I uploaded a final draft of this last night after I finished it. However, I woke up early enough this morning to look over the paper once more and I'm glad I did - I found some minor errors that I fixed. So here is the final copy that I will be turning in. This is the last written paper for my English 100 class this semester. I think it turned out pretty good. Just prior to peer review of rough drafts two days ago, classmates felt this was a tough assignment but the rough drafts I looked at were pretty good. We'll see. I'm sure it'll get a perfect score.

1. Wischnewsky 1
Louis Wischnewsky
Prof. Shawn Quirk
English 100
11 May 2011
The Way We are Not: Considering Opposing Views
In recent years there has been much public discussion about the vehicles that Americans
drive. This first became a debate during the late 1970s and early 1980s when, for the first time in
America's love affair with the automobile, people were faced with the possibility of being less
free to move about than they had been when most land movement occurred on the back of a
horse or on one's own two feet. When Ronald Reagan's trickle down economy began to take off,
however, the discussion faded from mainstream discourse. Whether ignored or simply ignorant
of the concern though, most people do not realize that automakers across the globe remained
vigilant to the conversation. While there was a confidence that the earth had more than enough
oil to meet global demand for centuries to come (whether or not that belief was valid or not is not
the debate here), the reality was that even automakers admitted that, at some point, oil would no
longer be able to supply the fuel to power the 15 to 17 million vehicles produced in the United
States every year. Thus, the debate was never whether or not to produce alternative fuel vehicles.
Rather, the question has always been, and remains now, whether or not the public would buy
vehicles powered by a fuel other than gasoline.
And that is the problem with any grand idea to make the world a better place. Rarely is
there a question of whether or not there is a better mouse trap, the question is whether or not
consumers will buy the product.
To that end, Sydney Pollack is completely correct: movie makers do not dictate what
movies are made, the movie watchers are who decides what movies will be seen (Pollack, 553).

2. Wischnewsky 2
However, the United States has, really, one golden rule. The Golden Rule of America is that
everyone is equal. As a result, Pollack can only blame his colleagues for organizations like the
one he addresses in “The Way We Are,” for seeking ways to have entertainment guide America's
morals and values. Why more idealistic voices cannot understand the success of movies like
Sean of the Dead or The Hangover is not as mysterious as the success of gratuitously violent
flicks like the Saw series or the Friday the 13th series. Perhaps what should be addressed is
neither the morality of what people watch nor the freedom to create any art one desires but,
rather, the reason that free speech and capitalism have a symbiotic relationship.
Mr. Pollack's main point is as powerful as a Detroit V8 engine. He describes major
differences in the style of European movies versus American movies and explains why American
movies tend to be popular around the world while movies from around the world often find only
limited audience appeal in the U.S. Whether it is the many different religious practices, the
demographic profiles, the cultural differences or any number of ways that Americans are
different from one another, it is difficult to argue that the United States is not the most diverse
nation on the planet. Certainly it is one of the most diverse. That reality is important to Pollack's
point. Merely the diversity of the United States should make American audiences more receptive
to foreign films than any appeal of American movies to foreign audiences. Yet, that is not the
case. Indeed, as Pollack points out, the exact opposite is true (559).
The question is, “why?” Pollack's answer is pretty blunt. Whereas in other countries
movie makers start with the aim of bringing their personal view of what is right and wrong to the
audience (and in some instances, what the government of a country deems is morally acceptable)
(556), in the U.S., directors and producers, like Pollack, ask the question, “What would I like to
watch?” (555). American movies are meant to involve the viewer whereas movies of other
markets are often meant to dictate to viewers a way of life. Pollack is basically saying viewers

3. Wischnewsky 3
here watch movies as if they are the main characters and ask, “What would I do?” while
European viewers, for example, watch movies and ask, “How should I behave?” (557).
Even that, Pollack admits, is a loose interpretation of American movie recipes (559). It
is as close as he can get and for good reason. Americans have a love-hate relationship with
“Hollywood.” When actors like Sean Penn or Alec Baldwin get on soap boxes outside the silver
screen or tube and tell Americans that, as actors, they have the education and background to
assure lowly commoners their, Penn's or Baldwin's, ideas of the ideal state are what should
govern movie viewers, Americans as voters are inevitably going to push back by calling
congressmen or regulatory agencies with some valid questions. Mr. Penn has a very colorful
personal relationship history that certainly makes him no expert on the tolerance he espouses
others should have (Waak). And, back to the main subject of violence, Mr. Baldwin seemed to
mirror his personal life in the movie, The Juror, when he rapes Demi Moore's character. Mr.
Baldwin has a well-documented history of domestic instability but somehow he becomes an
expert on the morals and ethics other Americans should follow. Baldwin admits as much, saying
once, “I've given them so much crap to use against me ... If I run for political office, they'll have
a forest of material to kill me with” (Baldwin). The net result is that the public demands higher
ethical and moral standards from what Hollywood produces.
In fact, when someone like Baldwin or Penn gets on their high horses, the only
credentials they string behind their names is that they are successful actors It is one thing to
listen to a doctored professor of some social science to tell Americans what he has observed and
his theory behind various behaviors; it is quite another for someone to delve into a realm about
which, frankly, Baldwin and Penn know nothing whatsoever. So it should come as no surprise to
Pollack that he is asked to bring ideas to a conference aimed at regulating his industry.
Still, Pollack is right: those outside the entertainment industry have no concept of what

