impossible he tries to achieve it with flair and smoothness. What I loved about the movie was the satire it so eloquently presented. I felt the movie was targeted equally to show the hazards of tobacco and lobbying along with advertising which makes many hazardous substances sellable to the people.

There are different cases shown in the movie which may deal with all businesses in general. There are issues about unethical ways of doing business, bribery, false marketing and using un related situations to your advantage. I was most fascinated by the fact how Nick Naylor managed the situation when he was exposed. Besides the irony I feel there are a lot of things we can learn by observing the character of Nick Naylor. It gave young adult an image that smoking was cool while Hollywood movie stars started smoking in films.

When more and more teenagers addicted to cigarettes, parents and government began to aware that they should do something to halt this extensive smoking trend among the young. Therefore, many health policies were brought up, targeted at cigarette industry, and set to drive change in the industry.

In the film, the Big Tobacco faced with a bill to add skull and crossbones to all cigarette packing. The way Nick dealt with the situation was to get actors in films to star smoking on screen again as in the old days. In order to stay in business, Big Tobacco struck out a marketing tactic to cope with the anti-smoking movement.

Alternatively, even the white knights use strategy to sway the public. The movie demonstrated a range of subject lines that depicture crossroads of different ways of doing business. On one hand we have Nick Taylor, a very talented representative of his industry, who is very gifted at lobbying, persuading people, finding arguments to defend and promote almost any aspect that would be favorable to his employer.

All these aspects are a good example for viewers who need to master their business skills as these capacities would sound like best practices for a model employee deserving all possible respects. The only nuance is that Nick works for one of the most harmful industries, which is Tobacco.

One could think that for a typical Hollywood movie he should be the evil guy that should be overthrown at the end. However, on the other hand, we have a range of other characters that want to damage the evil Tobacco industry. Fundamentally, this is an action that everyone should agree with and support. Nevertheless, approaches used to obtain secret and sensitive information to defeat the Tobacco industry are very questionable. Would anyone fighting for the good case be allowed to do immoral acts to achieve the goal?

Another important issue is the necessity to show belief in the best qualities of another person. When Nick, defeated be the betrayal, get laid off, abandoned by his friends, gets to the bottom of life, his sun talks to him and sends him a message of belief that he still beliefs in his father, thus giving Nick a tremendous boost of moral support that helps him to stand up and revive.

Overall, I felt that this film went a little bit overboard in portraying the behind-the-scenes actions of tobacco industry lobbyists. Although I am very confident that underhanded and ethically questionable actions are taken by various corporate representatives on a daily basis, I have a difficult time accepting the supposition that people with a mindset such as My.

Naylor actually exist in any large number in the real world. I personally found Mr. Naylor to be an extremely revolting character through most of the storyline, and his actions were most definitely unethical.

Setting aside the whole debate regarding governmental interference in the corporate world, I think that the actions of the tobacco lobbyists in the movie were generally unethical not due to the fact that they were promoting a product that kills, but rather because they blatantly lied on a quite regular basis.

The worldview espoused by the lobbyists, including Mr. Naylor, is utterly relativist and devoid of any actual moral fiber. I think that the portrayal of this worldview underscores the value and necessity of ethics training in business education. Obviously, if one does not possess a sound code of ethics on a personal level, it is necessary for one to be instructed as to what is acceptable in the corporate environment and what is not.

The alcohol, firearm, and of course tobacco industries have been around for a very long time. They have survived many changes in laws, regulations, and consumer awareness. They have done this by changing strategy when necessary.

In the movie, the tobacco industry is faced with a problem. Youth smoking was declining because of the campaign about the harmful effects of cigarettes. Movie stars smoking has probably sold more cigarettes than any other type of advertising, and Naylor wanted to get back to that.

The tobacco was also faced with the problem of governmental interference. The government was discussing the idea of putting the poison symbol skull and crossbones on every pack of cigarettes to inform the public of the harmful effects of smoking. It seemed that, for a long time, the tobacco companies would just claim ignorance about the harmful effects and say that no scientific evidence has been found to prove cigarettes are dangerous.

Naylor changed that strategy when he testified in front of congress. He agreed that cigarettes were harmful. However, he said that people should have the right to choose and that the government should not interfere. The market changed, the tobacco companies had to react to that. The government tried to step in, the companies had to react to that as well.

Strategy has to be well formulated and flexible, and this movie showed why the tobacco companies make as much money as they do. Thank You For Smoking illustrates a good example of a company, or even an industry, facing a strategic inflection. The movie also reflects the conflict one may face between money and ethics.

The product that Naylor was selling was clearly going to harm many people, yet he still put his all into promoting it. In this situation, Naylor chose to earn money and do his job, rather than changing due to ethics. Naylor is extremely skilled at his job and can convince almost anyone that anything he says is true.

He is very persuasive and has a keen way with words. This movie was a clear satire on something that happens in the present. Companies use lobbyists, such as Naylor, to persuade customers to purchase their products, whether the product is harmful or not. However, as we have learned many times an idea is no good unless you are able to communicate it.

The idea of lobbying takes this to the extreme as potentially you can promote a bad idea as long as you are able to communicate well with people. Throughout the movie Nick Naylor is able to bend those around him to believe him and sees to be able to overtake those with seemingly more accepted ideas.

The message of this movie about industry analysis is that not all analysis done in any industry has been done for the right reasons or by the right people. The studies being performed by the tobacco industry were constantly created to help combat the immense amount of negative studies done on tobacco. However, this data was mostly fabricated and ending up leading to some ridicule by the Vermont Senator.

