Thank You for Thinking: How Satire Makes Us Smarter

A satirical analysis on the exaggerated portrayals in the movie Thank You for Smoking.

October 04, 2024

Asiyah Khoshdel

Let’s face it: if Hollywood stuck to making films that only reflected reality, we’d have a lot more movies about people staring at spreadsheets and doom-scrolling through TikTok for hours on end. Accuracy is great, but it’s not always engaging. As someone who is academically and professionally knee-deep in formulaic press releases and the corporate jargon of the public relations world, I’ve come to appreciate that inaccuracy in media isn’t the villain we’ve all been led to believe. Sure, your average reader–armed with a smartphone and a gluttonous craving for facts–might insist that accuracy is the be-all and end-all of exceptional communication. But sometimes, or maybe oftentimes, a little creative stretch of truth can be the hidden elixir of a conversation worth having.

Take Thank You for Smoking, the 2005 satirical film that shamelessly skewers the tobacco industry’s PR tactics. The movie follows the charismatic protagonist, Nick Naylor, a lobbyist and PR professional so outspoken he could probably convince your top finance bro into investing in Bored Ape NFTs in the ripe year of 2024. Yes, his character is an over-the-top, borderline goofy portrayal of a PR professional–conniving, morally ambiguous, shady-car-salesman type beat. But instead of splitting hairs on this inaccurate portrayal of my profession, I see it as a refreshing opportunity to shine some light on the industry as a whole.

Why? Because it forces us, the audience, to confront the uncomfortable realities of how messaging can be manipulated. This movie doesn’t just entertain, it educates. It peels back the curtain on the subtle and not-so-subtle ways that shady corporate entities might sway public opinion. Prompting audiences to question the motives behind the messages we’re constantly bombarded with daily and, in turn, preventing blind acceptance of commercial agendas and hollow social initiatives.

In one iconic scene, our protagonist Nick travels to California to meet with Hollywood executive Jeff Megall–a self-satisfied mogul with a peculiar obsession with Japanese culture–to discuss potential product placement opportunities for the new campaign his employer, the Academy of Tobacco Studies, is launching. After Nick’s initial pitch, Jeff suggests actors sparking up cigarettes and blowing smoke rings in a clichéd sci-fi blockbuster set in a futuristic society in space. Of course, what Hollywood epic would be complete without a zero-gravity love scene between Brad Pitt and Catherine Zeta-Jones preceding it? Cringey, but do we expect anything less? Everything seems perfect until the minor issue of igniting a cigarette in an oxygen-rich spaceship comes up–you know, with the whole instantaneous combustion aspect of it– but Jeff casually brushes it off, saying something along the lines of, “We’ll just write in, ‘Thank God we invented the, whatever, device’ or something.” (Reitman 2005)

As a PR student who’s spent more than a few Red Bull-induced nights relentlessly poring over ethics-based case studies, this exchange is both hilarious and horrifying. The blatant disregard for facts is so extreme it borders on absurdity. Yet, it’s this very same absurdity that highlights a critical point of this scene–captured when our culturally appropriating mascot casually states, “Whatever information there is, exists, and it’s out there, and people will decide for themselves. And they should; it’s not my role to decide for them. That would be morally presumptuous” (2005). This offhand dismissal of responsibility illustrates how, when profit is the priority, inconvenient truths are easily sidestepped. Ironically, by showcasing such ethical carelessness. Thank You for Smoking prompts viewers to engage our judgment and skepticism–proving that intentional inaccuracies can actually sharpen our critical thinking. 

But let’s not stop there. This movie doesn’t just ridicule the tobacco industry; it gathers a group of middle school bullies and encourages them to point and laugh at the entire PR profession–yes, the career I aim to spend the rest of my life working in. As someone who’s had a Nobu-sized serving of experience within the inner workings of PR thus far in my career (minus the scheming and off the book transactions), I can attest that while the industry isn’t swarming with Nick Naylors and Jeff Megalls, the ethical tightrope we walk is very real. 

During my internship at a LA-based boutique PR agency, I was tasked with crafting press releases and generating content that made even the most mundane corporate updates sound like earthshattering news. Anyone in the mood for, “Revolutionary advancements in supply chain logistics”? There’s always a temptation to embellish, but the responsibility to maintain integrity is front and center. This is where Thank You for Smoking does us a favor. By exaggerating the unethical extremes, it forces both PR professionals and the public to evaluate the consequences of unchecked persuasion. Consider it like a satirical safety net, it catches us before we tumble into an abyss of moral ambiguity.

