Thank you for smoking
by Jeffrey Koh
Smoke run rings around my eyes.
Michael Jordan plays ball, Charles Manson kills people, we talk...and eat alot.
Thank you for smoking centers on smooth talking lobbyist Nick Naylor (Aaron Eckhart). We will hear him narrate on screen, his spin doctoring exploits on behalf of the pariah industry of modern culture, Big Tobacco. The man is also a divorcee, alimony-ridden and accorded weekend custodian rights to his twelve year old son. Nick does the best he can to bond with his child while juggling the rest of his life on a tightrope, but this is a precarious journey as one careless slip on the man's part and he will fall headlong into a sharks-infested tank. "Thank you" is hence a film about Nick's work, his son, his friends and enemies, his sex life and (very likely) smoking. Or is it?
What I love about this quirky movie came as a surprise to me. It's not the eloquent arguments for or against cigarette-smoking, or the witty (but ultimately apathetic) satire on media, politics and conglomerate capitalism. It's not even the entertaining one-liners and numerous ironic acronyms worthy of a quote during mirthless dinner conversations. Though it must be said, I enjoyed all the above (and of course, Rob Lowe's sleeping habits...don't ask).
What I love about Thank you for smoking, is its unobtrusive yet acute observation on our human conditions and the inter-relationships we forge as a result. There is the willingness of people to be subservient to those we hate or despise because we too are waiting to become someone hate-worthy and despicable. There is the fact that many people work in jobs they may not like but are good at, because they like being good at what they do, instead of sucking at doing what they like. I am heartened by the subtle foil of mentorship as a paternal expression of love between men. I am intrigued by the unspoken stolen moments of father-son bonding whenever father and son engage in spoken conversations (because very often, words get in the way). I appreciate the gratifying realisation on the importance of mutual, honest and dependable friendships, especially when one is typically ostracised, or unfortunately, down and out. I recognise the subconsciously desperate need for comfort and solace from those who are extremely lonely but do not want to admit it. Finally, I agree with this exquisite truth that it does not all boil down to our need to pay the mortgage, but for whom we are willing to pay this mortgage.
To me, Thank you for smoking has earnestly pursued these "uncool" agendas by overlaying it with a generously light and zippy dose of the aforesaid "cool" elements (a cool protagonist fighting for a cool stand using cool means to achieve cool ends, while in the process does whatever he can to appear unimpeachably cool). As a result, cool people may like or dislike it, depending on whether they think it is more cool to like or dislike it. As for uncool people, they may love it ceaselessly, if they choose to accept that its underlying aim, is to sincerely illustrate people's collective, basic, emotional needs. (For those who may eventually disagree with me and find me overtly presumptuous, you may slap me now. But I shall carry on. )
Like all talky films from Goodfellas to Before Sunrise, I think the really great ones rely less on the dialogue and more on the way it is delivered. Case in point, a most enlightening arc of this film is a school paper which the protagonist's son has to write and present on, titled "Why is America the best government in the world?" When the man advises his son to write about anything, his son responds, "What happens if you are wrong?", to which the man replies, "That's the beauty of argument. If you argue correctly, you're never wrong." Pay attention to this scene and the rest of this film whenever father and son converse, and look into their eyes. Have the son indeed learnt a priceless lesson from his father? Eventually, did the boy heed the call of his mentor by arguing beautifully on the topic set for him? This film presents the young man's answer. Don't note the words that come out of his mouth as he answers this question. Look instead at the way he delivers the answers, with his eyes. If you ask me, that is one of the most sublime cinematic moments in the whole of 2006. Paraphrasing from Superman returns, I think that from that moment on, it is conclusively clear that the son has become the father, and will become one hell of a man.
Young helmer Jason Reitman (son of Ivan) does a great job directing this wildly irreverent film. In fact, it reminds me of shades of Paul Thomas Anderson and Spike Jonze in terms of film making virtuosity and cinematic kookiness. In addition, its sharp yet charming sense of humour reminds me of Alexander Payne's satiric masterpiece, Election. The intelligence is apparent, but therein lies the challenge with movies like "Thank you" - partisan critics may exact intellectual superiority over its lack of ambition in satirizing the target (in this case, Big Tobacco). They may complain that it does not carry enough political weight or persuasive power, hence unfairly rating "Thank You" a failure. Though if I am to engage these critics (which I am about to), I may find myself the very subject of this film's observation. Thank you for smoking adopts a fluffy playful tone throughout because it serves as an effectively ironic commentary on modern discourses being ultimately, a farcical pursuit.
