In the movie, the EPA's investigation presses on to win millions in a case against the companies. And while Harr includes the EPA's findings in the afterword of the book, the reader understands that it is too little, too late. The film's winner and star is the viewer's downfall. The real hero is somewhere out there, the real guy is hard at work beating the bad guys, so I don't have to call my Congress person. I don't need to lift a finger or think a depressing thought.
Passivity is one of the great forces for extending the crushing power of structural violence.
In conclusion, Harr's book is a fine example of how structural violence operates. The film version of the book, however, reveals the shortcomings of popular mass media forms and, in particular, of Hollywood fare. The profit-driven process of screenwriting could likewise fit into a class discussion of how Hollywood itself is structurally violent. I have drawn out a few examples of obvious differences between the book and film version of the story as possible discussion points for students in a course covering issues of structural violence and nonviolence as it is portrayed in different media. Overall, the book could be said to constitute a call to action, while the film is an inducement to inaction.