Where partisanship goes up in smoke

The film “Thank You for Smoking” quite purposefully can’t be pinned down to any specific political viewpoint: In the current climate of extreme partisan tension, that refusal in and of itself is a somewhat subversive maneuver, as the film bobs and weaves to lay hits on both sides of the issue.

It’s part of an emerging sensibility, perhaps best evinced by the blogosphere and “The Daily Show With Jon Stewart” -- where people are so tired of what comes from both sides of the aisle that rather than take sides there is an attitude more along the lines of “a pox on both your houses.”

Based on the 1994 novel by Christopher Buckley -- a former speechwriter for George H.W. Bush and the son of conservative commentator William F. Buckley Jr. -- the film has been adapted for the screen and directed by Jason Reitman, son of filmmaker Ivan Reitman, who had a hand in such pictures as “Animal House” and “Stripes.”

The story of “Smoking” concerns Nick Naylor (portrayed with alternating layers of smarm and charm by Aaron Eckhart), a spokesman for the tobacco industry, as he navigates the “moral flexibility” such a job requires while also attempting to be a more involved and responsible father. There is also the matter of an attempt on his life, fighting to hang onto his job and the wily female reporter who beds Nick to pry loose his secrets.

“The compliment the book always got,” explained Reitman on a recent afternoon, “which I thought was wonderful, was Democrats always thought it was theirs and Republicans always thought it was theirs. Like all good satire, the book was a mirror. And that’s why I think ‘The Daily Show’ works so well. It doesn’t feel like it’s coming from one way or the other, it’s ridiculing both, and hopefully the film does the same thing.”

Indeed, from corporate spokespeople to self-serving senators to Hollywood agents to ambitious journalists, no one comes off looking particularly good in “Thank You for Smoking,” a boisterous, biting satire that bridges the gap between Hollywood and Washington both on-screen and off.

According to Buckley, that ideological obfuscation was behind the book as well.

“I’m often asked,” said Buckley, “is this an anti-smoking book, and my answer is, ‘It’s not really about smoking, it’s about other things.’ The book was written in ‘92-’93 and came out in ‘94, which was kind of the high-water mark of PC. So I think in a deeper sense that’s what it’s about. I don’t think people respond to it because it takes one position over the other on smoking. It’s more about being in a culture that became at some point overbearingly moralistic about decisions that should really be personal.”

Although it is risky to use the life of a father to frame the work of a son, there is something especially telling that this scathing portrait of the contemporary culture of public relations and political correctness comes from a fiftysomething scion of Washington and a twentysomething offspring of Hollywood.

Not for nothing do Buckley and Reitman agree that Reitman’s major change in adapting the novel was in amplifying Naylor’s relationship to his son and using that as the prism through which to observe Nick’s life as the “sultan of spin.”

As fun as the film can be -- it opened Friday in Los Angeles and New York and will open wider this weekend -- it ultimately presents a rather dispiriting portrait of where we are regarding the moral compass of our culture. Eckhart’s performance is driven by his character’s ability to remain tenaciously on-message regardless of circumstances, giving the film a cocky charge that comes from winning if not always being in the right. Throughout, Naylor rationalizes his job trumpeting the corporate practices of the tobacco industry with what is labeled the “yuppie Nuremberg defense,” that he is simply trying to cover his mortgage.

There is perhaps a slight echo of this when Reitman subtly backpedals away from the issues of the film to refashion himself as a humble jester.

“In the end I was making a comedy,” he said, “so I was less interested in how to align the film politically and more concerned with how to adapt this book so it’s still funny and joyous on-screen. For me it’s not an agenda movie, it’s not supposed to be hitting you over the head. It’s a reaction to agenda movies like ‘A Civil Action’ and ‘The Insider’ and ‘Erin Brockovich,’ which are pushing politics.

“We’ve had a few reviewers feel that because the film is neither Republican nor Democrat somehow we were trying to play it safe. It’s the opposite. We’re saying that both sides are ridiculous; both sides are trying to tell you how to live. This film is a comedy that’s reacting to that.”

Reitman has a background in making short films and commercials, and it shows in his sense of brisk, efficient pacing, his way with a visual joke, and the slick but not soulless feel of everything. Bright and upbeat, the film is somewhat like meeting someone who smiles, shakes your hand and takes your wallet.

Eckhart perfectly captures this attitude and lays bare the difficult ethical compromises that have become such a troublingly commonplace part of contemporary life. In an era when advertisements bombard the masses from all available surfaces and devices, where the slippery semantics of insurgent/freedom fighter/terrorist have become paramount and perception has become the coin of the realm, it is tougher than ever to get at that ineluctable idea of the real truth.

“He’s teaching his son to be an independent thinker, which is not often thought of as a Hollywood value,” Reitman said. “The Hollywood value would be for the father to tell the son, ‘You shouldn’t smoke.’ It’s far more independent and unique when a father teaches his son about spin, making his son battle-ready. If you know you’re being spun to, the spin is useless.”