Editore"s Note
Tilting at Windmills

Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

April 14, 2006
By: Kevin Drum

THANK YOU FOR SMOKING....In the course of a column about how Hollywood is wrong to portray conservatives as nasty and unpleasant they can actually be very jovial people if you get to know them! Jonah Goldberg comments about the movie Thank You for Smoking:

The refreshing thing about "Thank You for Smoking" is that the most likable character is the most "evil" by liberal standards at least. Tobacco lobbyist Nick Naylor, played by Aaron Eckhart, is a charming rogue who loves his son and doesn't apologize for his line of work. He never "sees the light" at the end of the movie, as Michael Douglas does in "Falling Down" when he realizes that, as an angry white male, he actually must be the villain.

That is sort of weird, and what makes it weirder is that in the book Naylor does see the light and eventually ends up working for an anti-smoking organization called Clean Lungs 2000. Basically, then, the conservative author of the book (Christopher Buckley, son of William F.) portrayed the tobacco lobby as evil and allowed his hero to see the light at the end of the day, while in supposedly liberal Hollywood the screenwriter (Jason Reitman, son of Ivan) portrayed the smoking lobby as just another industry group and not only kept the hero in his job, but allowed him to earn the love of his young son for doing so. I don't know if that's refreshing, but it's definitely odd.

And for what it's worth, the main defect of the movie isn't the changed ending, it's the young son, who takes all the air out of the pointed satire of the book and turns it into a treacly morality tale. This was very much an adult story written for adults, and why Reitman felt like he had to introduce a cute little kid into the story is beyond me. Who does he think he is, Steven Spielberg?

POSTSCRIPT: Lest I sound too critical, the movie was actually pretty good. Not as good as the book, and sort of uneven, but it had some funny scenes and it's worth seeing.

Kevin Drum 12:18 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (51)

Bookmark and Share
 
Comments

Well, you didn't think Jonah actually read the book, did you?

Posted by: Quaker in a Basement on April 14, 2006 at 12:23 PM | PERMALINK

So does Jonah think that Douglas should feel like a hero at the end of Falling Down?

To be honest, if Falling Down was a critique on the conservative white male, it was pretty forgiving, all things considered. The film had a lot of sympathy for Douglas's character, and the character himself lacked the racist/anti-immigrant component that you'd expect to see if you wanted to see a movie disparaging angry white men.

In fact, Falling Down seemed to be saying "It's alright to be super-pissed off about your lot in life, just don't shoot anybody", which, I think, lets Angry White Male off pretty freaking easily, all things considered.

That said, the golf cart scene still makes me laugh.

Posted by: Royko on April 14, 2006 at 12:30 PM | PERMALINK


I still can't understand how this movie got made. It should have died back in the PC wars of the mid-nineties. Honestly, who gives a damn about sympathetic tobacco lobbyists?

File in the nostalgia bin along with the Backstreet Boys and Michael Kelly's stirring "I believe" oration.

Posted by: theo on April 14, 2006 at 12:35 PM | PERMALINK

The book was great. Why did Buckley allow them to change the ending? weird...

Posted by: Edo on April 14, 2006 at 12:56 PM | PERMALINK

Is Kevin angling for a job on the Corner? Why does he make so many references to the nerds there, especially Jonah?

Looking at Jonah Liciannes's article early in the morning in the LAT is punishment enough for this liberal.

Posted by: lib on April 14, 2006 at 12:57 PM | PERMALINK

He never "sees the light" at the end of the movie, as Michael Douglas does in "Falling Down" when he realizes that, as an angry white male, he actually must be the villain.

I think this is true in part because anyone dumb enough to claim even as early as the mid-60s that he didn't understand that smoking was both addictive and bad for your health had no right to anyone's sympathy when dying of lung cancer or emphysema in the 1980s.

Posted by: Jeff II on April 14, 2006 at 1:01 PM | PERMALINK

I was surprised that the movie was made, although I did enjoy it. Its content isn't all that shocking, even though we're supposed to be shocked. The book had it easier, coming out as it did in 1994, when we weren't as jaded by the antics of amoral creatures in Washington. The past dozen years have been a nonstop parade of crooked businessmen, influence-peddling lobbyists, and corrupt politicians. (Thanks, Newt! Thanks, George!) That may be why the movie discarded the book's "happy ending" and decided to stretch for some final edginess. It doesn't quite work. Okay, Nick Naylor loves his kid and preaches about parental responsibility, but he's a tobacco-pushing sleaze merchant.

