Uploaded by Julissa Robinson

TYFS Word Paper

Julissa Robinson
November 19, 2019
Thank You for Smoking analysis
For this assignment, we will be going over the film Thank You for Smoking and focusing
on the character of Nick Naylor. This paper will go over his use of emotional appeals, logical
appeals, and his general character characteristics.
Starting with the emotional appeals that Nick Naylor uses in the film, let’s start with the
scene where he is giving the money to the Marlboro man. Nick emotionally manipulated him
into a decision of putting down his pride and taking the money. Nick decided to use the ploy of
being honest and telling him that it is basically hush money, in order to make him think that he is
trustworthy. He then quickly changes into manipulating him to contacting the news and telling
them about all of the money that he is being offered to be quiet. He makes sure to tell him that he
is angry to ensure that is the emotion that he feels. By telling him that he shouldn’t be keeping
the money and telling him to start the Lorne Lutch Cancer Foundation, he is tugging at the
emotional strain that comes along with cancer to his benefit. Nick knows that by telling him that
he cannot keep the money, it will make him want to keep the money even more. He does
eventually succeed in this method.
Using the same scene as an example for the logical appeal, he insinuates to the Marlboro
man that there is no other option other than keeping quiet and keeping the money or giving the
money away and speaking out against the company. In reality, Nick made sure that the Marlboro
Man directed his anger towards his decision instead of letting him pause and think about the
options. This becomes evident when he tells him that he cannot denounce them a week later.
That news does not work that way. This makes the Marlboro Man feel more pressured to make a
decision quickly rather than logically.
Going back to the beginning of the film, to the scene where he is at the business board
meeting, Nick tries to convince the other partners that including cigarettes into movies more
often, will then entice the viewers to want to smoke. He argues that the viewers will see smoking
as “cool“ if they see their favorite celebrities smoking as well. He’s not really thinking about it
thoroughly he’s just hoping that it makes that impact. During this interaction, he was using the
bandwagoning fallacy to convince the other members of the board that using celebrities as the
middleman to promote smoking, would therefore make everyone else join.
Nick Naylor is not a very honest man. When he outs the reporter for sleeping with him
publicly, I feel like he is using the ad hominem fallacy. This is an attack on a person rather than
the argument. He starts off by giving the illusion that he was trying to make things right, but by
mentioning that he slept with the person with whom the information got out and calling the
relationship meaningless- it was a subtle attack on her character knowing that her colleagues
would know it was her. For myself, this scene did not make me believe that his credibility is
something to believe in. It shows me that he is manipulating a situation to benefit him.
Now goes onto the question of if he is competent. Nick Naylor is very competent and
what he does as a lobbyist. He knows how to manipulate things to get the results that he is
looking for. He knows how to tug at heartstrings when needed, and he knows when to use more
manipulating words to get a better answer. Nick Naylor is a very talented man, he can be
sympathetic when he needs to be, and angry when he has to be as well. He knows how to work
the crowd. He is probably best described as an actor because he is able to adapt to any situation
Overall, I really did enjoy the film, and I do think that it is a good film to use as an
example for persuasive speeches or communication. Using the aspects of pathos, logos, and
ethos all combined, and analyzing the entirety of the situation – is a very good way to get a point
across. I don’t think that the film really is actually promoting smoking. I think that the film is
made to show the real effects of smoking and what goes on behind the scene. To open the eyes of
the view were to see the manipulation, planning, and inevitably the money that goes into
something like cigarettes. I can see where the point about including the government comes in, it
really shows at the government doesn’t really care as much as we think that they do. It is up to
us, the viewers, to make an impact and a change to counteract the efforts made by tobacco