|
Watched two movies yesterday.
The first was the new documentary Who Killed the Electric Car? It is mostly about the life and death of GM's EV-1 all electric car but touches on the larger issue of altnernative fuel cars. While the movie admits that the market failure of the car is complex and has many causes it is obviously slanted towards blaming the car and oil companies for actively fighting campaigning against them. Normally, I am somewhat suspicious of such conspiracy theories (as one guy in the movie says "GM would sell you a car that ran on pig **** if enough people wanted to buy one") but it makes its case reasonably well. The interests the oil companies have in resisting all-electric cars is obvious but why would GM resist production if there was a profitable level of demand?
The movie never really makes the case that demand was sufficient for a major auto manufacturer to continue mass production (at its peak, GM was making only 4 EV-1s per day). So it is easy to accept that GM simply wasn't making enough money to continue production. But it is how they behaved towards the cars already built and in the hands of consumers that is eyebrow raising. They had never allowed outright purchase of the cars but only leased them. As the leases ran out, GM refused to release or sell the cars, repossessed them and then destroyed almost every single one of them (a few disabled ones ended up with auto museums). This despite more than enough demand for the vehicles already constructed and an offer of $1.3 million to buy the last 70 or so temporarily stored in a lot in Southern California. Ford, Chrysler, Honda, and Toyota, all did similar things with their full-electric models (remember the Th!nk? or the electric Rav-4?)
I'm not completely sold on the overarching story they tell in the movie but it is an interesting presentation.
The second movie was The Verdict from 1982. This is a Paul Newman when he was in that slightly awkward looking stage between extremely handsome young buck and extremely handsome old fogey. He plays a washed-up attorney that has given in to alcholism and self-loathing. When a case falls into his hands that both the defense and the clients want to settle he decides it is his final chance as self-redemption and proceeds against everybody's wishes. It is a legal thriller without much thrill and while there are some good things in it I'll probably have mostly forgotten it by the end of the month. An elderly James Mason plays opposing counsel and I must say that Mason may just have the best voice in all cinematic history; I just love listening to him. Jack Warden is also interesting in a completely straight role rather than the comedic curmudgeon he usually plays.
|