Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
Filmmaking
Author(s): Ikechukwu Obiaya
Source: Film History, Vol. 23, No. 2, Black Representations (January 2011), pp. 129-146
Published by: Indiana University Press
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.2979/filmhistory.23.2.129
Accessed: 15-02-2016 22:56 UTC
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/
info/about/policies/terms.jsp
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content
in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship.
For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Indiana University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Film History.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 132.248.67.103 on Mon, 15 Feb 2016 22:56:29 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Film History, Volume 23, pp. 129146, 2011. Copyright 2011 Indiana University Press
ISSN: 0892-2160. Printed in United States of America
Ikechukwu Obiaya
Ikechukwu Obiaya lectures at the Pan-African University in Lagos, Nigeria. His research work is based on
the Nigerian film industry with particular focus on the
efforts of the National Film and Video Censors Board
to establish a distribution framework. Correspondence
to iobiaya@smc.edu.ng
This content downloaded from 132.248.67.103 on Mon, 15 Feb 2016 22:56:29 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Ikechukwu Obiaya
Fig. 1. A
video-film store
in Lagos.
[Copyright Isi.]
This content downloaded from 132.248.67.103 on Mon, 15 Feb 2016 22:56:29 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Fig. 2. A
present-day
mobile cinema
audience.
[Copyright
Mainframe
Productions.]
This content downloaded from 132.248.67.103 on Mon, 15 Feb 2016 22:56:29 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Ikechukwu Obiaya
expressed the conviction that film would be a powerful weapon for propaganda. Huxley, who had taken
three films from the Empire Marketing Board (EMB)
to show to schoolchildren, noted that films could be
satisfactorily used for both school children and
adults.
The growing interest of the government in the
use of film for educational and propaganda purposes was further expressed that same year, 1929,
with the creation of the Colonial Films Committee.
The Colonial Secretary, L.S. Amery, who set up the
committee, gave it the task of examining the educational use of the cinema. The Committee, made up
of a number of ex-governors, Colonial Office officials
and representatives from the Board of Trade, Marketing Board and the British film industry, endorsed
the educational and cultural value of films but warned
that there was insufficient experience with the medium to embark on anything more than an experiment.23 The report was tabled at the 1930 Colonial
Office Conference. Based on that report, approval
would later be given for the use of films for educational purposes in the widest sense not only for
children but also for adults, especially with illiterate
peoples.24
Also in 1929, the Commission on Educational
and Cultural Films was set up in Britain by the British
Institute of Adult Education and the Association of
Scientific Workers to carry out an investigation of film
in education. Although the Commission was an unofficial body, it had representatives from various government departments including the Colonial Office.
The Commission published its report, The Film in
National Life, in 1932 and recommended that a
national film institute be established to encourage the
development and use of the cinema as a means of
entertainment and instruction in both Britain and the
Empire. The result was the British Film Institute (BFI),
founded in 1933.25 It is noteworthy that in spite of
the various mentions of the cultural values of film and
the need to use the cinema as a means of entertainment, the primary focus of the films produced in the
colonies was that of instruction.
In 1932, William Sellers received some official
backing for his work in film in the form of a grant from
the Colonial Development Fund. This was in line with
a recommendation by the 1930 Colonial Office Conference which indicated that these funds be used to
make cinema vans and related equipment available
to the colonies. By this time, Sellers was already
running a health propaganda unit as part of the
This content downloaded from 132.248.67.103 on Mon, 15 Feb 2016 22:56:29 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
This content downloaded from 132.248.67.103 on Mon, 15 Feb 2016 22:56:29 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Fig. 3. Youth
Leadership in
Togoland
(Colonial Film
Unit, 1949).
From Paul Rotha,
Documentary
Film (third
edition, 1952).
Ikechukwu Obiaya
trucks in tropical Africa.29 Two of the best known
films produced at this time were Mr English at Home
(1940) and An African in London (1940). Mr English
at Home is about a day in the life of an English artisan
and his family and shows them going about their
daily routine: getting up in the morning, washing,
having breakfast and leaving for work and school.30
According to Smyth, the film is both instructional and
a piece of propaganda in that it offers the English
artisan as a role model and proclaims the superiority
of the British way of life.31 An African in London
depicts a prominent Nigerian being given a tour of
London. The aim of the film was to emphasise that
Africans were true members of the British Empire.32
The post-war operations of the CFU began
fully with the arrival in Africa of a team headed by
William Sellers. Apart from Sellers, the team consisted of a director-cameraman, an assistant cameraman, and an editor-manager. They would go on
to make Fight TB in the Home (1946), Weaving in
Togoland (1946), Good Business (1947), Towards
True Democracy (1947), Better Pottery (1948), and
Village Development (1948), among others. These
films, as can be guessed from the titles, ranged from
such issues as health to social and economic development. According to Rouch, between 1945 and
1950, the running time of finished films totalled five
hours, and distribution rose to over 1,200 prints
shown in Africa.33 The films were taken around by
mobile cinema vans that staged showings in different
towns and villages. An article in an edition of Colonial
Cinema (a publication of CFU) gives, in a rather
pompous fashion, an idea of this work:
The work of carrying enlightenment and education in the forms of amusement to the less
privileged people in the rural areas of the country is being effectively handled by the Public
Relations Department through its Cinema Section. The Section has screened many shows in
different parts of Lagos and surrounding districts whilst the mobile cinema van tours the
different towns, villages, schools, institutions,
clubs and churches screening films of educational, cultural and entertainment value and
bringing the people up to date with contemporary events in all parts of the world.34
In the post-war period, the CFU dedicated
itself fully to the production of instructional film. Its
role in terms of educating the masses was height-
This content downloaded from 132.248.67.103 on Mon, 15 Feb 2016 22:56:29 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
This content downloaded from 132.248.67.103 on Mon, 15 Feb 2016 22:56:29 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Ikechukwu Obiaya
developed, Nigerians continued to be trained in the
art of filmmaking. The trained Nigerian personnel
made films on local events under the supervision of
three experienced film professionals. These professionals included a director, cameraman and an editor.44 Some of the early Nigerian trainees had
already undergone a stint in the film training school
which was set up by the CFU in Accra, Gold Coast
(Ghana), in 1949. However, it is noteworthy that in the
FFU, just as in the Ghanaian unit, the Africans were
only employed in junior positions. Fifteen years
would pass from the inception of the Nigerian Federal Film Unit before its management would be handled entirely by Nigerians.
