Tobacco Politics and the Film the Insider - Movie Review Example

Tobacco Politics: A Movie Review of the Film “The Insider” To describe the movie “The Insider” as a good versus evil parable is perhaps not the most accurate way to describe the compelling drama that looks into the concentric spheres of media, big business and the law and how it impacts on corporate America and the right of the public to information. The film is a complex commentary on tobacco politics – the power that tobacco corporations wield and their ability to control media outfits, the government, and even the lives of ordinary people. The film revolves around two people: Wigand, who was recently fired from a tobacco corporation, and Bergman, a veteran reporter in search of a story. The bombshell that Wigand holds in his possession is the information that Chief Executive Officers of tobacco corporations – The Big Seven – had known all along that tobacco was addictive but had concealed this information from the public. From there, the story unfolded masterfully – telling in gripping fashion how the influences of money and the legal system bore down on Wigand and Bergman, all in order to suppress the truth. Wigand was even the subject of extreme character assassination and despite his attempts to live a quiet life as a professor, was always followed by the story he chose to tell. He became the subject of death threats, the FBI was on his trail, his personal life was in disarray. In the meantime, a bigger context was unfolding. There was a lawsuit poised to be filed against the Big Seven in order to recover what the State paid in medical expenses to treat tobacco-related illnesses. Two legal concepts then emerged from the movie. The first one is the concept of tortuous interference – which basically means that if two parties have an agreement, and a third party induces a party privy to and bound by that agreement to break that agreement, that third party may be made liable for damages. That legal concept is used in connect to the confidential agreement, which is the second legal concept featured in this movie. In the film, Wigand was bound by an iron-clad confidentiality agreement that he was made to sign with his former company. The movie then forces its viewers to reflect: are there limits to a confidentiality agreement? What happens when a confidentiality agreement comes into conflict with public welfare, public health, or even simply the right of the public to know? It is important to situate the movie against the larger social backdrop on which it operates. The movie came out in the late 1990’s – a period in history when tobacco politics had reached a crucial juncture. It was at this period that the impunity of the tobacco firms to lawsuit had ended and for the first time, they were being held liable for the addictive consequences of cigarettes. How dangerous really is tobacco? As early as 1964, the U.S. Surgeon General had come out with a landmark report that spoke of the dangers of smoking on one’s health and issued a categorical statement against its use and its spread. In an article, it was stated that: Each year three million people around the world die from tobacco-related illnesses. In the US, tobacco kills more than 400,000 people each year, and medical care for tobacco-related illnesses costs $50 billion annually. The World Health Organization projects that the yearly death toll from tobacco will rise to 10 million by the 2020swith seven million of those deaths striking economically poor countries. Of the one million US teens hooked each year on cigarettes, one-third or more will eventually die from tobacco-related illnesses. If current trends continue, over 200 million of todays children and teenagers around the world will lose their lives to this addictive product. (InFact: 1997) Despite these findings, the tobacco corporations have won every single legal battle against attempts to hold them accountable for putting public health in jeopardy. It is said that Philip Morris and other tobacco corporations spend billions in US dollars annually to promote cigarettes, some advertisements even targeting children. However, it was in the mid-1990s when industry documents came out demonstrating that tobacco companies had known about the addictive effects of cigarette smoking from the start and are thus liable for the tobacco-related illnesses that have been caused. It was also in the mid-1990s when the State of Mississippi sued tobacco firms so that it may be reimbursed for what it spent in treating victims of tobacco illnesses. The federal government followed suit when, in a surprising move that shocked big business, former President Clinton also sued the companies to recover expenses spent by the federal government. The Clinton government said that the money would be used to beef up federal health care. In the first class suit for second hand smoke, more than 300 flight attendants sued for tobacco-related illnesses as a result of second hand smoke from smoking passengers. Philip Morris settled to the tune of $349 million. Also, in another suit that focused on minority groups, plaintiffs who come from black communities filed a suit based on civil right statutes. It was a first time that civil rights was invoked against tobacco firms. (Barbera: 2000). This period of the late 1990’s also was the height of the excessive spending of tobacco companies. In a commentary, it was stated: The tobacco industry offers a compelling case study in the breakdown of democratic principles. Facing Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulation of their deadly product in the US, tobacco giants Philip Morris and RJR Nabisco set the pace for the spending frenzy of 1996. Philip Morris was the #1 contributor overall in the federal election cycle, and spent over $12 million to lobby federal officials in just the first six months of the election year. RJR Nabisco was a top corporate donor, especially of unregulated "soft" money, and is a pioneer in "astroturf" lobbying to rally its consumers behind the corporate agenda. We can therefore see that the film is not purely fiction, but was meant to reflect the prevailing circumstances during the time, wherein tobacco companies where facing one lawsuit after another and public consciousness was beginning to galvanize around holding tobacco executives liable for smoking addiction and smoking-related illnesses. Of course, many did not agree and said that states were more interested in raising revenues than in tobacco control. (Derthrick: 2005). Beyond that, it must also be stated that the film is a searing commentary on the law and how it is used to protect the interests of big business, and protect existing power arrangements. The use of a legal concept “tortuous interference” – meant to protect innocent parties to a contract from fraud and to uphold the sanctity of contractual relations – was used as a cynical mechanism to promote fear and to intimidate those who want to speak out against the evils of big business and the machinations of profit. Moreover, the notion of “confidentiality” was also given a cynical spin – instead of confidentiality in order to promote business confidence and to protect transactions, confidentiality became the means by which important information can be withheld from the public. The film did show some of the challenges being faced by legal actors, in that they were torn between doing what is right and protecting the interests of their client – an eternal dilemma that always faces the lawyer, especially those who work in the corporate arena and swim with the big sharks. There was a tendency towards stereotyping: showing legal professionals as cold, cynical and heartless individuals in the service of profit and capital. Ultimately, it is a realistic account of the realities that the legal system is facing. It is indeed difficult to assert the rights of ordinary citizens and the primary need to promote and protect their welfare. Indeed, big business does cast a big shadow on the legal profession and many legal professionals find themselves at the behest of these corporations if they want to stay in the game. In the end, however, this movie is not just about the legal profession, or about the media, or even about the tobacco industry. It is about how power and money affects the lives of people, how it controls relationships, how it determines who does what to whom. It speaks of the pressures that bear upon those who want to do good in an arena where everything is motivated by money and power and influence. If there is a lesson that this movie requires us to bear in mind it is that change can only happen when one man decides to be brave enough to tell his story for the world to hear. When the former tobacco employee who only wanted to be a professor and live a quiet life, gambled away that quiet life in order for the truth to come out, his is a story that the world must listen to and learn from. It also teaches us that the law is not a stable firmament, an unmalleable rock that cannot be manipulated at will. It can be manipulated by whoever has the power and the resources – even at the risk of public health. REFERENCES Barbera, F. (2000). “A Tobacco Lawsuit Primer.” Slate Magazine. Available at http://www.slate.com/id/1005187/ Derthrick, M. (2005) “From Legislation to Litigation in Tobacco Politics.” Washington DC: CQ Press. InFact. (1997). “The Tobacco Industry: How Corporate Influence Kills”. Available at http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=3995 Read More