Still, I don't think anyone leaves the movie suddenly converted to the idea that smoking is cool, even in Sector Six.

Posted by: Zeno on April 14, 2006 at 1:01 PM | PERMALINK

So is Jonah Goldberg implying that conservatives are pro-smoking? And pro-big-tobacco?

Do they really want to run on that? I thought they were conveniently trying to forget any conservatives had ever had anything to do with the tobacco lobby.

Posted by: brooksfoe on April 14, 2006 at 1:03 PM | PERMALINK

What really is going on behind this seemingly counterintuitive use of a tobacco lobbyist as the "hero" of the movie?

That even in the most exclusive preserve of liberal sentiment, Hollywood, there is something that bridles against the strictures of Political Correctness.

A point worth thinking about.

Posted by: frankly0 on April 14, 2006 at 1:10 PM | PERMALINK

My husband went to high school with the director, went to his bar mitzvah and everything. I gotta ask him his take on the movie and the guy. But from my impression of the whole scene of hollywood rich kids that I have met through my hubby, this seems right up their ally - like morality is for suckers, nobody tells us what to do, political correctness is so hard on us poor oppressed rich white guys. Blech.

Posted by: J.B. on April 14, 2006 at 1:17 PM | PERMALINK

his seems right up their ally - like morality is for suckers, nobody tells us what to do, political correctness is so hard on us poor oppressed rich white guys. Blech. Posted by: J.B.

I think you are thinking too much. The director didn't write the story. He just had the sense to see that the book would make a good movie. Jason Reitman is second generation Hollywood, as it were.

Posted by: Jeff II on April 14, 2006 at 1:34 PM | PERMALINK

I still can't understand how this movie got made. It should have died back in the PC wars of the mid-nineties. Honestly, who gives a damn about sympathetic tobacco lobbyists?

Well, if they can make a ton of money off an awful movie like Jerry MacGuire about an Agent with a heart of gold, why not a lobbyist?

Posted by: Martin on April 14, 2006 at 1:36 PM | PERMALINK

Political Correctness is a myth, often invoked as an excuse to be an asshole. It's a cheap-ass way of trying to avoid an argument.

"It might be politically incorrect to say X, but damn if X isn't true!" means "Few people believe X (or most people find X to be offensive). They are wrong, but I don't have any way to explain why. Ergo, I'll simply state my opinion and when you argue I will accuse you of being 'PC'".

It's basically just a 90s version of "Have you stopped beating your wife yet?"

Posted by: Morat on April 14, 2006 at 1:38 PM | PERMALINK

Other reasons why Jonah Pantyload Pantywaist is a douche:

1) He declares that there had been no great Hollywood movies about D.C. until "Thank you for Smoking." He missed: "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington," and "All the President's Men," and that's just off the top of my head. What a douche.

2) "Thank You For Smoking," while entertaining, ultimately doesn't work because there is no conflict and no resolution, and no one changes. That's why you need the protagonist to "see the light." Not to make a political point, but to make it a complete story.

Why does he have a column again?

Posted by: bobbo on April 14, 2006 at 1:46 PM | PERMALINK

I thought the point the screenwriter was making was that there is a difference between "nice" and "good"? It's far more subversive, and far more important.

And, frankly, it's unsurprising that Buckley wrote that book--it works very well to conservatives' advantage to encourage people to believe their first impressions, (the charming guy will be redeemed, deep down he's a good guy!). This is because the people who conservatives represent in Congress are the people we as a society have the most positive stereotypes about.

Posted by: theorajones on April 14, 2006 at 1:51 PM | PERMALINK

I didn't think the movie made the main character a hero; he's very likable, but still decidedly amoral and sleazy. And it's not really any easier on the tobacco lobby than the book was, especially since they preserved the part where Naylor tries to bribe the ex-Marlboro Man. His boss is still an asshole, and they still peddle junk science.

