Movie PR Campaign Analysis: Thank You for Smoking

 Thank You for Smoking

1.      Do you consider Nick Naylor to be an immoral person because he chooses to work as a tobacco lobbyist? Why or why not? Give specific examples from the movie.

 

Answer: I think Nick Naylor is an immoral person. Because he has to speak on behalf of cigarettes. Although he knows that cigarettes are harmful. And he also knows that 1200 people die in a day due to smoking, but he never warns cigarette consumers. On the contrary, he tries to promote that smoking is cool. In the movie, tobacco company needed to take an initiative to promote smoking as cool. For that Nick Naylor made a plan with an agent to create a positive role model for smoking through movies by featuring the main character as a smoker.

Nick Naylor promotes cigarettes as cool, although that is a harmful product, that’s why I think he is an immoral person.

 

2.      In the movie, Nick says his job requires a “moral flexibility” that is beyond most people. What do you think Nick meant by that? What is your reaction to that statement? Does that mean he is an immoral person? Why or why not?

 Answer:  Through Nick’s statement in the movie, I think he meant that he has to justify immoral actions of the tobacco company as ethically appropriate and most people cannot do that.

I took his statement normally. Because he works for an immoral company. It is a normal fact that an immoral company like tobacco needs lobbyist who has moral flexibility.

Yes, that’s means Nick is an immoral person. Because he tries to represent immoral things as moral.

3.      In the movie, Nicks says that his job is defending the defenseless, protecting the disenfranchised corporations that have been abandoned by their very own consumers: the logger, the sweatshop foreman, the oil driller, the land mine developer, the baby seal poacher. Given what you know about the dangers of smoking and evidence that tobacco companies have lied/mislead the American people about the dangers of smoking, do you think the tobacco industry “deserves” a person like Nick to defend them? Why or why not?

 

Answer: I know that smoking is dangerous and harmful to our health. It causes lung cancer and other deadly diseases. Many people die every day because of smoking. Tobacco company does not warn people about the danger of smoking. Instead of that, they promote that smoking is cool and pleasurable. By promoting that they mislead the American people. They also lied to American people by promoting that nicotine is not addictive.

Nick Naylor is a talented lobbyist. I think the tobacco industry does not deserve a person like Nick to defend them. Because tobacco companies mislead and lied to their customers, which is unethical.

 

4.      Are some of Nick’s statements/arguments unfair, inappropriate, or downright unethical? Why or why not? Any examples beyond the one below? Consider the following dialogue from the movie:

 

Kid #3: My Mommy says smoking kills.

Nick Naylor: Oh, is your Mommy a doctor?

Kid #3: No.

Nick Naylor: A scientific researcher of some kind?

Kid #3: No.

Nick Naylor: Well then she's hardly a credible expert, is she?

 

Answer: Yes, Some of Nick’s arguments are unfair, inappropriate, or downright unethical. Especially, in the movie when he argues with a little girl at his son’s school. There he told children to explore smoking good or bad by themselves. which is inappropriate because his statement can mislead the children. And also, that was not the right place to argue about a topic like that. I did not find any other examples beyond the given one.

 

 

5.      Should the Marlboro Man have taken the money from the tobacco company? Why or why not?

 

Answer: I think the Marlboro Man should take the money from the tobacco company, although it will be unethical. But he should take the money because he was facing financial problems and he has cancer. He could take treatment for cancer and pay for his mortgage by that money.

 

6.      Do you think it is immoral to deliberately feature cigarette smoking in movies in order to boost tobacco sales as depicted in the movie? Why or why not?

 

Answer: It would be a good strategy to deliberately feature cigarette smoking in movies in order to boost tobacco sales. But whether it is moral or immoral, it depends on how they present smoking in the movie. If they give a warning when an actor smoke in the movie or at the starting of the movie then it will be moral. But if they try to represent smoking is cool and it makes a person smart, without giving any warning to the audience then I think it will be immoral. Because by watching a hero or actor smoking, anyone can be influenced and start smoking without any second thought. Even a child can start smoking by watching that. Tobacco products are harmful. So, it is their duty to warn people. After giving the warning, if anyone wants to smoke, they can smoke which is their choice. Tobacco companies and movies will not responsible for that.

