Charlie Rose Interview-- Thank You for Smoking

Just before the movie Thank You for Smoking was released, Charlie Rose (PBS) interviewed Christopher Buckley (the author of the original book), Jason Reitman (the script writer and director of the movie), David Sacks (who produced the movie, his first), and Aaron Eckhardt (the actor who played Nick Naylor).

I find this interview interesting for a variety of reasons, some of which I will detail here.

1.  Buckley notes that Reitman had been screening the movie at college campuses across the country. Reitman recalls one particular showing at the University of California at Berkeley, which he says is an intimidating place to screen a "libertarian film" (more on that later).  During the Q & A session (after the film), one older lady stood up and starting berating him for not going after Big Tobacco for doing such evil things.  And the students starting booing her until she shut up.  Reitman is quite pleased with that response.  Why?

2.  Elsewhere in the interview, both Reitman and Sacks refer to the movie as a "libertarian" film. I won't go into the details here, but the point is _The movie has a politics_.  In what ways is the movie "libertarian"?

3.  Sacks, who is a noted libertarian, goes on to say that he wanted to produce this movie because he loved how "the morality of the story is inverted"; usually the Big Tobacco person is the bad guy, but in this case, he's really the hero, "you're rooting for him." He goes on to say that, "We've made 'spin' necessary . . . it's society's hypocrisy that's made spin necessary. . . . We love our vices, and big government has gone too far when they crack down on these things." 

4.  Buckley notes that the son, Joey, is entirely Reitman's addition to the story.  (Joey does appear in the book, but only briefly; Reitman makes Joey a major character, and Nick's relationship with his son is a key element-- it's function is largely to "humanize" Naylor.

Following from that, it is interesting to see Buckley and Reitman together-- Buckley praising Reitman's work, and Reitman giving credit to "Buckley's words."  Why?  Because the book and the movie are radically different stories.  In addition to the development of Joey as a character, there are a lot of significant differences:  for starters, in the book, Nick is not really the Sultan of Spin.  In fact, he's kind of a bumbling fool, trying (and often failing) to defend the indefensible.  Second, Nick's kidnapping is actually orchestrated by his boss, B.R.  (Incidentally, in the movie, they don't tell you what was written on the sign hanging around his neck, only that "it was some pretty f***ed up s**t."  In the book you find out that what it said was "Executed for Crimes Against Humanity.") After the kidnapping, the F.B.I. determines that it was in fact Nick who orchestrated his own kidnapping (he is "set up" to take the fall by a coworker), and Nick ends up serving time in jail.

Finally, and I think most significantly, the ending of movie differs completely from the book. Reitman, in a different interview, says that when he was trying to find someone to produce the movie, some of the major movie studios wanted him to change the ending, saying that Nick has to go work for the Red Cross or something, which Reitman thought was "silly." This seems strange to me, since in the book, after Nick gets out of jail, he goes to work for "Clean Lungs 2000," an anti-smoking campaign. What do you think, then, is the significance of the change Reitman made to the ending?

Animal Rights

 As humans we have rights, but animals on the other hand aren't always treated the way they should be. Animal rights is the idea in which some, or all, non-human animals are entitled to the possession of their own existence and that their most basic interests such as the need to avoid suffering should be afforded the same consideration as similar interests of human beings. 

Animal Rights Facts 

5% of animal abuse cases involve dogs.

Many states do not consider livestock in their cruelty laws.

Federal cruelty laws are limited when it comes to animals. Instead, most cases are handled on a state by state basis.

 There are currently 59 orcas in captivity at sea parks and aquariums throughout the world. Some are wild-caught; some were born in captivity. A third of the world's captive orcas are in the United States, and all but one of those live at SeaWorld's three parks in Orlando, San Diego, and San Antonio. The fate of Orcas in captivity is not positive. There is no intention of releasing them back into the wild. Did you know that an orca in captivity is equivalent to a human in a bath tub? 

8 reasons that Orcas Don't belong in Seaworld

1. Premature Deaths
2. Lean, Mean Killing Machines 
3. Collapsed Dorsal Fins 
4. Tanks 
5. Fights 
6. Diet of Pig and Cow Bones 
7. Breaking their teeth to get out 
8. Family matters 

Orcas suffer mentally and physically just to line SeaWorld’s pockets. You can help them! The momentum is on our side with the release of Blackfish (also on Netflix) and the recent lawsuit against SeaWorld. Join the fight to help orcas, and tell all your friends never to go to Sea World.