Movie Review Thank You for Smoking

The remarkable role of Naylor in the movie Thank You for Smoking is built on his creative capacity to employ the rhetorical devices of irony, diversion, fallacies, and satire. This is with the view of creating multiple and ambivalent interpretations of conventional truths. The course of events in the film illustrates the power of rhetoric to develop divergent views from seemingly standardized positions. To conceal the harmful effects of cigarette smoking, Naylor adopts circular arguments, satire, and, logical tropes, which challenge the competing and moralistic points of view.

When asked by senator Finistirre on his opinion about the possibility of his son turning into a smoker at the age of 18, he strikes a delicate balance of options that remove the blame from his side. The answer that Naylor gives is part of the diversionary rhetoric strategy that shifts the blame of his son's possible taking on smoking to other forces. Naylor wants to be cautious not to take any personal responsibility to the possible negative influences of the habit. He is aware of the hazardous effects of cigarette smoking but wants to appeal to other forces beyond his actions. In the answer he gives, Naylor suggests that the decision by his son on whether to smoke or not rests on his conscience.

Although Naylor is conscious of the need to play the function of a role model to his growing son, he still wants to reinforce the values of freedom and responsibility that manifest within the orthodox American culture. The intention of the question was meant to capture the essence of parental responsibility on the health of the growing boy.

Naylor's argument exposes ironies and satires in the movie with the objective of suppressing the logical sequence of conventional arguments. Rhetorical devices are usually deployed to subvert dominant positions by creating alternative pathways and side shows against the normal course. This movie uses rhetorical devices to establish weakness that are inherent in the standardized forms of arguments. Normally, the use of rhetorical devices is analyzed from the position of the others attempting to reclaim themselves from insignificant positions by systematically exposing some real and perceived flaws in the self.

However, the concluding parts of this movie illustrates a reclamation of the self from the sustained rhetorical attacks that are sustained in the introductory and mid-sections of the film. Nevertheless, it could be argued that the film director successfully builds the character of Naylor as a master rhetorician. Naylor exploits his own strengths and the weaknesses on others to build a strong case of every situation and challenge.