Who Killed the Electric Car?

Who Killed the Electric Car is a film that brings up many questions about how documentaries are made, and about how documentary filmmakers use their medium to espouse certain viewpoints and opinions. I first viewed the film about a year ago. I enjoyed it, learned about something I had no real knowledge on, and moved on without giving it much thought. I accepted what the film had to tell me as fact, and looked at it as more of an interesting story than as a piece of propaganda. Watching the film again in class with a more critical mindset, and taking part in class discussions on the film has helped me to realize that as with many documentaries, there are certain propagandist aspects to the film, and the director’s point of view seems to be very clearly on one side of this multi-faceted argument involving the future of transportation.

Many of the scenes in the film would not have been possible without collaboration and cooperation between the filmmakers and the electric car activists featured. From the funeral scene that introduces us to the plight of the electric car to the footage of the last Saturn EV-1’s being shipped off to the crusher, the camera seems to be ever-present during the most important and dramatic events that are used to drive the film’s storyline.

Not only is a pro-EV (Electric Vehicle) agenda identifiable in some of the films major verite-style scenes, it is also clearly seen in interview sequences. To represent the importance and need for the EV, the filmmakers choose interview subjects who are attractive, like-able, and recognizable. Featured heavily is the camera-friendly Chelsea Sexton, a young mother who worked for GM in the company’s Saturn division marketing and leasing EV-1’s. She serves as a strong voice for the movement away from gas-powered vehicles in the film. Pictures of Sexton working hard and having fun as a young sales-person who truly believes in her product, along with her passionate commentary, serve to create a persona an audience can bond with and root for. A large number of celebrities and movie stars are also featured in interviews. Mel Gibson, Alexandra Paul, Phyllis Diller, and others are shown exuding admiration for the qualities of electric vehicles. At no point, however, do the filmmakers give us reason to believe theses celebrities are experts or have some sort of in-depth knowledge into the debate (with the exception of Paul, perhaps); they simply like electric cars.

While celebrities may have been used to draw an audience, experts are featured prominently in the film. The time allotted to those on each “side” of the debate is nowhere close to even, however. Extremely reputable interviewees in the pro-EV camp are featured again and again explaining and documenting the merits of the electric car. An elderly couple who works together on super-charged batteries is inserted into the film in what seems to be an attempt to add some emotion and sentimentality to the pro-EV side of the debate (i.e. no one wants to see the brilliant old man’s ingenious inventions go to waste!). Former employees of GM talk about how the company may have manipulated the marketing and downplayed the importance of the EV-1.

Those who stand up to defend the mainstream removal of the electric car from the roadways or who believe in other forms of clean technology such as hydrogen fuel cell vehicles are afforded much less screen time and are even mocked in at least one instance. Leading up to an interview with an official GM spokesman, the filmmakers choose to include a very short shot of the man looking confused and unprepared (in what appears to be footage taken either before or after the “official” interview) before launching into the extended scene. The tactic works in that the man loses some visual credibility the very first time we see him onscreen. I did not notice a similar technique used anywhere else in the film, and it was certainly never employed to paint a negative picture of a pro-EV interviewee.

Environmental and political points of view are alluded to in the construction of the film as well. The contrasting policies of former Presidents Carter and Reagan, along with a similar look at the differences in the Clinton and Bush administration begin to paint Democrats as environmentalists and therefore supporters of the EV, and Republicans as being more interested in promoting big business and looking toward other opportunities such as the hydrogen-powered car (footage of both George W. Bush and Arnold Schwarzenager speaks to this). Sound bytes of Bush talking about the need to drill for oil in the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge are heard over images of beautiful mountains and a herd of majestic caribou.

I like Who Killed the Electric Car? I like it not only because I tend to agree with most of the policies the film is advocating, but because the filmmakers construct an argument that, while not foolproof, is compelling and interesting to listen to. Rather than chastise filmmakers for producing films that strongly advocate a certain position on an issue, and that may use propaganda as a means to further their case, perhaps we should continue to focus on media literacy and critical thinking in our nation’s schools and universities. I know that my own viewing experience has been greatly altered due to new perspective gained through a more careful observation of the film.