Genocide. War. Racism. Blood Diamonds. These are just a few of the issues being addressed in today's movies. While these poignant, political and often biting topics can stir empathetic emotions, one needs to consider that movies were originally created to entertain, rather than educate their audience about the plights of the world. Should Hollywood be producing hot-button, politically charged films that are intended to convey important messages to the masses, or should Hollywood stick to creating the tried and true formula of "popcorn" movies?

I saw Blood Diamond starring Leonardo di Caprio. The film depicts the role diamonds and the diamond industry play in conflicts and wars in Africa. The film was entreating and engrossing, but it felt as if I had just been taught a history lesson. This is not necessarily a bad thing; in addition to eliciting a personal response, the film made me consider the brutal consequences of blood diamonds, and I felt compelled to learn more about the conflicts.

We are in the midst of the Oscar season, the time during which Hollywood seems to highlight its most important and often politically charged material. In recent years, films like Crash, Schindler's List and Saving Private Ryan have been nominated for best picture Oscars. All of these films were controversial in nature and certainly all of them purported important messages. The central theme of the 2006 Oscar winner Crash, for example, was to show that racism exists within all of us and that we must be constantly weary of that fact.

While these films often win the accolades of critics, the question remains: Is anyone actually listening? Do people want to be taught a lesson when they go to a movie?

One would assume, rather, that people prefer to be entertained. Whether that exists in the form of a romantic comedy or a Tom Cruise action-thriller is left to the discretion of the viewer.

If one wants to learn a lesson, going to class would be a good start. Some films, such as Al Gore's slideshow, An Inconvenient Truth, are actually billed as educational and serve that specific purpose. Some take applicable lessons from those films, but others are too egotistically absorbed in their own lives to genuinely care about the plight of others and be less inclined to take action by a film.

During 2006, not a single one of the top-10 grossing films of the year were what I would consider to be political or important in nature. Many were big budget action movies, such as Pirates of the Caribbean and Casino Royale, and animated films, such as Over the Hedge. If so many people are watching these big-budget action and animated films as opposed to the more "important" films, then why shouldn't Hollywood simply focus producing those kinds of films?

Critically praised and award winning films can do much more for a studio than a big action movie can. Awards help give studios deserved recognition for producing quality films, which can in turn increase their profits by attracting investors. It is a case of simple economics.

The messages in political films are important, and if the only way to get people to pay attention to big issues like race and war is through politically charged films, then Hollywood should and will keep cranking them out.

As much as I enjoy a good rollercoaster movie like the action-packed Casino Royale, my list of all-time favorite movies contains mostly these "important" types of films, such as Crash and Saving Private Ryan.

People can be moved to action by what they see in movies. In the best-case scenario, seeing a stirring film about poverty might make them inclined to help alleviate that problem through volunteer work.

If movies are able to persuade people to examine weighty issues, such as racism, war, poverty and sexism in an entertaining manner and drive them to make positive changes in how they treat these issues, then why shouldn't they be produced? It is these films that will truly stand the test of time and potentially change society.

Reach columnist Chris Heide at chrisheide@thedaily.washington.edu