The irrepressible rise of the Commercial Indie &

Thank You For Smoking

By Guy Stanley

Thank You For Smoking is a 2006 American comedy-drama satire directed by Jason
Reitman. It is based on the 1994 novel of the same name by Christopher Buckley and
tells the story of Nick Naylor, a lobbyist for ‘Big Tobacco’ whose job it is to try and
convince the public that the links between smoking and cancer are at best
questionable. It covers the events that happen in his life and those affected by him
over a short period of time and raises questions – not only about political spin but also
about personal freedoms and choices.

This debut feature by Reitman was something of an oddity when released in the
spring of 2006. That was the year of such films as Casino Royale, one of the most
publicised and anticipated sequels in that year; the second Pirates of the Caribbean
(Dead Man’s Chest) and the third in a successful Mission Impossible franchise – as
well as Ron Howard’s adaptation of The Da Vinci Code. Add to this already bloated
list the comic book rebirth of Superman in Bryan Singer’s Superman Returns and one
could be forgiven for being unaware of any other films being released at the same
time.

In fact there were a further 400 films released worldwide in 2006 (according to The
Movie Times), Thank You For Smoking among them. Costing a ‘mere’ $6.5 million to
produce (imdb.com), Thank You For Smoking opened on just five screens in the US
and later 100 across the UK. In comparison with its competition, this was a very small
launch which initially allowed the film to slip somewhat unnoticed past the eye of
most cinema-goers whose choices are defined largely by the major holidays, which is
when the sorts of blockbusters listed above tend to be released (either November–
Christmas or May into summer). These are the films which dominate the advertising
space and it’s no great surprise that they tend to be block-booked at the multiplexes.

In comparison, Reitman had very little power in terms of distributing his work and it
was the job of ‘indie’ subsidiary Fox Searchlight to find that audience. In order to
examine the hows and whys of the film’s evolution and its suitability as a text worth
studying it is necessary to go back through the processes by which films – in and out
of Hollywood – are developed and produced.

Miramax, Fox Searchlight and the Rise of the ‘Commercial-Indie’