Where the movie goes against conventional liberal doctrine, at least the sort exemplified by Rob Reiner, is in emphasizing the absurdity of this debate and making the government just as sleazy as the lobbyists. I didn't remember the senator being as prominent a character in the book (where he's an obvious parody of Kennedy), and in the movie he's the main villain. Naylor is as much of a creation of the government as of the tobacco companies. Presenting the issue as a choice between amoral drug peddlers and sanctimonious busybodies isn't what I expected from Hollywood, and it was sort of refreshing.

Personally, I really liked the movie, and not just because I agreed with the politics; it was pretty consistently funny and managed not to be too preachy like South Park has become. I saw it with two friends who are left-leaning but completely apolitical, and they both loved it.

Posted by: Nat on April 14, 2006 at 2:06 PM | PERMALINK

Is Thank You For Smoking a movie with conservative values? I am not entirely convinced. In my city, it was the Republicans who started the Smoking Ban Bandwagon--and the Democrats who opposed it. If you examine the voting records of the legislators from my state, you would discover that the conservatives don't differ from the liberals when it comes to anti-smoking legislation. And isn't policing personal behavior more of a conservative schtick than a liberal one?

Second, I don't think that Michael Douglas was the villian in Falling Down because he was an "angry white male". He was a villan more because of the fact that he killed people. I know that's splitting hairs, but then folicle cleavage is pretty much the point of a comments page isn't it?

Posted by: duck duck goose on April 14, 2006 at 2:14 PM | PERMALINK

The reason for all the anomalies you mention (conservative author, liberal producer, conservative protagonist), Kevin, is that there is no liberal Hollywood conspiracy, except to entertain people and make money.

Posted by: kth on April 14, 2006 at 2:35 PM | PERMALINK

So Jonah thinks that only "liberals" consider big tobacco evil. Sometimes I wonder if these soft almost-intellectuals have any beliefs at all or if they just react to everything as it comes along from a vast pool of hurt feelings. (Or as Wolcott would have it, from a pool of their own nocturnal urine.)

More and more, they remind me of Fred Leuchter, the guy in Errol Morris' "Mr Death" -- not an actual Nazi but so happy to be liked by someone, anyone, he's willing to say the most ridiculous things in public just to get their approval.

Oh, and Maria Bello is so hot.

Posted by: Kenji on April 14, 2006 at 2:43 PM | PERMALINK

Yes, kth, exactly.

The Hollywood formulation is pretty much just like that of the Mainstream Media in general: a mixed bunch of fairly creative people of various political stripes, leaning slightly to the left mainly because of lifestyle more than deep-seated values, overseen by conservative bosses who just worry about the bottom line. Hate go all Frank Capra on your asses, but isn't that America in a nutshell?

Posted by: Kenji on April 14, 2006 at 2:55 PM | PERMALINK

I never read the book. The topic seemed a bit stale for 2006, but there were alot of big laughs ("It's cool, it's available, and it's addictive -- the job's half-done for you").

The ending was pretty much the libertarian's wet dream -- smoking is bad, but we fight to the death for everyone's right to kill themselves that way. And, as many have said, the Bill Macy character is an asshole as well taking an extreme position.

The worst part of the movie? The idea that a savvy operator like Naylor would spill all that info just because he was screwing a reporter. Naive stuff.

Posted by: demtom on April 14, 2006 at 2:57 PM | PERMALINK

Yes, the whole Katie Holms plot was naff. I blame Scientology. And the "balance" part was predicated on the fact that Macy's character was a dweeb. If he was cool guy, the whole dynamic would fall apart, and for satire, that's just too fragile.

Posted by: Kenji on April 14, 2006 at 3:08 PM | PERMALINK

I haven't seen the movie or read the book, but that alteration sounds like exactly the kind of thing that would happen in Hollywood, which spends most of its' time pandering to social conservative personality defects.

I would be wrong in that in this case though if the movie allows the impression at the end that this kind of person is irredemably evil and will persist in corrupting society with little care or regard for the consequences, which is what these people are like in life.

Posted by: cld on April 14, 2006 at 3:35 PM | PERMALINK

It's been a long time since I saw Falling Down, but my recollection is that Douglas shouted disbelievingly "I'm the bad guy!?" He didn't realize it, he denied it.

