The pain of these people losing their now beloved cars is magnified as they learn, through an extraordinary amount of research and vigilance on their part, that the cars have been collected so they can then be destroyed. The movie leaves the viewer frustrated, with a bitter taste in the mouth that seems eerily reminiscent of motor oil.
This film could easily have been a simple indictment of car companies but the filmmakers instead make the wise option to tell the more complete story, about how others – consumers, government officials, etc. – were also complicit.
Why We Fight (2005) looks at not just the current war but past wars, the deceits by governments, the American relationship with the Middle East and other depressing but important topics.
The most heartbreaking plot arc in the documentary concerns William Sekzer, a Vietnam veteran and retired New York Police Department sergeant, whose son was killed in the 9/11 attacks. “Someone had to pay for this. Someone had to pay for 9/11,” Sekzer said.
He grew up believing that there are some people who, in his words, “walk on water and the president of the United States is one of them.” So when the president and vice president strongly suggested connections between Iraq and the 9/11 attacks, Sekzer made an unusual request. Remembering how names and words were sometimes put on bombs during Vietnam he asked that a message - reading "in loving memory of" his son - be placed on one of the bombs attacking Iraq.
But then Sekzer hears Bush say, on television news, “we’ve had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved” in the 9/11 attacks. Sekzer is furious, feeling angry and manipulated. He asks, “What the hell did we go there for?”
“The government exploited my feelings of patriotism, of a deep desire for revenge for what happened to my son,” Sekzer said. “But I was so insane with wanting to get even; I was willing to believe anything.
One of the more fascinating aspects of the movie is how prescient former President Dwight Eisenhower was about the military. This was particularly striking since he himself had been a military leader. Eisenhower was quite astute in stating in speeches, most notably in his farewell address, about the alarming growth in size and influence of what he called the military industrial complex. While that term is still used today, Eisenhower’s warnings have been forgotten by some and surely not heeded by many government officials.
Article comments
1 - Kent Beuchert
I'm contnually amazed at how those who are psychologically dependent upon conspiracy theories will distort reality in order to fit events to match one of their silly theories.
This writer's description of the EV-1, a crappy little car that only a well-heeled Hollywood actor could afford or tolerate,is a good exampleof picking a tiny aspect of a broad story and creating a distorted view of reality.
I notice that the movie never showed those owners who got out and kicked their EV-1s when they
ran out of juice long before that event was foreseen, or the exorbitant cost ($45,000+) for
a glorified golf cart,whose batteries cost over $25,000 and needed replacement every 5 years or so. The idea that supposed mature adults (inspipid Tom Hanks notwithstanding) could actually tell bald faced lies in front of millions, as Ed Begley did in the film when he preposterously claimed that the EV-1 met the needs of 90% of the driving public, is a new low
for our national ethical standards. Hell, not even 80% of drivers even have a place where they can recharge an electric car, much less afford $45,000 for a second rate second car that can't even manage to get you out of the county, much less out of the state and back. Any objective
analysis of the EV-1 would show it to be a completely impractical alternative to ICE
technology that also wasn't as clean environmentally as the Honda Insight. So all that cost and inconvenience had no possible benefit. Well, that's what can happen when you let Hollywood stars determine environmental policies. They are ACTORS, they are not scientists, they are not energy analysts. They make money and fame on the basis of their LOOKS, not their brains. "Who Killed the Electric Car?" will surely be studied for years as a method of mass propaganda. It's ability to convince depended upon the gullibility of its audience to believe totally silly and laughably illogical conspiracy theories and their almost complete ignorance about the subject matter of the film. I doubt that even one in 100 of those viewers understoodwhat any average 7 year old does, that you can't build a practical electric car without a practical battery. An accurate film about modern electric cars and why they have failed requires a run time of , oh, about 2 minutes. At most.
2 - Scott Butki
What do you really think of that movie?
3 - El Bicho
Glad to see you got around to WWF. I'll have to check out that Enron movie.
4 - Scott Butki
Hi, El Bicho. Thanks for the comment.
My next spate of reviews is going to be on music documentaries, like the Dixie Chicks one, the Neil Young one. I'm open to suggestions/requests for other music documentaries.
Kent, you spent quite a few paragraphs attacking the EV1 but didn't seem to address the bigger, more currently relevent, question: Will the electric car come back one day? Or is it never gonna happen.
5 - Hugh E Webber
Ah, we've seen the work of Kent Beauchert before; he always attacks EVs, especially the EV1, which GM itself publicly pronounced the most efficient car in automotive history. Except for his comments on actors not necessarily being Nobel-winning physicists (he isn't, either,) everything he has to say in this latest rant in wrong.
GM may have seen the error of its ways, having recently committed to producing the electric-drive Chevy Volt. This year, we in the Electric Auto Association are cheering GM on. Beuchert, on the other hand, sounds as if he's close to some kind of breakdown.
The review of Who Killed the Electric Car was accurate, well-judged and fairly written, if a beat late.
Thanks!
6 - Scott Butki
Ever feel like Tom and Jerry are running in your topic thread?
7 - David Scorca
Why do people still harp on the EV-1? The EV-1 was an experiment and was never intended to be the "final solution" to be offered by GM.
The real crime committed was the squashing of the emissions regulations. By pumping money into defeating the legislation and by placing a proponent of fuel-cells in charge of the committee we have delayed a workable solution for many years down the road. If not for the movie I doubt the Volt would have been presented earlier this year. I only wish serious effort were put towards the development of a better EV solution had continued when the EV1 came out, maybe we would have the batteries needed today instead of the technology still being years off.
We need to push for new technology such as batteries that can power a car 40+ miles between recharging, 120v charging capability, environmently sound battery materials, long life spans. All this, along with renewable energy such as advances in solar and wind generators, will bring us to a much better place than we are today.
I'd much rather see $500 billion dollars spend on tax breaks to consumers who purchase EVs and for the maintenance of EVs than $500 billion dollars spent towards a war in Iraq searching for WMDs invented more by the Bush Administration than Iraq scientists.
8 - Lyle L.
Kent's comment has some interesting points but I have to deeply discount those points. GM having invested so much money in the EV1, why wouldn't they sell the cars "as is" to the people that wanted to buy them? You can debate this or that fact, but the destruction of the EV1 speaks volumes. The Toyota RAV4e was sold and it's reported on the web several have over 100,000 miles and still have a 100 mile charge range using NiMH batteries. Did GM wish to get rid of any evidence that the batteries would be long lasting potentialy useful in a battery-electic or a series-hybrid? And why on earth would a car company sell their NiMH battery patents to an oil company who currently limits configurations too small to power an electric vehicle?
"It is also important to note that there are large-format NiMH batteries available which are not subject to control by the Cobasys patents. Electro Energy Inc. and Nilar Inc. both manufacture large-format NiMH batteries, but the bipolar design used in these batteries is fundamentally different from the design of the Cobasys batteries, so these batteries can be produced without paying licensing fees to Cobasys. Both companies are actively building batteries."
"Actions speak louder than words"