Film
To fully understand the way in which films today are packaged and marketed to any
given audience, we need to go back in time to the Eighties and early-Nineties. As with
any other industry, the film world is run on a capitalist economic model of Profit &
Demand. The major studios made films intended for as wide an audience as possible,
ensuring solid box office taking pushing a film in to profit. If it was particularly
successful it would be likely to have sequels follow, chasing the originals’ profits for
themselves. This was the dawn of the High Concept film. A high concept film is one
which is driven by ‘spectacle over narrative’, relying on the visuals to entertain rather
than a complex narrative or character driven piece. With such product as Top Gun
(Scott 1986) and the Indiana Jones franchise (Spielberg 1981-2008) emerging every
year, the audience flocked to see films which thrilled rather than raised thoughts. Each
one more extravagant than the last, providing the audience with escapist fantasy.
The original ‘angry young men’ like Spielberg, Lucas and Scorsese had merged into
the mainstream to become the purveyors of the very same generic product that they
had originally fought to change. Jaws (Spielberg 1975) is widely considered to be the
grandfather of the modern high concept film about which, according to an interview
with Spielberg on the DVD extras, the term Blockbuster was first coined in response
to the audience queuing around the block to see it. Lucas soon followed with Star
Wars (1977) to create what we know today as the ‘event’ movie. Sequels for these
and other similar product dominated cinema screens and when the first multiplex
opened in Milton Keynes during 1985 they were perfectly placed to exhibit this
effects-driven spectacular product. The popularity of the high concept film and the
advantageous conditions of the multiplexes developed in to an unbeatable
combination and establishing the virtual monopoly they have even today. The box
office generated by the event movie was too valuable for an expensive multiplex to
ignore, which meant other product would be abandoned in exchange. The impact of
this would be distributors limiting their involvement in films which did not meet those
requirements.
By 1989 this was really the only sort of product being made available to the consumer
public attending multiplex cinemas culminating in the most merchandise driven
product ever seen in Batman: The Movie (Burton 1989). Summer of 1989 was
indelibly printed with the Bat symbol wherever one might look and the age of Event
movie tie-ins had truly been established. Spielberg’s own Jurassic Park (1992) makes
a wry comment on this where one character jokes about how the scientists had taken
the cloning technology and ’slapped it on a lunchbox’.
Outside of that system, film-makers were limited in their options. The major studios
had control over much of the theatrical distribution – which meant that even if the
product had been self-financed, as many were, they would still need to ‘court’ one of
the studios for distribution in cinemas. Added to that the term ‘independent’ had
grown away from its earliest meaning – which was simply a product made outside of
the studio system – into being as much a description of the content as it may be about
the financing. The product often challenged the conventions of the Hollywood studio
system and broke away from the packaged ideals of the high concept films filling the
multiplexes. It couldn’t be ‘spectacular’ as the budget could not be stretched that far,
it was not an ‘event’ since a film-maker would need the backing of a major studio to
achieve that status. More importantly, these film-makers were driven by characters
and narrative, not special effects and stunts. One simply could not sell character
driven narrative-heavy low budget films to a multiplex audience. They were Art
house festival pieces and not mass entertainment. Mass market appeal in the content
was the key.
The concept of the Star and the use of Genre as a categoriser of product in High
concept film carry both positive and negative aspects. The Audience identify with the
star persona – the image portrayed on screen – and will flock to cinemas to see that
persona re-visited ad infinitum. Likewise the genre package is easy to sell, with
certain conventions in place to keep the returning audience happy on each occasion.
Combine the two, putting a popular star persona into a recognisable packaged vehicle
(such as Willis’ John McClane persona in the Die Hard franchise [1988–2007]) and
Hollywood law dictates that the product must be a success. This is by no means
certain, regardless of the ingredients of a formula, but those ingredients are a far safer
bet than products which contain neither and may openly challenge the conservative or
traditional views of the mainstream audience.
With that Profit and Demand thinking in place independent film would really only
championed in festivals where purists could enjoy the artistry of the film leaving the
masses to consume the popcorn product of the multiplex. Those festivals became
beacons of original works untainted, it was believed, by the High Concept machine.
According to Peter Biskind in his book Down and Dirty Pictures a generation of film-
makers grew up in the late eighties who
‘…began to flower outside the Hollywood Studio system and in the following
decade, the independent film movement bloomed. Dozens of lesser known
film-makers such as Steven Soderbergh and Quentin Tarantino began walking
away with coveted prizes…’
He argues that the revolution which would lead to Thank You For Smoking began
here with the Sundance film festival and Soderbergh’s sex, lies & videotape. Biskind
suggests that the screening of this film at the 1989 Sundance was the beginning of
Hollywood waking up to the indie film and its potential.
In the same year as the explosion of merchandise surrounding Batman, sex, lies &
videotape won first prize at Sundance and prompted Miramax distributors Bob and
Harvey Weinstein to acquire the rights and to secure a mainstream release for what
they saw as a potential profit maker.
Biskind continues:

‘[The sex, lies crew] insisted that Miramax pay the advance upfront and put
the money into an escrow account so we’re assured to get it. We insisted they
take the movie ‘as is’. There wasn’t going to be any additional cutting.
Miramax agreed.’
Biskind goes on to suggest that even Soderbergh himself is quoted as being in
disbelief at the Weinstein’s faith in his film. This is not unsurprising given that, at the
time, this was unprecedented. The film could not possibly be termed high concept. It
was a character driven drama about conversations related to infidelity and sexuality,
which required no special effects or spectacle of any kind. None of the principal
players were hugely well known so promoting the product as a star-driven vehicle
was unlikely. The film was not really targeted towards cinematic exhibition at all yet,
according to Biskind, the Weinsteins were confident that the film ‘would make
between $5-10 million’.
For a film which had a production budget of approximately $1.2m many people
thought that Bob and Harvey Weinstein had overpaid yet gradually after a slow
platform release initially the went on to successfully achieve nearly $25 million in
gross box office. As a gamble for the infant Miramax it paid off, and they became the
champion of the underground film-maker launching careers for people like Kevin
Smith and Quentin Tarantino. In a wider sense, it demonstrated that alongside the
popularity of the mass market film, there was a demand for original scripts and fresh
ideas, content which was not high concept but still appealed.
Miramax began generating a source of steady income which the majors soon imitated.
This took the form of either acquiring existing indie companies – as Warner Bros. did
with New Line Cinema – or creating a subsidiary such as 20th Century Fox’s newly
formed Fox Searchlight to develop or acquire less mainstream product to be sold
under that label.
Fox Searchlight’s remit, according to its website, specialises in independent and
British films alongside non-English-language films. It is sometimes involved with
both the production and distribution but mainly handles the acquisition and marketing
of these films. Although founded in 1994 the company saw very little recognition
initially. Success really only occurred when it acquired and distributed the British
made The Full Monty (1997) after UK film distributor Film Four passed on it. The
Full Monty would become the most successful British film of all time until the release
of Mamma Mia! (2008).
Their success was built on giving these films carefully orchestrated or targeted
marketing campaigns, rather than attempting to compete on a saturation level with the
majors. They were very specific about the choices and how to market them. Using
The Full Monty as an example, the distributors ensured there was no real mention of
Thatcherism or the collapse of the steel industry. They focused on the comedy
elements and left the politics out – very commercial, not very indie. Compare this
with a similar film, Brassed off (Herman 1996) which kept the comedy limited and
focused much more heavily on the politics of the miner’s strike – culminating in a
powerful albeit morose speech by Pete Postlethwaite on the plight of the miners. The
mass audience does not wish to be lectured and inevitably the more light-hearted one
of these films was more financially successful.
What that success highlights more importantly is the need for mass appeal if
cinematic exhibition is desired. But even Searchlight operates with a capitalist view
of the product they acquire, indicated by the fate of Slumdog Millionaire (Boyle
2008). It was unable to find a distributor until it won multiple BAFTAs and was
tipped for Oscar glory, the value of which provided a motive for Searchlight to
acquire and distribute it. Without that acclaim, according to an interview with Boyle
in The Independent, it might have been a very different story.
Despite the constraints placed on content by companies like Searchlight, the success
of a few, such as Tarantino, Soderbergh and Robert Rodrieguez has led to a rise in the
product now competing for a few limited spots given that ‘commerical-indie’ has
potential for box office .
Entertainment lawyer Mark Litwak states:
‘The increase in independent films has created a buyer’s market. Industry observers
estimate that there are now 800-1,000 independent pictures made each year in the
United States – a dramatic increase from a decade ago.’
Now Fox Searchlight and the others can pick and choose from any number of films –
confident they can decide which will sell and which can be left in obscurity. Arguably
the majors becoming involved in developing or producing this product, meant the
emphasis is moving away from ‘indie’ and very firmly swinging towards the
‘commercial’.
Distribution and Marketing: the Commercial-Indie
The other significant stumbling block between a commercial-indie film and its
potential audience is the provision of theatrical distribution. Even if the content is
adapted to appeal to a more mainstream audience, access to these multiplex exhibition
venues may still be a challenge, simply in the cost of copying film prints. Provision of
sufficient advertising in promotion of the film to a wide enough audience usually
meant that it was prohibitively expensive for many of the independent production
companies. A company such as Fox Searchlight may pick it up and push it through a
suitable marketing campaign for a film of its size but that does not mean it will be
readily able to gain access to the multiplex chains.
This also falls down to Profit and Demand. What cinema chain would risk its rent and
bills on an obscure indie hit when it can just as easily double up on showings of the
latest Harry Potter or X–Men film?

In her article Multiplex programming in the UK: the economics of homogeneity,

Deborah Allison cexplains:

‘Most multiplex programmers base their film plans around a calendar issued
weekly by ACNielsen EDI, a company that collates data and sells it back to
the industry in a range of useful formats. Each calendar lists the titles due for
release over the next six months, their distributors and their release patterns.
These include, firstly, saturation releases, which open in virtually every
mainstream cinema in the UK. Secondly, there are wide releases of roughly
50–200 prints, which play in most of the larger multiplexes, and perhaps some
other sites depending on the nature of the film. Thirdly, there are limited
releases, which normally open on less than 50 copies, occasionally with as
little as one print, such as Callas Forever (2002).’
The saturation releases, those with a big distributor behind them like Warner Bros.,
dominate at the box office because they are driven hard into public consciousness. If
your audience cannot escape the press and marketing surrounding your film,
especially in pre-sold franchise packages like the Harry Potters or James Bonds, then
it is unlikely that a cinema chain will fail to include it in their line up. So, as Allison
argues, the saturation releases which open internationally on a simultaneous basis
dominate the multiplexes because the audience will ‘shop elsewhere’ if that product is
not provided. It is therefore in their interests to buy in those films potentially at the
expense of others. She goes on to outline the mercenary nature of the business and
give some thoughts to why the multiplexes are reluctant to be daring in their
exhibition choices:
‘Pressures of high rents and intense competition for customers has led to
many venture capitalists wishing to pull out of the UK industry and practically
all of the best-known names have changed hands within the last few years. The
largest chain, Odeon, has been sold three times since 2000.’
The multiplexes have to meet their bottom line as much as any other business hence
their betting on the safe mainstream releases to guarantee as much of an audience as
possible. For them to continue being in business, the multiplex has to maintain its
commerciality.
Allison again suggests one reason why this may be:

‘In 2003, 479 films were released by 64 distribution companies, but the top six
companies accounted for a massive 91.4% share of the total box office.’

This statistic is not uncommon. In any given year when looking at the peak release
windows, those being based particularly around the school holidays, invariably nine
out the ten releases at a multiplex will be being distributed by one of the majors. The
saturation releases almost certainly carry one of those labels – with the odd notable
exceptions like Lord of the Rings (2001–03) and Twilight (2008). By monopolising
the market share, these companies ensure that their own releases are profitable, and
since the multiplexes cannot afford to ignore that profit they block book those across
the venues. In many cases there will be multiple screenings in one venue, both as a
way of meeting demand for that saturation release and to boost whatever profit can be
garnered from it to the exhibitor. Allison continues:

‘In such a situation, it is impossible for all of the distributors to get their films
played in as many cinemas as they would wish. In an eight-screen multiplex,
for instance, it is rarely possible to handle more than three new releases in a
week – just a fraction of the titles originally pencilled in for the Easter
holidays. The inevitable result of such an overcrowding of the calendar is a
battle of nerves where most of the distribution companies hold tight for as
long as possible, until those handling weaker titles move their films to other
dates.’

The indie film producers therefore have a huge disadvantage in trying to obtain
cinematic distribution and exhibition. Even with a company like Fox Searchlight
backing them the competition for a place in a mainstream cinema is immense. Thus
the product must have some other competitive edge to make it stand out against the
others. If the film cannot compete on a saturation marketing and merchandising level,
it must be appealing in some other way.

Thank You For Smoking and the Reitman way

The director of Thank You For Smoking, Jason Reitman had had many advantages in
starting out as a film-maker. When your dad, Ivan, is the director behind hits like
Stripes (1981) and the hugely successful Ghostbusters (1984) it is comparatively easy
to get involved and learn the business. To that end Reitman followed in his dad’s
footsteps by helping out as a production assistant on some of Reitman Snr’s films.
This prompted him to step up and make his own.

However, to suggest that Reitman’s only talent was nepotistic in its origins is unfair.
Many children of directors have followed in parental footsteps some successfully,
some to a lesser degree. Sofia Coppola has often received a mixed response from the
critics and one only has to look at Jake (son of Ridley) Scott’s debut Plunkett &
Maclean (1999) to see an example of indulgent parenting. Reitman on the other hand
has maintained a separate and far more subtle style to his father’s filmography. By his
own admission (when Howard Stern asked if he would ever direct a hypothetical
Ghostbusters III) he asserted that he would not make a very good mainstream
director:
 ‘Looking at my career so far, I mean, if you just looked at my two films, I
would make the most boring Ghostbusters movie. It would just be people
talking about ghosts, there wouldn't be any ghost-busting in it.’

However ‘boring’ a film-maker he may perceive himself to be, in a relatively short

space of time Reitman has managed to build up a credible and respected body of
work. Although these films maintain a certain genre-less independence they are
nevertheless appealing to an audience outside of the art-house. This may be credited
largely to varied source material but his own screenwriting input has meant that
Reitman manages to provide some element of a signature authorship to each of his
films. Reitman himself has stated:

‘...[I] want to make unusual films, and anything that turns a genre on its ear.’

