Actress Charlize Theron's recent appointment as messenger of peace for the United Nations brings up an interesting question. Is it Hollywood’s job to enlighten the public about important social issues? Or should moviemakers (and actors) stick to pure entertainment? When movies depict harsh realities, do audiences want to see them? And do they have any lasting effect other than making a particular issue more widely known?

U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon believes Hollywood can truly make a difference. At the Global Insight Summit in Jackson Hole, Wyoming this year, he reached out to film producers and others in the ‘creative community’ to use their collective power to highlight more critical issues facing the world. He stressed how much popular culture can “affect public consciousness.”

Movies often tackle heavy and controversial subjects that may otherwise remain obscure or resigned to history books. “Blood Diamond”, “Hotel Rwanda”, “The Constant Gardener”, “Beyond Borders” -- to name but a few. Some may argue it keeps serious social and political issues alive and transparent. Others scoff at the emergence of a new genre of “sanctimonious morality tales” or Hollywood “Popcorn Politics.”
So how do viewers respond to these moral epics? Do they vow to change the world? Or do they shed a few tears and exclaim: “I never knew”, “that’s awful” or “what are they doing about it?” Then forget about the whole thing as soon as the credits roll? I guess it just depends on who’s watching.
Some conscientious individuals may be stirred into action and take up a cause to help prevent future genocide. The wealthy may dip into their pockets and make a donation to Save the Children or Oxfam. After seeing “Blood Diamond” a ‘girl’s best friend’ may not seem so glamorous. But realistically, on a pragmatic level, what can these movies accomplish other than document a tragic event or highlight political issues, either actual or fictional? And are they merely “ethical action flicks” and “human rights thrillers,” as editor Philip Cunliffe suggests? (1)

So back to Theron - as a messenger of peace her special focus will be ending violence against women, and her job is to promote U.N. activities and ideals through public appearances and media contacts. The 33-year old actress made her name in films such as “North Country” and “Monster,” two excellent movies which essentially deal with women's issues. She joins the ranks of well-known celebrities, such as George Clooney and Michael Douglas, who also publicize worldwide humanitarian causes for the U.N.
In a press conference, Theron said she welcomed U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon's call for Hollywood to make more films about social issues.
But added: "I think it's a much bigger issue than getting Hollywood to step in and make these films. I think we should be asking our public why, when we make these movies, do they not go and see them. That's the bigger question."

Theron is right, hard-hitting movies do not enjoy huge box office success. “Ironman” and “Twilight” are the kind of movies that draw big crowds, because of their mass appeal.

But these are not the films we hear about come Oscar night. Theron won an Academy Award for her role in “Monster”, playing serial killer Aileen Wuornos, who came from a background of violence and abuse. She was also nominated for her performance in “North Country,” a fictionalized account of the first major successful sexual harassment case in the United States. Forest Whitaker snagged Best Actor for his depiction of Ugandan military dictator Idi Amin, in “The Last King of Scotland,” and George Clooney won Best Supporting Actor for his role in the political thriller “Syriana” which focuses on the global influence of the oil industry. These stories are memorable and meaningful, as well as entertaining. The movies are high quality and the acting is almost always good. And while not as popular with the general public, they do have a small, but consistent and reliable audience made up mostly of thoughtful and concerned individuals. To those who desire pure entertainment and escapism there is an abundance of ‘crowd-pleasers’ churned out each month. I guess it’s just a matter of taste.

Ban Ki-moon thinks Hollywood can make a difference. In a way he's right. Yes, some of these movies may be borderline patronizing, trumped up action thrillers with a cause. But I do believe most of them are much more than humanitarian hype, and do influence society, however small and fleeting this may seem. People are genuinely moved by these stories. And while they may not necessarily generate real change or put an end to suffering, it is a start. At least people are informed. Those who don’t keep up with international affairs may learn something, and to the more politically savvy it’s driving the point home, so to speak. Either way it’s tackling issues through an art form, not an entirely new concept. And you never know who is watching and what effect just one person may have.

A few years ago I had the honor of producing a TV show with special guest, Paul Rusesabagina, the hotel manager portrayed by Don Cheadle in “Hotel Rwanda." This movie is the true story of Rusesabagina, who turned his hotel into an impromptu refugee camp for more than a thousand Tutsis and moderate Hutus during the 100 days of slaughter. Rusesabagina, who has also written an autobiography, told us his main objective with the book, just like the movie, was to make a classic, “a message to young generations.” It has certainly achieved these goals. Ban Ki-moon was right when he said, “One unknown Rwandan hero became a legend when Don Cheadle portrayed him in Hotel Rwanda.” Would we have known his story without the movie? Would we still be discussing the Rwandan genocide? Would schoolchildren the world over be studying it? Probably not! This unforgettable and powerful movie not only exposed the 1994 atrocities in Rwanda, but offered a glimpse of true heroism. It was also good filmmaking.

But back to my original question – is it Hollywood’s job to highlight social issues? The movie industry has enormous influence and can reach billions of people. So why not use it for some common good? If done well and accurately, then yes, it is one of their jobs to create thought-provoking movies. These stories need to be recorded and can serve as a warning of what has happened, is happening, or may happen in the future. Genocide and other atrocities, must never be forgotten and movies do keep them at the forefront of the public mind, if only temporarily. But it’s also the job of every citizen to become more aware of important global and domestic issues that could, one day, affect them or someone they know. And we could all benefit from watching more quality movies that entertain and inform.

1. Philip Cunliffe is co-editor of Politics Without Sovereignty: A Critique of Contemporary International Relations, which was published in December 2006.

You can find more information on Paul Rusesabagina and prominent global issues on Alison Hill’s website: www.serenmediaproductions.com.