Just as Oskar Schindler comes to see the truth of the Holocaust in "Schindler's List," the Oscars themselves reflect an awareness of how films influence public perception of historical truth.
"Schindler's List," though it depicts events that happened decades ago, is particularly relevant now, when Holocaust deniers propagate their view around the nation and when a recent national survey found that nearly one-fifth of Americans doubt that the Holocaust happened at all.
The phenomenon of "Schindler's List" is intriguing. It is as if the nation or the world needed such a film, which channels historical fact through the vision of a prominent director, Steven Spielberg, to confirm the truth of the Holocaust.
As much has been said by the praise for the film, which in addition to acknowledging its quality, has attributed to it an educational aspect. Spielberg, in one of his acceptance speeches, called for educators to emphasize the Holocaust more in the classroom. But is it in the classroom or in the movie theater that Americans receive their educations?
The other monument to the Holocaust, recently unveiled, is the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, which exhibits evidence of that genocide. It is interesting that these two institutions, the museum and the movie, appear to work together to preserve the Holocaust as a historical fact.
In a similar way, both the Vietnam Memorial, erected in Washington D.C. in 1985, and the spate of films dealing with Vietnam, from "Apocalypse Now" and "Platoon" onward helped to awaken the national conscience to the implications of that war.
It seems perverse that films, whether they deal with fictionalized characters or actual ones like Oskar Schindler, exert so much power over the American mind. This perversity becomes clear in the slogan frequently seen on bumper stickers, "Vietnam was a war, not a movie."
Will the Holocaust now become material for more and more movies and fall prey to the same fate as the Vietnam war? Would it be better if "Schindler's List" were the new definitive cinematic statement on the subject, and the view was taken that no more movies needed to be made?
These questions are related to how popular films educate Americans. It can be argued that most Americans learn about history through watching movies. What then, are the responsibilities of film makers (if any) in portraying history?
Such questions were asked of the Oliver Stone film "JFK," not too long ago. Another highly publicized survey found that many Americans believed John F. Kennedy's asassination was the work of a conspiracy. Did the film, with its seeming endorsement of the conspiracy theory, propagate this belief in the face of known fact? Did it cause the Warren commission's report to undergo public scrutiny? In other words, did the film bring historical "fact" back into question?
Another film nominated for many Oscars was "In the Name of the Father," also based on an actual incident; an Irishman was wrongly convicted and imprisoned for an IRA bombing in England. His mission in the film is to prove his innocence and to publicly proclaim it. The same theme is found in another big film,"The Fugitive."
Here the "truth" is determined by whomever has the power to propagate it; establishing the truth is the equivalent of publicly proclaiming it.
Clearly popular films have the power to convince people who are not educated by other means of the veracity of one view of history. Some filmakers fashion their films so that they do not operate in the vacuum of the theater but maximize their influence over their audience.
For example, "Unforgiven," which won the Best Picture Oscar for 1992, could be viewed as a revision of the traditional western, showing the dark side of a history previously glorified and mytholgized.
It is to Hollywood's credit that it recognizes the power of film to re-interpret history in a responsible manner.
