The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction

"The uniqueness of a work of art is inseparable from its being imbedded in the fabric of tradition. This tradition itself is thoroughly alive and extremely changeable. An ancient statue of Venus, for example, stood in a different traditional context with the Greeks, who made it an object of veneration, than with the clerics of the Middle Ages, who viewed it as an ominous idol. Both of them, however, were equally confronted with its uniqueness, that is, its aura."
-Walter Benjamin

"The Great Dictator" starring Charlie Chaplin is one of the first known parodies of Adolf Hitler and the Nazi Party. However, it is important to note that the main star had not known of the atrocities of the war. According to an autobiography, the actor states that "He would not have made the film had he known about the actual horrors of the Nazi concentration camps". But it is perhaps better that he did not know, because this parody of the war gave a sharp contrast to its historical reality; One that ironically heightened its senseless violence and hate through folly. Although perhaps we can never know what it must have felt like to live through World War I and World War II, through art, whether painting, poetry, or film, we can vicariously experience something akin to the reality that those living during that time faced. Comedy is, though less vicarious, is often essential in communicating the past to the layman and is also used as a coping measure. 

Serious genres, on the other hand, can bring to life a more realistic version of the horrors of the wars; The ones researched by scholars and penned by survivors.

This is the paradigm shift that Walter Benjamin spoke of in "The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction". While he might not have thought favorably of a physical reproduction, the evolution of criticism from era to era of the same original piece of art is one way in which the original remains the same (Not counting dubbing/subtitles) but the response to the film changes. In fact, we could even say that there is an aura to the history itself, one that, given its removal in space and time from us, allows for re-interpretation, for better or worse. This is why there is everything from Holocaust deniers (Underestimating or even perhaps overestimating in some cases the number of deaths) to people who, although they may not have been around at that time, they have still been inspired by and create otherwise realistic depictions (In their art) of life back then based on their own research. 

It's clear that both history and art can transcend the time and space in which they were limited. There's been so many films in different genres based on WWI and II that they have become a part of our growing consciousness as people. It's also clear that on a mass culture level they represent how we feel about them as a collective, still sometimes for better or worse.  

From the moment it came out, I was a fan of Quentin Tarantino's Inglorious Basterds. I think the idea that film as a medium is so powerful it can rewrite and revision history as much as it can retell it, makes it a valuable tool, for better or worse depending on whose using it. In Inglorious, for instance, rather than being free to escape and commit suicide, Hitler is killed. I saw the movies in theaters. In the back of my mind while watching the film, the historical truth was in my mind. I thought, "Wait a minute. Well...I know what's going to happen." Obviously I got a nice surprise. I should have known Tarantino would have put his own spin on things.