Posted by: trilobite on April 14, 2006 at 3:39 PM | PERMALINK

I actually think the movie solved a problem that had the book fizzling out in the final third - it's all very fizzy and satirical but Buckley seems to lose the courage of his character's convictions, and pastes on false uplift for Naylor who sees the light about the evils of his profession. Too easy. I like the film better for saying that Naylor doesn't have an epiphany (or not a PC, expected epiphany) but stays true to who he is - a rather amoral sales type who just needs to go where the action is... the point, after all - which, no surprise, Jonah Goldberg misses completely - is that Nick says he's getting out of tobacco while the getting is good, because the tobacco settlement eliminates the need for his job, i.e. trying to convince the gullible that "cancer" doesn't mean, well, cancer. That's not, as Jonah tries to imply, a suggestion that what the world needs - or needed - was less government intervention, unless you're just so myopic about the role of govt. in public health that you'd overlook every shred of evidence about the problems with smoking.

In that same vein, I thought the kid was a hoot - this wasn't a soppy, sweet kid who wanted dad to be a better person; this is the kid who wants his dad to be the best of himself, successful, a winner. He's proudest of his dad (and conversely, dad is proud of him) because he makes almost anything sound palatable and succeeds. The kid, after all, manages to guilt his mom with every evil kid-of-divorce play imaginable ("You wouldn't do that if I wasn't a pawn between you and dad." Priceless). And if you don't think that's what kids in that situation do, ask around.

I thought Thank You for Smoking was one of the best films I've seen, and one of the sharpest satires ever. And Rob Lowe's screamingly funny take on an agent (and Adam Brody's equally hilarious assistant) make up for the truly awful aftertaste of Katie Holmes' dim, robotic performance. I'd highly recommend it.

Posted by: weboy on April 14, 2006 at 3:39 PM | PERMALINK

I don't think that Michael Douglas was the villian in Falling Down because he was an "angry white male". He was a villan more because of the fact that he killed people.

Duck Duck Goose: Now, I haven't watched "Falling Down" recently, but as I recall, the only person we're really sure Michael Douglas actually kills in the movie is the really nasty, really racist, really homophobic Frederick Forrest character, the owner of the Army-Navy store, which is cute since Douglas is an out-of-work defense industry nerd. (He certainly beats the crap out of some gun-dealing gang members, too, but the death toll is unclear.) Yes, he does scare the scat out of a lot of people, and he wings Robert Duvall's female partner, but Douglas is not the slaughterer that, say, the average tobacco executive is.

Posted by: Grace Nearing on April 14, 2006 at 3:58 PM | PERMALINK

Political Correctness is a myth, often invoked as an excuse to be an asshole.

Political Correctness is a myth?

Please.

And the thing is, there are assholes on BOTH sides of the Political Correctness divide. Yes, there are assholes who use the "This may be politically incorrect, but..." ploy to excuse their assholiness. But there are also assholes who use Political Correctness to lord it over people, and to go self-righteous on their asses. There are a lot of people with evil and ugliness in their hearts for whom Political Correctness is the banner under which they wage their war on people they regard as inferior.

Posted by: frankly0 on April 14, 2006 at 4:25 PM | PERMALINK

Political Correctness is a myth, often invoked as an excuse to be an asshole.

The term politically incorrect is itself often just a PC term for asshole.

Posted by: Irony Man on April 14, 2006 at 4:57 PM | PERMALINK

No offense--- but would you fuck nuggets stop giving away the ending of movies--- even via an excerpt? Christ.

Posted by: Amur on April 14, 2006 at 5:01 PM | PERMALINK

Amur-
Bruce Willis is dead but doesn't know it, soylent green is people, the chick in The Crying Game is a dude, and the humans blew the earth up and left it to the apes.

Posted by: bobbo on April 14, 2006 at 5:16 PM | PERMALINK

Amur -- Don't forget Rosebud!

Posted by: Kenji on April 14, 2006 at 5:51 PM | PERMALINK

Kevin, how much veracity should one put into any piece of work by Jonah Goldberg (who's a serious piece of work, himself)?

Well, for starters, consider the fact that he earned his position the old-fashioned, tried-and-true GOP way -- by relying on his mother, renowned Clinton-hating media whore Lucianne Goldberg, to open doors for him.

Please, don't waste any more of your (and our) precious time by commenting on this closet case's partisan drivel like its something to be taken seriously.

