本杰明描述了如何复制和分布的艺术作品，以取代艺术作品的起源，从它自己的空间和时间的政治证词。这两个过程都与当代群众运动。他们最强大的代理人是电影。这是特别是在它的最积极的社会意义，是不可想象的无破坏性、宣泄的方面，这是对文化遗产的传统价值清算。”（本杰明，1992 P215）。那么为什么电影成功的艺术工具在政治思想的沟通？本杰明继续在他的文章中讨论的光环的概念，他将其定义为“独特的现象，但是近距离可能。”也就是说，一种政治理念或思想到艺术作品中的抽象创造模仿和叙事之间的张力，使得接收者的艺术一定的距离和客观性思考意义即使讨论的问题有着内在的联系，人的日常生活。他给出的例子是荒芜的巴黎街道Atget拍的照片，已经有明显的性格，使他们看起来好像他们是警察的证据照片。根据本杰明的这些照片获得“隐藏的政治意义。”（本杰明，1992，P220。）摄像机捕捉到的灵气，这样，观众认同的相机。电影观众对电影理论家Christina Metz所描述的“图像制作的信息”（Kozloff，1988，P44）相对于单个字符在电影本身。
Benjamin describes how the replication and distribution of works of art serve to displace the piece of art from its place of origin, taking with it political testimony from its own space and time. “Both process are immediately connected with the contemporary mass movements. Their most powerful agent is the film. It’s social significance particularly in its most positive form, is inconceivable without its destructive, cathartic aspect, that is the liquidation of the traditional value of the cultural heritage.” (Benjamin, 1992 p215).So why is film a successful artistic tool in the communication of political ideas? Benjamin goes on in his essay to discuss the concept of aura, which he defines as ‘the unique phenomenon of a distance however close it may be.’ That is to say that the abstraction of a political idea or ideology into a work of art creates a tension between mimesis and diegesis that allows the recipient of the art a certain amount of distance and objectivity to ponder meaning even if the issues discussed are intrinsically linked to that persons daily life. The example he gives are the photographs of deserted Parisian streets taken by Atget, that have been taken with a starkness character that make them seem as if they are police evidence photographs. According to Benjamin these photographs acquire a “hidden political significance.” (Benjamin, 1992, p220.) The camera captures the aura and as such it is the camera that the audience identifies with. With film the audience is responding to the message of whom film theorist Christina Metz describes as the “image-maker” (Kozloff, 1988 p44) as opposed to and individual characters within the film itself.