Thank You for Smoking (2005)

Satire does not easily translate to film. We take film entirely too literally as a medium, which works against the tongue-in-cheek nature of satire. We wonder, as my wife asked during our viewing of Thank You for Smoking, "How much of this is true?" Of course, satire depends on a factual basis for its humor, but when we over-emphasize the underpinnings, the satire ceases to be funny. Thus, with film satires, it is all too easy for audiences to miss the exaggeration and believe the hyperbole and turn a potentially funny film into a depressing morality tale.

I discussed Thank You for Smoking with a co-worker who fell into this trap. He didn't enjoy the movie as much as I did because he said it was "too true" and "sad." I thought it was hilarious, so his comments made me wonder if I was just cynical and unfeeling. I realized, though, that he would not have had the same reaction if this was a written satire, or even, to some extent, a television show. We have much less of an expectation of reality when it comes to books and television. While this discrepancy, I think, has something to do with the intrinsic nature of film--a series of photographs of actual people--we have piled on assumptions and expectations that go beyond the basic format. TV and film are technically similar, yet people expect more truth from the big screen. We expect and recognize the falseness of sitcoms and even so-called "reality shows." We filter TV through a lens of manipulation and falsification. This is not so with film. In fact, we take it the other way, attempting to make even the most obvious fictionalizations into reality. We look for truth in film, even narrative (as opposed to documentary) film. Take, for example, the glut of recent movies "based on actual events." You never see that proclamation before a TV show, yet it's money in the bank for movies.

Because of all this, people like my friend at work watch a movie like Thank You for Smoking, which represents the highest level of film satire, and find it depressing rather than funny. It is no surprise then, that a poorly executed satire like Wag the Dog or a horrendous one like Man of the Year can be entirely repulsive to mainstream audiences. Less surprising still is the fact that few true satires make it to the big screen. I find this fact troubling on a couple of different levels. First, I loved Thank You for Smoking, and I wish there were more films out there like it. Think of all the "serious" issues in our world today that could use a good poke in the ribs. Instead, we end up with more and more pompous "documentaries" that have no effect on the issue they raise. Second, I hate the underlying fact that people take film as fact. Filmmakers manipulate facts and events as they see fit, yet audiences fail to question the story. Films "based on actual events" include as much fantasy as a Saturday morning cartoon, yet we buy it. That's why we need more movies like Thank You for Smoking--to get us to see film for what it is.