Also, the smoking industry has seen some drivers of change because as they have been attacked in many sectors they have had to try and adapt to new markets to try and stay profitable. The main character in the movie, Nick Naylor, is a tobacco industry lobbyist, who spends his life defending tobacco companies from those who try to people away from smoking.

Naylor might be hateable, however, his negotiation skill and his technique in twisting things around are very impressive. And we have to admit that tons of people like him do exist in the real world, especially in the business world, where deceptive strategy is desperately needed. Every industry, company, and situation will have its own advantages and disadvantages. The importance of the ability to think strategically in these situations is magnified when your opponents happen to be legislators or reporters.

Thank You for Smoking is the story of Nick Naylor, a chief spokesman for Big Tobacco that goes through the motions and finds himself on the other side of the wall. Money is the first thing that comes to mind when doing business. As we learned the first question we ask when beginning business: Is this venture going to be profitable. The second question we may ask: How do we get there?

With the cigarette industry it was not too difficult to answer these inquires. The cigarette industry is just as an example of the power hungry corporation lacking the care for their valuable consumers. Instead, the goal and only goal, in their mind, is to maximize profit to the fullest extent. The way they achieve these goals is through the man, Nick Naylor. Nick Naylor, the tobacco lobbyist, uses his power of speech to sway the thoughts of individuals.

He shows how inconceivably easy it was to make the resoundingly false sound truthful. Logic is but a mere discrepancy when Naylor is done advocating. The film is overflowing with many instances of these occurrences. However, Naylor does take a stand and deny the return as the lobbyist for the corporation. His stand is taken in the hopes his son Joey will learn a lesson out of his attempt. It is a sign of change within him. He begins to campaign for a stand for life and learning.

It is a rare but beautiful thing. His proactive nature at the end of the film is an invigorating thing to observe. Obviously, this group is funded by cigarettes companies and its goal is to disprove the relationship between the lung cancer and smoking. Nick Naylor, as a perfect lobbyist, does anything he possibly can to defend tobacco and persuade people to smoke cigarettes.

Government can affect any industry as much as media can, or even more. In this movie, Senator Ortolan Finistirre tries to put a skull and crossed bones in the cigarette packs. Naylor is trying his best to defend the tobacco industry because if they must put it on the cigarette packs, obviously, it will discourage many smokers from smoking. How Senator Ortolan Finistirre threatens the cigarette industry and how Nick Naylor defends this industry clearly portrays the strong relationship between the government and the industry.

After watching this movie, I realized there are many factors that can affect the business. Either will give you a general idea of what the film is about. While I could make some points about the social commentary that this film provides, the biggest business related takeaway for me was the importance of information. The segment on the Dennis Miller show is a good example. Without a knowledge of the leading killers in America, the point about cheese bearing a poison label would have been hollow.

And, frankly, without a familiarity with the research having been conducted on the subject of the effects of smoking on the health, it would be quite difficult to craft a credible response to said research. The other important takeaway is that cigar-smoking Communist dictators have the secret to a good mint julep. Rarely, if ever, are industry conditions in a static state.

Nick Naylor was an incredibly bright thinker, and he was not only aware of the opposing viewpoints, but also had a keen grasp on any kind of information that was pertinent to the subject under discussion. However, this growth occurred at a point in time when Americans were probably the most susceptible to a highly addictive, stress-relieving habit.

Naylor then proposes that Hollywood appeal needs to be recaptured and succeeds in convincing upper level management that this is a sound direction to pursue. This keeps his public figure believable and even likable.

Even the once-great tobacco king played by Robert Duvall seemed to have lost this basic sense of how serious the situation was before his death of the grassroots understanding of the dangers of smoking. Naylor seemed to serve as a testament to the great amount of influence one well-informed person can have across a very broad arena.

But in the greater focus of the film, his nearly successful death threat and tarnished public reputation seem to be the very factors that drive him out of an industry on the brink of failure. His most strategic decision toward the end of the film was to not accept the shifting job offer from BR. This seemed to indicate a positive change in moral direction for Naylor, which I feel serves as the solid foundation for true long-term success.

More by this author. View profile. The author's comments:. I originally had to write a similar article for my english class, but I liked it so much I decided to expand it a bit.

Hope you enjoy :. I like this 0. Vote this 0. Post a comment. Add to favorites. Submit your own. Similar Articles. Previous Next. True Life. Lowering the Drinking Age. Legalizing Marijuana, Hemp. This article has 6 comments. Post comment. Did you ever live in virginia?

This was a good satire a literary composition, in verse or prose, in which human folly and vice are held up to scorn, derision, or ridicule. I believe it might be better read aloud, however. Share this on. Your name. Your email address. Friend's name. Nobody seems to know what, exactly, "Thank You for Smoking" is. Those involved with the indie film sensation, however, seem to agree on one thing: It's the latest in a long line of hilariously serious movie satires.

He could be peddling bicycles; he could be peddling couches. Whatever it is, he just loves to do it. Somehow "yuppie antichrist" Naylor ends up the hero in the twisted world of "Smoking," going toe-to-toe with the benevolent, inadvertent villain played by William H. As the filmmaking debut of year-old Jason Reitman unfolds, the pursuit of Macy's tree-hugging senator gets turned on its head amidst an onslaught of slams against Hollywood, Washington and the potent weaponry they both shamelessly employ.

It's just uproarious. A film about the military-industrial complex, I don't think, would be nearly as funny.