Given Reitman served his apprenticeship under the tutelage of Ivan – in the process of
making films such as Kindergarten Cop (1990) and Evolution (2001) – it would have
been logical for him to follow his father into mainstream entertainment. Perhaps to his
credit Reitman did not take this opportunity – choosing instead to direct his own short
films and twice turning down the helm of Dude, Where’s My Car? (2001). In doing so
Reitman maintained a separation – from any unintentional legacy of his father’s (who
was producing the similar teen comedy Road Trip [2000]) at the time but also from
direct studio/distributor involvement in his film-making. As if to reinforce that aspect
of mainstream film-making, Dude… was ultimately severely cut by its distributor to
re-classify it from an R rated sex comedy to a PG13 teen romp in order to reach ‘a
wider audience’.

Reitman’s decision to circumvent this ‘hands on’ process of studio funding and
control meant that he had to source funding independently which is a much riskier
proposition. But Reitman was resolute on the fact that he wanted to make films that
were not strictly mainstream fodder, rather ‘…small subversive comedy that is
independent but accessible’.

With Thank You For Smoking he achieved this. The film was a commercial and
critical success. It grossed over $39 million worldwide by the end of its run, and was
nominated for two Golden Globes. To say he achieved this all by himself is a fallacy
but he, as a director and producer of his own work, has managed to stay true to the
original vision of making comedies which both manage to subvert the mainstream but
also stay within its confines. His later films, Juno (2007) and Up in the Air (2009)
were both even more successful whilst still maintaining something of an ‘indie’ edge.

It has been established that developing films outside of the studio system is hard, and
that being able to secure cinematic distribution is virtually impossible without studio
control. It has further been demonstrated that if one secures that funding, then the
studio will want a return on its investment and may interfere with the final production
in the hopes of making it into something which can be sold as a PG13 (or 12A) and
thus invite the biggest audience – and, by that rationale, the larger profit.

With that in mind, it is worth looking at what made Thank You For Smoking stand
out.
According to Wikipedia, Icon Productions was the first company to secure the rights
to the original satirical novel by Chris Buckley. Since this is Mel Gibson’s own
production company he had acquired the rights with a view to playing the central role
of Nick Naylor himself but,

‘…due to the satiric nature of the book, the studio lacked a way to film it and
the project lacked a usable script.’

Reitman came on board at this juncture having written an adaptation of the book
independently before discovering Icon owned the rights to it. He approached them
and his script was met with approval. But the same issues prior to Reitman’s
involvement were still apparent – how do you sell a film which satirically celebrates
the freedom to smoke and the power of political spin to a mainstream audience which
is meant to be encouraged to trust government and to avoid unhealthy life choices?
The same problems that occur in any film which subverts mainstream conventions
were applicable here. Icon wanted to reinforce the anti-smoking message away from
the book’s more positive spin and, more importantly to force Naylor to have a change
of heart – repenting on his ‘evil’ ways. No studio would finance the project until these
two factors had been incorporated into the re-draft and thus make it a marketable
package. Gibson was no longer attached, which lessened chances of the film being
marketed purely on its star power.

Without those changes the script languished in ‘development hell’ while Reitman
sought funding elsewhere. This finance was eventually found from almost a single
source in David O. Sacks (the millionaire founder of PayPal). As a first time producer
he was willing to let Reitman keep his draft of the film rather than seek re-writes to
make it more commercial. Despite risking $8m, Sacks seemed determined to keep it
‘fresh’ and spent the best part of a year trying to retrieve the rights to the script from
Icon.

At this point, one must accept a certain level of nepotistic advantage. Reitman Snr
does not have any producer credit on Thank You For Smoking but it is likely that the
principal investor would have seen less risk in financing a film made by ‘the son of
the guy who made Ghostbusters’ than a project planned by a film-maker with no such
pedigree. Even though it can be argued that Thank You For Smoking is far removed
from the type of comedy Ivan Reitman is known for, there is a strong likelihood that
his mentorship would have tipped the scales in his son’s favour.

That part out of the way, it is important to examine all of the ingredients of Thank
You For Smoking to establish what made the film worthy of a distribution deal at all.