Consider a dinner conversation between Nick and his son. When observed at face value (because their "bonding progress" during this scene is more captivating to me), it lucidly illustrates the mechanics of "argument." Nick explains that A will try to argue B is wrong and in so doing, imply that A is right. Likewise, B can do the same and argue A to be wrong so as to imply B is right. In trying to prove either side to be wrong, and implying themselves as respectively right, there is the convenient negligence to the fact that A and B may both be wrong. The underlying purpose of this back and forth, according to Nick, is not to determine who is right or wrong, but to "argue beautifully", so as to see who can successfully sway C to Z in deciding the eventual winner.
Vocal proponents from politics, religion, the mass media, non-profit organisations to corporate empires will very often apply these insidious tactics to sway or dull the silent majority, strategically prolonging an ongoing debate (if they are on the losing end), for they know that the benefits of a damage-controlling procrastination far outweighs the potential costs of any unfavourable resolution. Note that this ploy is contingent to a presumption that the public is too stupid or apathetic to care. Instead of making a just and righteous choice, the mandate's decisions rest on who "sells" better. May the best spin win, so to speak. This may come off as a rather pessimistic observation, but I opine that it is not far from the truth of our current state of affairs.
It is hence in my opinion that debating on the political potency of Thank you for smoking is besides the point, and I do not think political commentary is the film's main objective. Despite its acerbic wit and argumentative exuberance, Thank you for smoking deliberately skims the surface because it is ultimately a whimsical heartwarmer underneath (think Neil La Bute's earlier Nurse Betty). It is more concerned with the intuitive unveiling of its characters' realistic motivations than the near surrealistic environment created for them. Don't believe me? Consider Rob Lowe's sleeping habits (again, don't ask, go watch the movie).
I choose films I love based not on intellectual brilliance, genre boundaries or stylistic deficiencies/excesses, I choose them based on the underlying themes explored, themes which I can instinctively respond to. By treading lightly on those issues which actually matter to us most and showing that we have instead accorded greater importance to the incidental nonsense that surrounds our daily existence, Thank you for smoking deserves my grateful thank you's. Though I have not yet touched cigarettes all these years, I need to understand that my life is so much more than just the consideration of whether to take them up or not. What I need to know more about, is perhaps the difference between moments when smoke gets in my eyes and when the tears I shed, are for real.
This is one of the year's best films. And you heard it here first.
_________________________________
Thank you for smoking opens on 6 July 2006.
Michael Jordan plays ball, Charles Manson kills people, we talk...and eat alot.
Thank you for smoking centers on smooth talking lobbyist Nick Naylor (Aaron Eckhart). We will hear him narrate on screen, his spin doctoring exploits on behalf of the pariah industry of modern culture, Big Tobacco. The man is also a divorcee, alimony-ridden and accorded weekend custodian rights to his twelve year old son. Nick does the best he can to bond with his child while juggling the rest of his life on a tightrope, but this is a precarious journey as one careless slip on the man's part and he will fall headlong into a sharks-infested tank. "Thank you" is hence a film about Nick's work, his son, his friends and enemies, his sex life and (very likely) smoking. Or is it?
What I love about this quirky movie came as a surprise to me. It's not the eloquent arguments for or against cigarette-smoking, or the witty (but ultimately apathetic) satire on media, politics and conglomerate capitalism. It's not even the entertaining one-liners and numerous ironic acronyms worthy of a quote during mirthless dinner conversations. Though it must be said, I enjoyed all the above (and of course, Rob Lowe's sleeping habits...don't ask).
What I love about Thank you for smoking, is its unobtrusive yet acute observation on our human conditions and the inter-relationships we forge as a result. There is the willingness of people to be subservient to those we hate or despise because we too are waiting to become someone hate-worthy and despicable. There is the fact that many people work in jobs they may not like but are good at, because they like being good at what they do, instead of sucking at doing what they like. I am heartened by the subtle foil of mentorship as a paternal expression of love between men. I am intrigued by the unspoken stolen moments of father-son bonding whenever father and son engage in spoken conversations (because very often, words get in the way). I appreciate the gratifying realisation on the importance of mutual, honest and dependable friendships, especially when one is typically ostracised, or unfortunately, down and out. I recognise the subconsciously desperate need for comfort and solace from those who are extremely lonely but do not want to admit it. Finally, I agree with this exquisite truth that it does not all boil down to our need to pay the mortgage, but for whom we are willing to pay this mortgage.
