Thank You For Smoking: Book vs. Movie

So I just finished reading the book Thank You For Smoking by Christopher Buckley. Having been a huge fan of the movie, I went out of my way to make sure I could get this book. After reading it, I am kind of mixed in my reaction.

Ok, right at the start. to state my biases, I really enjoyed the movie, having seen it before reading the book. Generally, I tend to like books rather than movies (the notable exception being Lord of the Rings just because even for me, those books take way, WAY too long to read).

1) I loved the movie. The ending with the whole Congressional hearing is awesome. This scene is not really in the book so I have to give credit to Jason Reitman, the screenwriter/director.

2) Many of the best lines from the movie were actually in the book. I like this because it shows that while different, the book is still grounded in the source material. (For an opposite example, look no further than the Tom Clancy novel turned movie Sum of all Fears. Somehow, Middle Eastern terrorists became Neo-Nazis. Can we say "Politically Correct" class?) In some cases, as in the hearing scene, the lines are used to greater effect.

3) Reitman created a whole different approach with the movie based on Nick being seen through the eyes of his son. In the book, Nick is on a journey and I actually don't really care for his destination. This time, the movie ending influenced my belief on how the book should have ended.

4) The book has a major subplot on Nick's kidnapping. I guess I just didn't feel satisfied with the way that was resolved. While it was in the style of the rest of the book, I guess it could have been better. Thankfully, most of this was dropped for the movie as it would have caused an unnecessary distraction. (This is one of the few times I agree with dropping a subplot.) There are also other condensing changes in the movie from the book, a good example being Sen. Finisterre being the antagonist of everything rather than how the book splits up Nick's fights into one with the Surgeon General and another with the Senator.

5) The book used real people like Oprah and her show as a fictional device based on reality to help tell the story. The movie changed this to the Joan Lunden show. Not being a big fan of Oprah (or Larry King, who is in the book but replaced by Dennis Miller for the film), I liked having lesser stars in the movie version. I just don't think it would have actually had the same movie impact if they had stayed with Oprah rather than Joan Lunden. That comes down to my personal preference, but also the fact that, from the movie version of herself, I see Lunden as a little more open-minded than her royal highness of "Talk, talk, give away a price, talk, maybe a break for the guest to talk, host talking again" Oprah Winfrey.

Overall, I have to admit I liked the movie better, which is odd for me. Partly, I think it is because the movie is a satire, but one with the emphasis on the idea of "spin." The book is based on the idea of Nick Naylor's life, how he lives, what he thinks, how he changes, that kind of thing. Hopefully, without spoiling the ending of the book, it just did not live up to how I wanted it to end. The movie has a better ending. Also, again being careful, the ending of the book is mainly about the subplot that is cut from the movie. Comparing the two, Nick is one person at the end of the movie staying true to what he was throughout the film, a likable spokesperson for death, while the book took a few weird twists that made me view Nick differently, which I really did not care for. In this case, I would have to argue that Reitman's ending flowed more naturally and fit better with the character created throughout the film while the book character underwent changes that at times put him at odds with his earlier self. That I didn't care for in the book. In the film, by focusing on Nick being the lobbyist and how he is seen by his son, Reitman makes Nick into the good guy. That isn't the same type of reaction the book is trying to get across. And being who I am, I have to say I liked how Nick was portrayed in the movie rather than his more complex portrayal in the book. Ultimately, that is what it comes down. I looked up to Nick in the movie, but minus the parts where the two are the same, I don't think I can say the same thing for the book's version of Nick.

So, would I recommend either to someone? I most definitely would recommend watching the movie. It is honestly one of my favorites. I would hesitate to tell someone to read the book. I guess I would recommend the book if you haven't seen the movie yet. But if you have seen the movie, unless you want to see the differences between book and film, don't bother with the book, especially if you are not a reading-type of person.