Super-Sized Responsibility

The two films I wish to discuss and analyze are Jason Reitman’s Thank You for Smoking and Morgan Spurlock’s Super Size Me. After viewing each of these two films I felt compelled to ponder what seemed to be an elementary question, yet one that remains unanswered in society today. Why is the smoking industry scrutinized to a level that is not even remotely on the same playing field as that of the fast food industry? I certainly understand the inherent desire for humans to attack an industry, in big tobacco, that results in the premature deaths of 400,000 Americans per year primarily to lung cancer, but the truth is that obesity related deaths are not far off from this as it results in about 300,000 deaths each year in the United States. The lack of attention that this receives in comparison is truly shocking.

While the two films drastically differ in the style and approach that they take, both derive the same message about the horrors of their respective industries. Thank You for Smoking takes a satirical approach as it follows around the smooth-talking, lady-killer Nick Naylor whose main focus in life is to put a positive twist on big tobacco, no matter how it is achieved. While generally a likable character, Nick Naylor, played by actor Aaron Eckhart, is supposed to reveal how conniving and deceptive big tobacco companies and their representatives are in the face of the public. On the other side of the spectrum we have Super Size Me, which is a documentary that follows around Morgan Spurlock as he eats nothing but McDonalds for an entire month, consuming every item on the menu at least one time. 

The documentary watches Spurlock transform as his diet progresses. After the one-month experimental period, Spurlock tacked on over 24 pounds, had his cholesterol reach about 230 (a cholesterol of 240 is considered extremely dangerous to one’s health), and experienced other hindrances to his life such as erectile dysfunction and severe mood swings. Both films end up conveying a message to the audience that these two industries are simply killing machines, but more importantly that every person has the choice and ability to make wiser decisions. In Thank You for Smoking there is a scene where Naylor is on a talk show next to a little boy with terminal cancer, and by the end of the show Naylor has the entire audience applauding the efforts of big tobacco in securing a healthy future for America’s youth. This scene in particular plays on the fact that persuading people in this country is quite easy, as long as you have the right image and the right words to go along with it. 

In Super Size Me, Spurlock is forcing this diet upon himself, while thousands of people do this willingly each and every day. The FDA has now placed warning labels on cigarette packages warning consumers about the dangers of smoking. Why then are warning labels not placed on all Big Macs and Quarter Pounders? If obesity kills 300,000 Americans each year, it would seem relevant to incite education on the dangers of unhealthy eating. Overall, the two films relate well to each other because of their focus on industries that blatantly kill millions of people worldwide each year. Obesity and tobacco work together to trigger heart disease, the number one cause of death in the United States. Not only that, but fast food has been deemed addictive and physically harmful just as cigarettes are. A clear distinction between the two, however, is that food is a necessity of life, while cigarettes are most surely just a vice. While this is true, it appears that there is a fundamental lack of education regarding the dangers of unhealthy eating, and all Americans are soon to pay the price for this if nothing is done to mitigate this calamity.

Of course, with the arrival of arguments against a particular industry, one must be wary of the sources said arguments arise from.  Although the main characters in the two respective films seem to be strongly different in their moral grounding, they use many of the same tactics in lobbying their point.  Both characters focus viewers, either real or movie based, solely on a particular subject.  The powerful vocational practices of both characters, in combination with clever filmmaking in one case, give viewers tunnel vision on the intended subject.  It is Naylor’s job to pull the public’s eye away from the deaths and disease that tobacco is known to cause.  In the movie, he has the backing of his shady research company to provide questionable findings about the health risks of smoking cigarettes.  

While these findings are helpful to Naylor’s arguments, it is his ability to focus the public’s eye on personal choice that wins him so many arguments, and basically the movie itself.  By admitting to the dangers of smoking tobacco at the end of the film, Naylor both strengthens his arguments and saves face in the eyes of the film’s audience.  Even when working for big tobacco, Naylor’s main argument is that personal choice is the most important factor in any action.  He even states that he would allow his son to smoke cigarettes, which he has admitted are harmful, if his son truly desired to do so.  Naylor is fighting in support of an industry that causes death and suffering.  Such a cause gives instant bias for viewers against Eckhart’s character.  At the conclusion of the film it is difficult to tell how exactly Naylor is portrayed.  Although he actively supported a death dealing company, showing no remorse, he stood by his core values and one the films main debate using his beliefs.  For a man who was shown bribing a cancer victim to make it back to possibly even the public’s eye is quite an achievement.  It speaks to Naylor’s solid foundations as well as the power of arguments for personal choice.  Even if a person believes companies should be held more responsible, and many of them should, it is hard to push for a completely one-sided state of responsibility.  Thank You for Smoking illustrates that big tobacco is to blame for hundreds of thousands of deaths each year in the U.S. alone, while simultaneous reminding its viewers that personal choice remains real and important.

Both films lay out arguments against a particular subject, and their techniques for doing so are actually quite similar.  Spurlock attacks the fast food industry with the same style Naylor used to defend big tobacco, by focusing the viewers’ attention on one topic and one topic only.  Spurlock is merciless in his assault on fast food, using filming techniques to amplify the terrible image of U.S. obesity.  Although obesity is a huge problem that does not receive the attention it deserves, one must always be wary of where the driving forces for public outcry over such a sensitive subject are coming from.  

Spurlock presents his film as a documentary, when in reality the picture is far from that definition in terms of its presentation of information.  Fast food and fat people are filmed in such a way as to maximize the negative feelings regarding such topics.  Spurlock throws in shots of himself feelings sick, and literally being sick for no reason other than to elicit an emotional response from the film’s viewers.  A documentary should seek to present its topic in as fair and unbiased of a light as possible.  Super Size Me does just the opposite, as the entire film is emotionally charged against any form of fast food.  A background check on Spurlock continues to shine a harsh light on his possible intentions for making the film.  As it turns out Spurlock used to run a television program titled “I Bet You Will”, in which contestants would perform gross stunts for monetary gain.  In a particularly clarifying episode, a girl shaved her head, combined the hair with butter, and then ate it (Walker).  Spurlock is doing the exact same thing with his movie Super Size Me; it is simply hidden under the guise of a documentary in support of a good cause.  

Rather than some girl, Spurlock is now the star, and he engages in an equal gross quest in order to raise public awareness as well as to fatten his own pockets.  Although Spurlock gains weight and become unhealthy from eating nothing but fast food for 30 days, the films gives the viewer no insight into what Spurlock was doing for the remaining time in that 30-day span.  As it turns out Spurlock was exercising minimally, ignoring an important part of staying healthy with any type of diet.  It is unclear how many Americans did not already believe that eating fatty foods, in combination with a no exercise regimen, will make a person unhealthy.  Spurlock also consumes a quantity of food that a doctor actively recommends he not ingest, while giving no outlines for what exactly he is eating each meal of each day.  The lack of a clear-cut regiment makes the fast food experiment far from scientific in its approach.  Although the movie certainly does a good job in pushing U.S. support against fast food institutions, the film does not adhere by enough of a methodology to make it worth anything in terms of facts produced.  Fast food is likely a poor dietary choice, and regulation may need to be implemented in this market and many others, but one must always be wary of where information is coming from and how it is being portrayed.

Work Cited

Walker, Aaron. "The Truth about the Film Super Size Me & Morgan Spurlock." Tech Central Station. Tech Central Station. Web. 27 Feb 2013. <http://multivu.prnewswire.com/mnr/tcs/12210/>.