To me, Thank you for smoking has earnestly pursued these "uncool" agendas by overlaying it with a generously light and zippy dose of the aforesaid "cool" elements (a cool protagonist fighting for a cool stand using cool means to achieve cool ends, while in the process does whatever he can to appear unimpeachably cool). As a result, cool people may like or dislike it, depending on whether they think it is more cool to like or dislike it. As for uncool people, they may love it ceaselessly, if they choose to accept that its underlying aim, is to sincerely illustrate people's collective, basic, emotional needs. (For those who may eventually disagree with me and find me overtly presumptuous, you may slap me now. But I shall carry on. )
Like all talky films from Goodfellas to Before Sunrise, I think the really great ones rely less on the dialogue and more on the way it is delivered. Case in point, a most enlightening arc of this film is a school paper which the protagonist's son has to write and present on, titled "Why is America the best government in the world?" When the man advises his son to write about anything, his son responds, "What happens if you are wrong?", to which the man replies, "That's the beauty of argument. If you argue correctly, you're never wrong." Pay attention to this scene and the rest of this film whenever father and son converse, and look into their eyes. Have the son indeed learnt a priceless lesson from his father? Eventually, did the boy heed the call of his mentor by arguing beautifully on the topic set for him? This film presents the young man's answer. Don't note the words that come out of his mouth as he answers this question. Look instead at the way he delivers the answers, with his eyes. If you ask me, that is one of the most sublime cinematic moments in the whole of 2006. Paraphrasing from Superman returns, I think that from that moment on, it is conclusively clear that the son has become the father, and will become one hell of a man.
Young helmer Jason Reitman (son of Ivan) does a great job directing this wildly irreverent film. In fact, it reminds me of shades of Paul Thomas Anderson and Spike Jonze in terms of film making virtuosity and cinematic kookiness. In addition, its sharp yet charming sense of humour reminds me of Alexander Payne's satiric masterpiece, Election. The intelligence is apparent, but therein lies the challenge with movies like "Thank you" - partisan critics may exact intellectual superiority over its lack of ambition in satirizing the target (in this case, Big Tobacco). They may complain that it does not carry enough political weight or persuasive power, hence unfairly rating "Thank You" a failure. Though if I am to engage these critics (which I am about to), I may find myself the very subject of this film's observation. Thank you for smoking adopts a fluffy playful tone throughout because it serves as an effectively ironic commentary on modern discourses being ultimately, a farcical pursuit.
Consider a dinner conversation between Nick and his son. When observed at face value (because their "bonding progress" during this scene is more captivating to me), it lucidly illustrates the mechanics of "argument." Nick explains that A will try to argue B is wrong and in so doing, imply that A is right. Likewise, B can do the same and argue A to be wrong so as to imply B is right. In trying to prove either side to be wrong, and implying themselves as respectively right, there is the convenient negligence to the fact that A and B may both be wrong. The underlying purpose of this back and forth, according to Nick, is not to determine who is right or wrong, but to "argue beautifully", so as to see who can successfully sway C to Z in deciding the eventual winner.
Vocal proponents from politics, religion, the mass media, non-profit organisations to corporate empires will very often apply these insidious tactics to sway or dull the silent majority, strategically prolonging an ongoing debate (if they are on the losing end), for they know that the benefits of a damage-controlling procrastination far outweighs the potential costs of any unfavourable resolution. Note that this ploy is contingent to a presumption that the public is too stupid or apathetic to care. Instead of making a just and righteous choice, the mandate's decisions rest on who "sells" better. May the best spin win, so to speak. This may come off as a rather pessimistic observation, but I opine that it is not far from the truth of our current state of affairs.
It is hence in my opinion that debating on the political potency of Thank you for smoking is besides the point, and I do not think political commentary is the film's main objective. Despite its acerbic wit and argumentative exuberance, Thank you for smoking deliberately skims the surface because it is ultimately a whimsical heartwarmer underneath (think Neil La Bute's earlier Nurse Betty). It is more concerned with the intuitive unveiling of its characters' realistic motivations than the near surrealistic environment created for them. Don't believe me? Consider Rob Lowe's sleeping habits (again, don't ask, go watch the movie).
I choose films I love based not on intellectual brilliance, genre boundaries or stylistic deficiencies/excesses, I choose them based on the underlying themes explored, themes which I can instinctively respond to. By treading lightly on those issues which actually matter to us most and showing that we have instead accorded greater importance to the incidental nonsense that surrounds our daily existence, Thank you for smoking deserves my grateful thank you's. Though I have not yet touched cigarettes all these years, I need to understand that my life is so much more than just the consideration of whether to take them up or not. What I need to know more about, is perhaps the difference between moments when smoke gets in my eyes and when the tears I shed, are for real.
This is one of the year's best films. And you heard it here first.
_________________________________
Thank you for smoking opens on 6 July 2006.
Labels: american indie, jason reitman
posted by Jeffrey Koh at 2:42 AM
1 Comments:
Smoking or what we say smoke which leads to many health-related problems and give rise to many social stigma. To begin with, smoking or smoke gives you a strong nicotine addiction, which is harmful to your body. Few health related issue which smoker faces are breathing, losing sense of taste, tiredness etc, and such kind of physical problem. http://www.chantixhome.com/
Post a Comment
<< Home