 

7.      In the movie, Nicks says “That is the beauty of argument, if you argue correctly, you are never wrong.” How is it possible to argue for cigarette smoking in light of what we know about the dangers of smoking? Consider the following:

 

Nick Naylor and his son arguing about ice cream

Joey: So what happens when you're wrong?

Nick: Well, if it's your job to be right, then you're never wrong.

Joey: But what if you are wrong?

Nick: Okay, let's say that you're defending chocolate and I'm defending vanilla. Now, if I were to say to you "Vanilla's the best flavor ice cream, you'd say....?

Joey: No, chocolate is

Nick: Exactly. But you can't win that argument. So, I'll ask you. So you think chocolate is the end-all and be-all of ice cream, do you?

Joey: It's the best ice cream; I wouldn't order any other.

Nick: Oh. So it's all chocolate for you, is it?

Joey: Yes, chocolate is all I need.

Nick: Well, I need more than chocolate. And for that matter, I need more than vanilla. I believe that we need freedom and choice when it comes to ice cream, and that, Joey Naylor, that is the definition of liberty.

Joey: But that's not what we're talking about.

Nick: Ah, but that's what I'm talking about.

Joey: But... you didn't prove that vanilla's the best.

Nick: I didn't have to. I proved that you're wrong and if you're wrong, I'm right..

Joey: But you still didn't convince me.

Nick: Because I'm not after you. I'm after them.

 Answer: Nick Naylor is right, if person can argue correctly, he/she is never wrong.

Although knowing that smoking is dangerous, some people love to smoke. Smokers can make many statements in favor of smoking, which would seem to be right. Through some statements, they try to prove that smoking is not bad. Such as Only smoking is not dangerous. There are many foods, which are more dangerous than smoking. Such as sugar, cheese, etc. Sugar is known as white poison. If people can eat sugar, which is more harmful than cigarettes, then why not cigarettes. Smoker gives another statement that everything has good and bad sides. So, it is simple there will be some bad side to smoking too. It also has a good side. They give many statements like this, which seems they are not wrong.

 

8.      What is your reaction to Nick’s statement that he would buy his son a pack of cigarettes on his 18^th birthday if he wanted to smoke?

 

Answer: At first, when I hear Nick’s statement, I was surprised. But when I thought about his statement, I realize that there was nothing to surprised. Before his that statement he said, “It’s called education. It does not come off the side of a cigarette carton. It comes from our teachers, and more importantly our parents. It is the job of every parent to warn their children of all the dangers of the world, including cigarettes, so that one day when they get older, they can choose for themselves”. Through this, he tries to meant that every parent should warn their children and told them how harmful cigarettes are. If Nick’s son wants a cigarette, after saying to his son that how dangerous and harmful it is to smoke, it will be Nick’s failure as a father. He could not teach his son properly. Through Nick’s statement he meant, as a failure father, he will buy his son a pack of cigarettes on his 18^th birthday if he wanted to smoke.

 

9.      Would it be a good idea to do as Senator Finnister suggested in the movie - that is, feature a picture of skull and crossbones on tobacco products? Why or why not?

 

Answer: I think it would be a good idea to feature a picture of skull and crossbones on tobacco products, as Senator Finnister suggested in the movie. Cigarettes are dangerous and harmful to our health. Through the picture of the skull and crossbones, people can easily get the message that cigarettes are dangerous and harmful. The picture of the skull and crossbones represents the message, so people of any language and any walks can easily understand the message. That’s why I think that would be a good idea.

 

10.   Do you think Nick had a good point when he told Senator Finnister that Vermont cheddar cheese should carry skull and crossbones because it potentially leads to high cholesterol? Why or why not? What about other products that can cause danger to people?

 

Answer: Yes, of course. I think Nick had a good point. Senator Finnister wants to feature the picture of the skull and crossbones on tobacco products to warn people. Tobacco products are harmful and dangerous for health. It causes lung cancer and other respiratory diseases. That’s why Senator Finnister wants to feature the picture on tobacco products. On Nick's point, he meant that Vermont cheddar cheeses are also harmful and dangerous for health. It leads to high cholesterol and causes heart attacks. Overall, cheese is no less dangerous than cigarettes. So, Vermont cheddar cheese should also carry the picture of the skull and crossbones. I think every dangerous and addictive product like cigarettes and cheese should carry the picture. So that people can get a warning and aware of using those products.