How Oscar-Nominated ‘I’m Still Here’ May Hold Brazil’s Military Accountable

“I’m Still Here” — the Oscar best picture nominee about the murder of a Brazilian congressman by the country’s military dictatorship — concludes with a single sentence that delivers a gut punch of historical reality: The five soldiers charged in the killing were never punished because of laws granting them amnesty.

Now the film could help change that.

This month, Brazil’s Supreme Court unanimously decided to review whether it should revoke the amnesty of the army officers accused of killing the congressman, Rubens Paiva, and two others. That followed a December decision by one justice to recommend the removal of amnesty protections in a separate dictatorship-era case. In his ruling, the justice explicitly cited “I’m Still Here.”

The sudden and extraordinary judicial reckoning the film has provoked could have sweeping legal implications: Will Brazil’s amnesty law, as it has for nearly a half-century, continue to shield those who committed atrocities during the dictatorship?

The fact that question is being raised now shows how “I’m Still Here” — in addition to its remarkable commercial and critical success — has also had a major political impact in Brazil.

The film has reignited a national conversation over the legacy of the brutal military dictatorship that ruled Brazil from 1964 to 1985. It has sparked new protests in support of victims, including outside the home of one of the two surviving officers accused of killing Mr. Paiva in 1971.

“I’m Still Here” — the Oscar best picture nominee about the murder of a Brazilian congressman by the country’s military dictatorship — concludes with a single sentence that delivers a gut punch of historical reality: The five soldiers charged in the killing were never punished because of laws granting them amnesty.

Now the film could help change that.

This month, Brazil’s Supreme Court unanimously decided to review whether it should revoke the amnesty of the army officers accused of killing the congressman, Rubens Paiva, and two others. That followed a December decision by one justice to recommend the removal of amnesty protections in a separate dictatorship-era case. In his ruling, the justice explicitly cited “I’m Still Here.”

The sudden and extraordinary judicial reckoning the film has provoked could have sweeping legal implications: Will Brazil’s amnesty law, as it has for nearly a half-century, continue to shield those who committed atrocities during the dictatorship?

The fact that question is being raised now shows how “I’m Still Here” — in addition to its remarkable commercial and critical success — has also had a major political impact in Brazil.

The film has reignited a national conversation over the legacy of the brutal military dictatorship that ruled Brazil from 1964 to 1985. It has sparked new protests in support of victims, including outside the home of one of the two surviving officers accused of killing Mr. Paiva in 1971.