Posted by: Donald from Hawaii on April 14, 2006 at 7:48 PM | PERMALINK

Oh and Liam Neeson dies at the end.

Posted by: beowulf on April 14, 2006 at 7:50 PM | PERMALINK

Amur: Don't read articles about movies you haven't seen yet. It will always end badly.

Posted by: Zeno on April 14, 2006 at 7:50 PM | PERMALINK

Amur -- the main character was finally crucified by the Romans for pissing off the Pharisees onew too many times in Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ.

Posted by: Circular Firing Squad on April 14, 2006 at 7:52 PM | PERMALINK


Amur:

My favorite ending was when the assassin's bullet barely misses President DeGaulle's head in 1973's The Day of the Jackal. That film is still one of the great -- and most overlooked -- political thrillers in cinema history.

Posted by: Donald from Hawaii on April 14, 2006 at 8:02 PM | PERMALINK

My favorite ending was when treehugger Robert Redford finally dumped Bush-hating feminazi Barbra Streisand in The Way We Were.

Posted by: Al on April 14, 2006 at 8:08 PM | PERMALINK

I think it's cute that someone thinks Buckley had much of a say in the making of the movie. Unless he's one of the producers, or has a hell of a lot more pull than the average novelist, there isn't a lot he can do once he's signed away the movie rights except hope that they don't screw it up too badly.

Posted by: mwg on April 14, 2006 at 8:47 PM | PERMALINK

Why anyone would bring up a piece by Jonah Goldberg and actually consider it worthy of further thought is beyond me. I haven't seen Thanks for Smoking but I can say definitively that Michael Douglas's character did not have some sort of a liberal, self-hating epiphany in Falling Down; that's Jonah's teensy-weensy intellect at work.
And connecting these two movies makes as much sense as comparing Network to Scary Movie 4. It's just stupid on the face of it. Like Jonah.

Posted by: secularhuman on April 14, 2006 at 10:42 PM | PERMALINK

Is Kevin angling for a job on the Corner? Why does he make so many references to the nerds there, especially Jonah?

Looking at Jonah Liciannes's article early in the morning in the LAT is punishment enough for this liberal.

Posted by: lib on April 14, 2006 at 12:57 PM | PERMALINK

Good point: Steve Lopez wrote a scathing blast on campus apathy about the war in his LA Times column and there's no mention of that; Tim Rutten has been scoring truly brilliant points on the media in the LAT the last several weeks, and no links to those. Yet, Jonah can dribble out some inanity and spark a blog post.
I've about had it. Again.

Posted by: secularhuman on April 14, 2006 at 10:46 PM | PERMALINK

I haven't read the book. But if I understand Kevin correctly, he's saying that they changed the nature of the hero's redemption. In the book, he redeemed himself by abandoning his career. In the movie, he redeemed himself by staying true to himself.

In both cases, he did it for the love of his son. So why say that the movie has a treacly ending? By his description, the book is far worse.

Posted by: Cal on April 14, 2006 at 11:18 PM | PERMALINK

Who in the Hell Is Jonah Goldberg?
SHE sounds like another one of them KHRISTOL KHAGAN Phallic Worshipping Jeff Gannon Neo-Con Wackos

Posted by: Jonah Who? Cares on April 14, 2006 at 11:49 PM | PERMALINK

Lemme Y'all seeheer. We Gots Money, lobbyists, Corporate whores and Politicians.
Now how does Jonah figure 'Liberal' into this claptrap of Capitalist Greed? Because the Liberals have money? Why No, Liberals are poor and black according to Rush. The Liberals are lobbyists? Why lobbyists don't much care whom takes their money, political parties be damned! The Liberal owned Corporations? Most media Outlets are Conservative owned. Abramoff and Bush themselves both produced cheesy 'B' movies. Abramoff the 'Liberal' Producer? George Bush the 'Liberal' Film maker?
Bush and Kerry Both are Ivey league 'Liberals'
But No! No! Jonah GoldTurd that cannot be can it? Surely Jonah Blogturd cannot be wrong can he? Your Head Preznit Neo-con and Ilk cannot be 'Liberals' can they, why the Left Lies right? Lies, Lies, Lies of the Leftists! All Lies! Fire and Brimstone Lies! Clinton Clinton!! Penis! Oral Sexxxx, xx Sex, Semeeen!! Sweater! Cigar!! Akkkk! Ak ak!
[Sputter, Spew, Spittle, Spooge. Jonahs single brain cell locks up as it turns inward upon itself, snake eats tail]