4. Wischnewsky 4
goes into creating an artful movie or television show. Congressmen, preachers, parent groups –
none of them are experts in the field of entertainment. Why, then, should they be deemed the
experts on how entertainment affects the behaviors, particularly the morals and ethics, of the
overall population (555-556)? The answer is as strong as a turbo-charged Chrysler: Mr. Pollack's
colleagues in the industry are inviting those groups into realms about which they know, at best,
little by stepping themselves into realms about which those actors know, at best little.
Repeatedly Mr. Pollack reminds listeners that it is investors that must be appeased, at the
end of the day (552-561). Interestingly enough, the world of movie violence criticism is a little
murkier than it would seem at a casual glance. Back during the 2000 election, something
happened that fairly highlights movie violence criticism. One would imagine it is more
conservative oriented organizations that are the most ardent complainers of excessive volumes of
movie violence. However, during research for this paper, it was far easier to find detractors of
entertainment violence with more left leaning orientations than it was to find right leaning critics.
The presidential election of 2000 highlights this point when, while Democratic vice presidential
candidate Joe Lieberman was at the forefront of the political discourse protesting movie
violence, with presidential candidate Al Gore not far behind, the closest the Republican
candidates came to the issue was vice presidential candidate Dick Cheney's wife, Lynn Cheney,
being that side's voice on the matter (Hymowitz).
There is probably a reason for this phenomenon; one that Pollack touches upon each time
he reminds his audience that movie creation is a business as much as it is an art. That reason
takes the debate back to that comparison of the American auto industry. Business, generally a
conservative realm, understands market demand guides movie content. Pollack argues that
movies reflect the current state of societal norms and conflicts. There is no arguing his point: it is
a fact. Citizen Kane reflected the grumbling of the American psyche during an era of the Hearst

5. Wischnewsky 5
news empire. Citizens worried that one person had too much control over information
dissemination (Pollack, 558). When World War II came about, Hollywood made movies that
reflected American determination, unity, and patriotism. As Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. began to
march around the nation for the civil equality and rights of African-Americans, in 1962, To Kill a
Mockingbird came out reflecting a growing tide of second-guessing an established societal norm.
Director Robert Mulligan's movie did not inspire King; King's boldness likely inspired Mulligan
to create the movie. Such historic perspectives exist, just as Pollack points out, since movies first
began to be produced in the United States (552). So, just like the auto industry built mini-vans in
the 1980s and SUVs in the 2000s to meet the demand of its consumers, Hollywood has been
doing the same thing.
Maybe that is where the disconnect between those that decry movie violence and the
artists making violent movies lies. There is nothing forcing those that do not like the violence to
watch violence oriented movies. In kind, there is nothing forcing actors like Penn or Baldwin to
get involved with politics to the level they do become involved. At the same time, after decades
of debate, there is no evidence that directly links real world violence to being a consequence of
imitated violence on a movie screen (Hymowitz). Conversely, Ronald Reagan is unquestionably
the most politically successful actor ever. The problem, though, is that whether or not he made
the world a better place is still questioned by some. Reagan, however, is not the best comparison
for an important reason: he gave up acting when he entered politics while Penn and Baldwin
have yet to show that kind of dedication.
In any case, the reality is that freedom, whether of expression, religion, etc., is required in
order for commerce to be prosperous. This has been witnessed within the auto industry.
Automakers have to make vehicles that meet the demand of the day, not what a small group of
environmentalists think is best for consumers. The market will correct itself and that is being

6. Wischnewsky 6
seen today where Ford Motor Company has refocused its inventory to more fuel efficient
vehicles and is currently, arguably, the most successful automaker in the U.S. Today. At the same
time, as Pollack points out all too well, commerce will determine what art will be produced for
the silver screen. This fact can be seen in the reflection of Kevin Costner's, Waterworld. Here
was a movie produced at the apex of the Apocalyptic landscape genre, yet flopped miserably
when the genre seemed to have become too far-fetched. To that end, neither party, makers of
violent movies nor their detractors, need worry: demand alone will produce what a common
public deems acceptable. It is a symbiotic relationship between free expression and free
enterprise that is, actually, healthy for a strong, liberated democracy.
Sydney Pollack has been very successful because he has what many businessmen wish
they had: a keen sense of what consumers want. He is right: what is seen on the big screen does
not govern the lives of movie watchers, American values are determining what is on the big
screen. Those values evolve over time, for better or worse. However, if he is upset that outsiders
want to regulate the art he creates, he needs to remind his colleagues in the business not to be
inciting amateurs to complain. While some actors can be annoying off the screen, the good news
is that American movie-goers have long ignored them. The result is a healthy entertainment
industry that has produced memorable moments of passion, love, patriotism, thought, insight and
more for as long as the American automobile has been getting movie-watchers to the cinema.
Thus, the conversation about movie violence should recognize that free speech and free
enterprise need each other. Neither would survive without the other. Unfortunately, the fact that
neither side truly considers opposing views reflects “the way we are.”

7. Works Cited
Baldwin, Alec. "I'm often asked if I think." Politics Magazine Aug. 2009: 62. Gale Opposing
Viewpoints In Context. Web. 10 May 2011.
Hymowitz, Kay S. "The Sex and Violence Show." Commentary 110.5 (2000): 62. Gale
Opposing Viewpoints In Context. Web. 11 May 2011.
Pollack, Sydney. “The Way We Are.” Common Culture; Reading and Writing about American
Popular Culture. Eds. Michael Petracca, Madeleine Sorapure. Upper Saddle River, NJ:
Prentice Hall, 2010. 552-561. Print.
Waak, Erika. "Celebrities Should Be Free to Express Their Antiwar Views." The Peace
Movement. Ed. Nancy Harris. San Diego: Greenhaven Press, 2005. At Issue. Gale
Opposing Viewpoints In Context. Web. 10 May 2011.