Although keeping the original ethos of the book and maintaining its rather caustic
look at the world of American business and politics, Reitman made the decision to
remove any actual smoking from the film apart from in scenes from other films that
the Smoking characters are watching. This decision was met with some critical
murmurings about ‘selling out’. During the film a rather vital plot point where Nick is
told that the only reason he is alive today is because he is a smoker may confuse the
audience since at no point is he seen to smoke.
Thus much of the critical backlash in regards to this film was based on Reitman
seeming to have ‘wimped out’ at the last minute. That said, having looked at the
industry and the mercenary nature of the distribution networks prior to this, Reitman’s
decision may be ‘wimpy’ to some extent but it is vital to secure any sort of cinematic
exhibition. Despite the compromise on the onscreen smoking, the film did receive an
R rating in the U.S. which may have limited its audience potential but that effect
would have been minimal since a political satire is unlikely to have been targeted
toward the more lucrative PG13 market any way. In the UK, the BBFC classified it as
a 15 which is likely to be its most appropriate target – any higher and you alienate the
core cinema audience and lower would have meant further cuts, given the content.

There is an established audience for indie films which are permitted a platform
release. This is where a film plays to a small one or two cinema opening and
spreading through word-of-mouth to more cinemas, which if positive means the film
potentially being picked up by one of the chains to be exhibited in one of the smaller
screens in a big multiplex. A successful recent example of this method of distribution
was Syriana (2006) but given the ensemble cast of stars involved (George Clooney
and Matt Damon) it was not surprising to see an investment in that product. Thank
You For Smoking was given such a release by Fox Searchlight in that it initially
opened at the box office in the U.S. as a limited release in just five cinemas.

It was well received as the example from Metacritic will demonstrate:

‘Delightfully unscrupulous characters and searing cynicism prick all sides of

the anti-smoking issue with hilarity and intelligence.’

The reviews were generally favourable along those lines, suggesting that Reitman’s
decision to remain true to the themes of the book was an astute one. Once it was
released in the UK it was shown in 100 cinemas to further success again reinforcing
his decision and perhaps demonstrating that there is both a need and a demand for
more original product at the cinema alongside the safer mainstream blockbusters.

But Thank You For Smoking owes much of its success to the performances delivered
within. It has been argued by most Hollywood producers that one cannot ‘sell’ a film
without a star. Although this has been proven incorrect on many occasions, the choice
of the lead can often shape the film. When this film was originally in pre-production,
the producers envisaged Mel Gibson in the role of Naylor. Were that to have
happened, the film’s budget would have escalated and then the compromises would
have inevitably followed – if one is risking $100m on a film then it is trimmed to
being as risk free as can be realistically expected. Reitman’s script would likely have
been re-tooled into a more appealing ‘rom-com’ on the lines of Gibson’s own What
Women Want (2000) where the previously rascally character reforms into a well-
adjusted female-friendly male role model. Stars often have scripts re-written to suit a
persona or image which is favourable rather than being depicted in a negative light.
Even if the script had stayed untouched, Gibson’s screen persona might not have
allowed an audience to connect with him in such a distasteful role. Aaron Eckhardt,
the Nick Naylor of the central role, was perfectly cast for the part.

Eckhardt first came to prominence in the Sundance winner of 1997 In the Company of
Men (1997) where he played a character called Chad, who was so disillusioned with
relationships that he and a colleague preyed on an innocent deaf girl to get revenge on
all womenkind for what they saw as years of unfair treatment at the hands of previous
girlfriends. The colleague eventually reforms, but Eckhardt’s character remains both
vindictive and unrepentant. From this performance onwards, Eckhardt was often at
odds with Hollywood and being typecast. Certainly he is conventionally handsome
enough to front the cheerfully daft disaster epic The Core (2003) and stood out
recently as Harvey Dent / Two Face in the Batman sequel The Dark Knight (2008);
but often Eckhardt could be found in more obscure parts which seem more anarchic or
politically motivated (Suspect Zero [2004] or Towelhead [2007] spring to mind).
Eckhardt was an ideal choice for Naylor since he was able to balance the charm and
charisma of the man while making his Machiavellian twists seem likeable. Eckhardt
had no recognisable star persona to confuse the audience, making him far more
credible as a charming but amoral lobbyist. Eckhardt did not have a franchise behind
him, he wasn’t a bankable star requiring millions of dollars but arguably the Bruce
Willises of this world would be hard pushed to successfully deliver the line, ‘You
know that guy who can score with any girl… I’m him… on crack’.