Great Spastic Spasmoidal Super Suckups Batman!
Yes Jonah, once again you have inserted your hydrosavalic cranium into your rectal cavity, its entry and passage greased by your colorful 'liberal' euphemisms.
---------------
Yet we will help you Jonah.
We will be taking donations for Jonahs Plexotomy Operation. Yes, its true. Man can surgically implant a clear plexiglass window into Jonahs lower abdomen. [Mr Frist was the Inventor of K-Light]. Why do we Help Those whom hate? Because we, as God Fearing 'Liberals' born of Goodness and Faith, want our Fellow man to see where he is going when he has his head up his Ass.
Soon Jonah OldTurd you will have, to see and behold, 'Light' at the end of your very own tunnel.

[*An Aside; Your big giant head will still be permanently inserted and we are working on a charcoal/tobacco scat particulate filtration system to remove the fecal odor from your breath, please try not to speak, or blog Jonah. It's rude.]

Posted by: one eye buck tooth [X^B on April 15, 2006 at 1:13 AM | PERMALINK

Interesting stuff ... we liberals are sometimes hypocritical, it's true .. loved this book and am going to see the movie today

Posted by: Keith Demko on April 15, 2006 at 7:24 AM | PERMALINK

Didn't see TYFS but boy, the conservative take on Falling Down really exposes what pathetic pricks they are.

All I saw was a movie where life had just beaten the fuck out of a guy and he simply cracked. I didn't see how being mad about being stuck in a traffic jam meant you were an asshole, I didn't see how being divorced made him an asshole (50% of marriages etc.), I don't see how being upset about being laid off made him an asshole, etc.

Sure he was truly misbehaving thru the movie but the movie started shortly after the point his sanity went to shit. His backstory indicates he played by the rules (college degree, got married, lived in suburbia) which implies that he wasn't any more of an a-hole than average.

The "liberal" thread of the movie went right by them: America is great when you catch the wave, but a misstep and you wind up in an almost inexorable undertow. And the culture is not sympathetic. Everybody employed smugly thinks that they are simply better than those that aren't.

It ain't France, for sure. :)

That's why he kept driving to work - he couldn't deal with the fact he didn't have a job, just like all those people he used to sneer at.

Posted by: doesn't matter on April 15, 2006 at 10:31 AM | PERMALINK

My favorite ending was when treehugger. Robert Redford finally dumped Bush-hating feminazi Barbra Streisand in The Way We Were.

Posted by: YOP on April 15, 2006 at 12:19 PM | PERMALINK

In the Thank You For Not Smoking movie did they do the nicotine patch scene that was in the book? That was the funniest thing I'd read in ages.

Posted by: dex on April 15, 2006 at 6:11 PM | PERMALINK

One Eye Buck Tooth:

Liberals don't use Lobbyists. Right. And Terry McAuliffe became chair of the DNC through an affirmative action program.

Posted by: Warbonnet on April 15, 2006 at 7:04 PM | PERMALINK

dex-
they did indeed do the nicotine patch, but they
destroyed the context and upped the cuteness factor. a real misfire. aside from the lead actor,i can't think of a single thing in this movie that worked.

Posted by: daveminnj on April 15, 2006 at 9:36 PM | PERMALINK

Daneminnj, that's a pretty good read--Aaron Eckhart's performance was perfect, but much of the rest of the film disappointed.

Ivan Reitman has been relatively explicit in stating that he intended the film to convey his libertarian politics, so at least in terms of intention, I think Nick Naylor (Eckhart) is supposed to be "redeemed" at the end of the film.

The satire, though, was just shallow enough that it was non-threatening, especially for a film with what was probably a comparatively small budget based on a relatively known and popular commodity (Buckley's book). So I'm not terribly surprised it was made or that it has become a minor hit.

Posted by: Chuck on April 17, 2006 at 11:18 AM | PERMALINK




 

 

Read Jonathan Rowe remembrance and articles
Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

Advertise in WM



buy from Amazon and
support the Monthly