There seems to be an increasing awareness of something we Americans have known for some time: that the ten most dangerous words in the English language are, “Hi, I’m from the Government, and I’m here to help.”
—Ronald Reagan, July 28, 1988
In the landscape of 1980s cinema, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) inspector emerged as a figure embodying bureaucratic villainy. This era, dominated by the Reagan Revolution, frequently portrayed pop culture as a battleground between the ideals of Capitalism and Communism. Despite the nuanced realities of both systems – the US with its social safety nets and the USSR with its surprising embrace of Western brands like Levi’s – the cultural narrative was clear: America championed Freedom, while Russia symbolized the overbearing State.
This context is crucial when analyzing the character of Walter Peck in Ghostbusters. Contrast his portrayal with later films such as Erin Brockovich or A Civil Action, released just two decades afterward. In these later narratives, public sentiment had shifted; accusations from the EPA against corporations were met with immediate audience suspicion towards the corporations themselves. The cultural perception of government agencies had undergone a transformation.
Bearing this shift in mind, let’s delve into Walter Peck’s initial encounter with Dr. Peter Venkman in Ghostbusters:
Walter Peck: I’m Walter Peck, from the Environmental Protection Agency, the third district. Dr. Peter Venkman: Great, how’s it going down there? Walter Peck: Are you Peter Venkman? Dr. Peter Venkman: Yes, I’m Doctor Venkman. Walter Peck: Exactly what are you a doctor of, Mr. Venkman? Dr. Peter Venkman: Well, I have a PhD in parapsychology and psychology. Walter Peck: And now, you catch ghosts? Dr. Peter Venkman: Yeah, you could say that. Walter Peck: And how many ghosts have you caught, Mr. Venkman? Dr. Peter Venkman: I’m not at liberty to say. Walter Peck: And where do you put these ghosts, once you catch them? Dr. Peter Venkman: Into a storage facility. Walter Peck: And would this storage facility be located on these premises? Dr. Peter Venkman: Yes. Walter Peck: And may I see this storage facility? Dr. Peter Venkman: No. Walter Peck: And why not, Mr. Venkman? Dr. Peter Venkman: Because you did not use the magic word. Walter Peck: What is the magic word, Mr. Venkman? Dr. Peter Venkman: …Please. Walter Peck: May I please see the storage facility, Mr. Venkman? Dr. Peter Venkman: Why do you want to see the storage facility? Walter Peck: Because I’m curious. I wanna know more about what you do here! Frankly, I’ve heard alot of wild stories in the media and we want to assess any possibility of dangerous and possibly hazardous waste chemicals in your basement. Now you either show me what is down there, or I come back with a court order. Dr. Peter Venkman: You go get a court order, and I’ll sue your funny ass for wrongful prosecution. Walter Peck: You can have it your way, Mr. Venkman.
This pivotal scene can be interpreted through multiple lenses, revealing deeper cultural anxieties of the 1980s and the character of Dr. Venkman.
The Clash of Personalities: Dr. Venkman and Walter Peck
Does Ghostbusters, through the character of Walter Peck, harbor a specific grudge against the EPA? It’s unlikely that creators Aykroyd, Ramis, and Reitman held overtly libertarian views, despite Jason Reitman’s later adaptation of Thank You for Smoking. Instead, Peck should be viewed as a representation of a broader archetype: the meddling government bureaucrat obstructing the endeavors of small businesses. This archetype resonated deeply with 80s audiences, who had just witnessed stories of entrepreneurial success like Trading Places and identified with the anti-establishment humor of Family Ties. American culture, influenced by Watergate and economic shifts, held a degree of cynicism towards unchecked authority. This sentiment, blending the distrust of government seen in All the President’s Men with the aspirational excess of Dallas, created fertile ground for a character like Walter Peck to be perceived as the antagonist.
Ghostbusters arguably reinforces this perspective by portraying Peck’s intervention as the catalyst for the supernatural chaos unleashed upon New York City. The narrative implies that if the intrusive State had simply allowed the hard-working Ghostbusters, led by Dr. Venkman, to continue their work unhindered, the apocalyptic events could have been averted.
This interpretation is further fueled by William Atherton’s portrayal of Peck. Atherton is renowned for playing unlikeable characters – the arrogant reporter in Die Hard, the condescending scientist in Bio-Dome. Peck is designed to be disliked, and by extension, the EPA along with him. One can easily imagine Peck, when not jeopardizing the city’s safety, enforcing trivial regulations and impeding everyday life. He is, in essence, the embodiment of bureaucratic overreach.
Yet, this isn’t the sole interpretation of the scene. The interaction also raises questions about Dr. Venkman‘s own actions and motivations.
“If You’ve Done Nothing Wrong, Then …”: Examining Dr. Venkman’s Defiance
Why is Dr. Venkman so resistant to allowing Walter Peck to inspect the ghost storage facility?
While Dr. Venkman‘s skepticism towards Peck’s motives is understandable, his immediate defensiveness is striking. He likely anticipates further scrutiny and interference from Peck, envisioning endless inspections and bureaucratic red tape hindering their ghostbusting operations. He wants to protect their autonomy and their unique, unregulated business.
However, Dr. Venkman’s rapid escalation from cordiality to confrontation – “I’ll sue your funny ass for wrongful prosecution!” – is disproportionate. A more reasonable response, if they had nothing to hide, would be to simply comply with the EPA request.
(Note: The “ass” in “funny ass” was often softened in television edits of the movie at the time due to broadcast standards).
Regardless of the perceived intrusiveness, Peck, representing the EPA, does possess legitimate legal authority. He explicitly mentions obtaining a court order, which he subsequently executes, accompanied by a city engineer and a police officer. While Peck’s demeanor is abrasive and his motives questionable, he is operating within the bounds of the law.
So, what is Dr. Venkman concealing that justifies such vehement resistance?
Firstly, Dr. Venkman exhibits a pattern of antagonism towards authority figures. His dismissal from the university, as pointed out by Stantz, wasn’t due to lack of funding but his unorthodox and arguably unethical parapsychology experiments. His flippant response – “But the kids love us!” – highlights his rebellious nature and disregard for institutional rules. Furthermore, his gleeful participation in the chaotic destruction of the hotel ballroom raises questions about his respect for property and established norms.
Perhaps Dr. Venkman is inherently a contrarian, prioritizing disruption over cooperation, and ghostbusting is merely a vehicle for his anti-establishment tendencies.
Alternatively, and more intriguingly, Dr. Venkman’s reluctance could stem from a genuine concern about the safety and regulatory compliance of their ghost storage facility. The escalating strain on the city’s power grid, as Spengler and Stantz observe, suggests the containment unit might be generating hazardous levels of energy or waste.
Therefore, Peck’s investigation, while seemingly bureaucratic and antagonistic, might be inadvertently uncovering a legitimate environmental or safety hazard posed by the Ghostbusters’ operation.
Ultimately, Ghostbusters leaves the audience to decide whether Peck and the EPA represent an oppressive bureaucracy stifling innovation and free enterprise, or a necessary regulatory body exposing potential irresponsibility. Regardless of interpretation, the film remains a fascinating reflection of the 1980s cultural landscape – a decade where skepticism towards government authority was deeply ingrained, and even a character like Dr. Peter Venkman, a paranormal investigator with questionable ethics, could be seen as a relatable protagonist fighting against the system.
