An analysis of thank you for smoking an informative film

Both seek to crack open the surprising treasures of Christian belief — the things that Western society has forgotten, ignored, or never encountered — with the help of logic, literature, film, music, and one very unsafe Lion. This movie — about the emotions of a girl named Riley when she and her parents have to move away from where she grew up in Minnesota and start a new life in San Francisco — has me conflicted. It is actually a very deep thinking movie that presents a complex mix of beliefs and assumptions about truth beneath all of that stunning animation and adorable hilarity. Inside of the character Riley are the Emotions — which are sentient beings, the primary characters of the film — and they completely control Riley.

An analysis of thank you for smoking an informative film

Dark comedies take a serious topic, and make light of the topic through satire. A good example of rhetoric can be found in Thank You for Smoking during a scene where Nick Naylor delivers an argument against putting a skull and crossbones label on every pack of cigarettes.

This is done during a hearing in front of a congressional committee lead by Senator Finistirre from Vermont. Naylor is defending a controversial idea with controversial evidence and support, whether it goes against what he believes or not.

Rhetorical fallacies can also be found throughout the sequence. If someone knows a product is potentially dangerous, it should be up to the consumer to decide whether or not to use it. This warrant is effective in that the audience of the assembly and the actual film already know that tobacco is harmful.

The point Naylor made can be related to his entire audience. The large part of his support is based on people making decision for themselves.

An analysis of thank you for smoking an informative film

Even though he promotes proper education, his entire argument boils down to personal decisions. He also speaks to the committee in a condescending tone, especially when speaking to Senator Finistirre. Naylor holds himself higher than the committee. This can be seen in watching his smirking and other facial expressions.

Naylor knows he can outsmart and outwit almost any opponent. Nick Naylor has a sense of logos in his arguments before the committee. He uses logos throughout the hearing, though they may be fallacies present.

He makes a logical conclusion that if cigarettes were required to have skull and crossbones labels on them, all products that were potentially harmful should be labeled. He points this out when he asks about labels on cheese, planes, and automobiles.

It is also logical to point out that almost all people know that cigarettes can be harmful. He shows then when he asks members of the audience to raise their hands if they know cigarettes are harmful, knowing full well that nearly all of them would raise their hand.

There is an element of pathos that Naylor uses during the hearing. The most evident use of pathos is when he begins to speak about how education and parenting should be the foundation for youth to learn about the dangers of tobacco.

Naylor also probably won the heart of some of the audience when mentioning his responsibility of appropriately parenting his young son. Naylor also points out his young son who is part of the audience during the hearing.

The committee is compiled of congressmen that he can efficiently handle in a rhetorical argument. The audience of the hearing was also very involved during the hearing as there were definite reactions by the audience throughout the session. Also throughout the speech Nick Naylor gives seemingly legitimate arguments to support his cause and Big Tobacco.

When the subject of parenting is brought up by the committee Nick Naylor rightly spoke about the topic as he is the father of a young son. Like when Naylor defends cigarettes and his parenting, Naylor tends to use some fallacies to back up many of his arguments.

Naylor has more a claim to having ethos, but is not necessarily the best example of a father. During the congressional committee Naylor does an efficient job of disguising fallacies as legitimate arguments.In conclusion, Thank You for Smoking provides great examples of the three pillars of rhetoric: logos, pathos, and ethos.

The idea of placing a skull and crossbones on all cigarette boxes provides an excellent platform for rhetorical analysis, as does the concept of the film as a whole. Of course, Thank You for Smoking is not really about cigarettes.

In a way, it's about integrity. In a way, it's about integrity. It wonders if there's really such a thing as truth. Do My Paper Write My Essay Persuasive Essay Essay Writing Help Shakespeare Essay Article Reviews PhD Thesis Speech Help. Business Reports Persuasive Speech Informative Speech Buy Speech Buy Dissertation Essay Topics Buy Project Research Proposal.

Thank you very much for your respect to our authors' copyrights. Site Management. Ethics Analysis in the Film "Thank You for Smoking" COMM Media, Ethics, and Law Monday, March 31st, Crystal Chan Nephele Li Jeromy Chan "Thank you for Smoking" is a film about Nick Naylor, who is the chief spokesman for the Big Tobacco company.

How to Write a Compelling, Informative News Lede Snappy Ledes Tell Who, What, When, Where, Why and How. Share Flipboard Email Print Why – a man fell asleep smoking in bed; How – the cigarette ignited the man's mattress How to Write a Character Analysis.

There can be various areas of life when you are asked to make a speech. It can be a formal occasion, for work, studying, retirement, promotion, etc., or an informal event, like a wedding, an anniversary, or the birthday of your friend.

Thank You for Smoking Summary & Study Guide