As expected, Chris Buckley was smart, witty, and charming as our first post-screening guest at the inaugural Fordham Law Film Festival. He appeared in conversation following the screening of “Thank You for Smoking,” the film based on his novel of the same name.
Chris said a number of interesting things.
First, he received the idea for the novel by watching a smooth and silky female lobbyist for the tobacco company appear on a television news program. He sought her out and discovered that she smoked as gracefully as she looked on television, but that she was no libertarian idealogue; she simply was paying her mortgage by representing the tobacco industry zealously and faithfully.
Second, Chris thought that the film was fairly faithful to his novel and captured many of the same themes, although the father-son relationship was heightened in the film, and enabled the film to slightly deepen the moral ambiguity of the novel by calling into question whether an unscrupulous lobbyist on behalf of a toxic product can also be a good role model for his son.
Third, Chris had many interesting things to say about the ubiquity of “spin” in our contemporary culture, and how we are endlessly exposed to it–whether in our political discourse or in the culture we consume.
I thought Thane Rosenbaum was also “smart, witty, and charming.”
I wanted to comment on the idea of separating one’s personal morality from one’s actions or behaviors. The belief that a person can deny, in a way, his responsibility or accountability with a justification such as “I have to pay the mortgage somehow” is troublesome. Although we like to believe the adage, “who I am is not defined by what I do” rings true, I think that, to a certain extent, people are, and should be, judge-able (if I can coin a term) and accountable for their actions whether they are proud of those actions or not. What I liked about the Nick Naylor character is that he didn’t try to do this – he didn’t make excuses or go through an internal conflict every time he had to defend the tobacco industry. We didn’t see him struggling to *do the right thing* in the eyes of his son. He was unapologetic and proud of his skills – seduced by his abilities to manipulate, persuade, and convince. Winning over “Cancer Boy” was a coup he was exceptionally proud of!
Nick’s morality of course is another discussion altogether. But as to morality, actions and responsibilty – Nick didn’t play the excuse card. He was uapologetic. He was unashamed. He didn’t attempt to justify or separate himself from his actions. He was a proud member of the “MOD”.
We don’t have to like what Nick does or who he is, in fact we can despise him, but I think we still must respect him on some level for embracing his morality (of lack thereof) and taking responsibility for it.
–Annette Nichols
Regarding Annette’s comment — “He was unapologetic and proud of his skills – seduced by his abilities to manipulate, persuade, and convince.” I wonder if “skills” is really the correct word to define Nick’s behavior — would it not, for instance, be more accurate (or “moral,” if you will) to define these “skills” as flaws, or tendencies toward what many would call evil? I fervently disagree with the idea that Nick takes any kind of responsibility whatsoever — responsibility is not characterized by how we regard ourselves and our actions, but how we treat and respond to other individuals. Responsibility is always already about the other individual, as opposed to the self. In fact, if I want to be responsible, I cannot have “respect” for Nick’s behavior, or what Annette (previous comment) calls the embrace of his morality.
I think that it is simply too easy to categorize a character like Nick Naylor as “evil”. He is certainly complex, or difficult to understand within a moral paradigm that frowns upon being both aware of one’s questionable behavior yet willing to continue along the same path, without any signs of remorse. We perhaps want Nick to take responsibility for his actions, his entire life, but in Nick’s eyes he has already done this. He has reconciled his job with his personal life and makes no apologies about using the skills he was born with to survive, even thrive, in America. We may want to see him as evil, but in fact he is brave, able to master all of the conflicting emotions many of us feel when we try to balance our public and private lives. He doesn’t feel guilt because he is in many ways the living embodiment of a world that is morally ambiguous. If we are disgusted with Nick Naylor, it is only because we recognize so much of him in the things we see, and perhaps also in the things we do.