Without seeming smug or pompous, Eckhardt managed to get the audience behind
him while he justifies selling cigarettes to children. He managed to spin an inquiry on
tobacco related deaths around to the chairing senator’s own state’s Vermont Cheese
being a cause of heart disease and cholesterol without being seen as evil. If Reitman is
the driving force, then Eckhardt is the engine. The energy he brings to the part is
immense, taking every line and spinning it into a double meaning. The material is
well written but it takes an actor like Eckhardt to make it work.

Making Thank You For Smoking on a small budget with a first time director and
millionaire producer with no industry experience, but also no pre-conceived ideas and
using a protagonist who was recognisable but not a big name all played to the film’s
advantage. Eckhardt could be as outrageous as the script allowed and the expense of
the production was not a great risk (in Hollywood mega budget terms). It allowed a
certain freedom of movement which a star driven vehicle would have had to curtail in
order to stay within risk-free limits. Sacks and Reitman were going for broke and
Eckhardt was willing to go the distance. Eckhardt and the other main actors clearly
had a lot of faith in the production as Reitman managed to persuade them to work for
basic pay in order to bring the film in within budget. Character actors like Sam Elliot
and JK Simmons filled minor roles with more gravitas than the parts really required
rounding out an already strong ensemble cast including Rob Lowe, Katie Holmes and
Maria Bello. Once completed the film was shown at the Toronto film festival in 2005
prompting this response:

‘Controversy also erupted after the film was screened at the Toronto Film
Festival. Thank You For Smoking was met with tremendous popular
reception and afterward disputed claims emerged as to who had signed a
distribution deal with Sacks. Fox Searchlight and Paramount Classics both
issued competing press releases claiming that they had secured rights for the
film’s distribution. Sacks later claimed that he never reached a firm deal with
Paramount, and noted that Fox Searchlight had offered $7 million for
distribution, while Paramount Classics offered $6.5 million’
What started here was reinforcement of the Soderbergh breakthrough back in 1989,
that an audience could be found for a left-of-mainstream ‘commercial-indie’ film
which allowed the audience to think for themselves – the message of Thank You For
Smoking is resolutely about freedom of choice – but it also manages to deliver the
content in a way which entertains without force-feeding education or politics. Fox
Searchlight has emerged as ‘the’ commercial-indie distributor, a position which has
helped to bring this type of film more assuredly into the multiplex cinemas. Since
they are backed by the parent company NewsCorp who also control 20th Century Fox,
Searchlight carry more industry weight with the majors than a truly art-house label
which means that they have the necessary influence to keep the mulitplex doors open
to commercial-indie product.

The success of Thank You For Smoking, though modest by usual multiplex standards,
has led to much more interest in films which challenge as well as entertain. That
interest has created a demand for more original product to be more widely available,
leading to even profit-hungry distributors to look more favourably on this type of
film, prompting more such product to be developed and so the cycle continues.
Reitman has also gained no small success from his debut, moving from Golden
Globes with this to Oscar Nominations with Up in the Air, not to mention box office
success eclipsing most of his own father’s own recent films. Although Reitman has
not set out to revolutionise Hollywood, and his films are not so subversive that they
are too risky to sell, they are invariably just different enough to be interesting
featuring subtle and nuanced characters and situations. While there is demand there is
profit, and if Reitman continues to insist on making films independent but accessible
we will all profit from his demands.

Bibliography

Biskind, P., Down and Dirty Pictures, London: Bloomsbury, 2005

Multiplex screening and UK http://screen.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/47/1/81

http://www.marklitwak.com/

http://boxofficemojo.com/yearly/chart/?yr=2006

http://www.the-movie-times.com/thrsdir/moviesofyear.mv?moviesof2006+ByTGross

Thank You For Smoking

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0427944/

Aaron Eckhardt
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0001173/

Up in the Air
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1193138/awards

Mamma Mia!
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0795421/
One Hour Photo
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0265459/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thank_You_for_Smoking

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jason_Reitman

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fox_Searchlight_Pictures

http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/films/news/boyle-reveals-slumdog-
millionaire-distribution-struggle-1331821.html