A historical take on this social critique could be seen in Jonathan Swift’s, (be ready it’s a long one), A Modest Proposal For preventing the Children of Poor People From being a Burthen to Their Parents or Country, and For making them Beneficial to the Publick, published in 1729, Swift’s satirical essay presents a chaotic solution to Ireland’s increasing poverty during the time: selling the poor children as food for the wealthy. Crazy, but Swift utilized satire, not to advocate for cannibalism, but as shock value to the indifferent British public into developing empathy to the dire situation occurring in Ireland and the inhumane policies encroached on them (Swift 1729). Proposing absolute lunacy was similar to Swift holding up a mirror to an entire population of complacent people. This forced readers to confront the hypocrisy of their attitudes toward the poor. 

Sound familiar? Just like Thank You for Smoking exaggerates the unethical antics of a PR lobbyist to make us question the manipulation in persuasive communication, Swift’s work uses inaccuracy to illuminate uncomfortable truths. Both pieces use satire to strip away the polite façade of societal norms, revealing the ethical mess that resides within. I can see how these exaggerated narratives push us to question not just the messages we’re fed but the systems that produce them. 

But just wait a second, you might be thinking, “Isn’t there a risk of having these exaggerated portrayals backfiring?” Some critics might even argue that inaccurate depictions of professions like PR or lobbyists don’t foster critical thinking at all. Instead, they claim these portrayals reinforce negative stereotypes, in turn, making it harder for honest, red-blooded professionals to be taken seriously. After all, if the public consistently views PR people as gaslighting manipulators, wouldn’t that tarnish the industry’s reputation and undermine public perception?

Not gonna lie, it’s a fair point. No one wants to be lumped with the Nick Naylors of the world when you’re just trying to pitch a genuinely good product or service. The concern is that satire might blur the defined lines of reality and exaggeration, leaving audiences more cynical than perceptive. 

But hear me out: that very cynicism can be a catalyst for a positive change. By spotlighting the extreme, satire doesn’t only reinforce stereotypes, it challenges us to question them. When we see Nick’s antics, we’re not just laughing at the absurdity of what he’s saying or doing, we’re also becoming more attuned to the nuances of persuasive communication in real life. 

Think about it, if the public grows wary of potential manipulation, PR professionals are pushed to prioritize transparency and authenticity. It raises the bar for the entire industry. Instead of blindly accepting messages, audiences demand substance over nonsensical jargon. And isn’t that what we want?

And on that same note, satire relies on audiences recognizing the exaggeration. The humor and punchline is only impactful when it comes from understanding that the portrayal is intentionally over the top. This recognition is a sign of critical engagement, not passive consumption. It means viewers and readers alike are actively processing the content, distinguishing between what is parody and what is reality. 

As for the risk of reinforcing negative stereotypes, consider that professions like PR have long beef with public perception. Satirical portrayals open the door for industry introspection. It allows for opportunities for professionals to address misconceptions head-on, portraying the ethical and positive aspects of their work. In essence, these exaggerated inaccuracies don’t so much damage the profession as they do reinvigorate it. They prompt both practitioners and the public to engage in a dialogue about ethics, responsibility, and the power of true communication.

So, while satire might ruffle a few feathers, or in this case, crease some Jimmy Choos, it serves a bigger purpose. It pushes us out of indifferent complacency and urges us to question the narratives we’ve been fed and the ones we create. As someone who is still venturing into the PR world, I welcome the scrutiny and criticism that comes with these exaggerated portrayals of my profession and the pivotal work we do. They remind us that with great power (of persuasion) comes great responsibility. 

In a society overflowing with information and the imperative need for accuracy and exactness, perhaps a little intentional inaccuracy is exactly what is needed to keep us all thinking critically. After all, if a satirical movie and an 18th-century essay can prompt us to reflect on our ethics and communication, maybe inaccuracies aren’t the villains we thought they were. Maybe they’re the unexpected heroes, nudging us toward a more observant, thoughtful world.

Swift, Jonathan. “A Modest Proposal. (1729).” Renascence Editions, 1999, extra.shu.ac.uk/emls/iemls/resour/mirrors/rbear/modest.html. Accessed October 2024.

Reitman, Jason. “Thank You for Smoking (2006) .” Performance by Aaron Eckhart, et al., Twentieth Century Fox Home Entertainment, 2006, Accessed October 2024.