Fig. 4. An
African
Audience. From
Paul Rotha,
Documentary
Film (third
edition, 1952).
Cinema, In order to serve the whole country effectively, the Section has been regionalised, each regional unit being directly under the Regional Public
Relations Officer.41 Each of these centres functioned as a semi-independent unit and had its own
budgetary allocation. They each also had a film library, and the ten vans for the mobile film units were
distributed among the centres. There were two vans
each in Lagos and Ibadan, while Kaduna and Enugu
had three each. The vans were put to a lot of use
since the various units regularly went on tours lasting
three to four weeks. Films were shown four times a
week in the open air to village and college audiences.
Seventy percent of the showings were for village
audiences. The films were shown free of charge.42
The Colonial Cinema article gives a picture of the
extent of the work undertaken by the centres. It talks
about the regular shows screened in various communities, and for various groups, at community centres, remand homes, hostels, training schools and a
hospital. The article adds that:
In spite of the fact that the Section is always
fully occupied with work, some of the officials
were able to go out on tour occasionally. During last month, a unit of the cinema staff made
a tour of Epe Division, South-East Waterside
and screened shows at Epe, Lekki, Igbogun,
Ise and Abomiti. The tour was done on the
launch Primrose, kindly supplied by the Divisional Officer, Epe Division. The shows drew
large and appreciative crowds in each place
and attendance varied from 350700 people.43
It is clear that the FFU remained very much in
the pragmatic mould of the CFU in terms of the kind
of films produced. Nevertheless, as the Federal Unit
This content downloaded from 132.248.67.103 on Mon, 15 Feb 2016 22:56:29 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
This content downloaded from 132.248.67.103 on Mon, 15 Feb 2016 22:56:29 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Ikechukwu Obiaya
and avoid competitive price-cutting amongst themselves. The cartel had a monopoly over the supply of
films and could make the exhibitors toe the line by
turning off the supply of films. AMPEC would eventually have in its grasp most of the regions which had
been covered by the British Colonial Film Unit. It
would also make great inroads into Francophone
Africa with the creation of the West African Film
Export Company. This company, whose name was
later changed to Afro-American Films Inc. (AFRAM)
had as a specific goal to fight the monopoly of
COMMACICO and SECMA.63
The first office of AMPEC in West Africa was
opened in the then Nigerian capital, Lagos, in 1962.64
The distribution of films in the country was firmly
controlled by AMPEC, as well as two Lebanese
owned companies, NDO Films and CINE Films. AMPEC controlled the inflow of American and European
films into the country, while NDO and CINE specialised in Indian, Egyptian, and Asian films. The two
Lebanese companies depended on AMPEC for
American films. These distributors were not interested in distributing locally made film. Haynes indicates what is probably the key reason for this:
Economic motivations still encourage distributors to take foreign films being dumped at very
low prices rather than Nigerian films whose
producers are trying to recover their whole
costs on the local markets: imported films cost
the exhibitor around a fifth to a tenth of the daily
rental Nigerian films must demand.65
With their stranglehold on distribution, AMPEC
and the other distributors were more interested in
financial gain than in the quality of the films they
imported. Thus, Enahora accuses them of screening
very old films that they bought at give-away prices
and the core of their politics is to discourage indigenous film production.66 All of this was an obstacle to
the growth of the national film industry. In an effort to
break the distribution monopoly and nationalise the
cinema, the Nigerian government promulgated the
Nigerian Enterprises Promotion Decree in 1972. The
decree, which is generally referred to as the Indigenisation Decree, was meant to correct the imbalance in the ownership and control of companies
operating in Nigeria. It limited the involvement of
foreign interests in various economic activities and
reserved for Nigerians the exclusive right to other
activities. The decree came into force in April 1974
and forced foreign enterprises operating in Nigeria
This content downloaded from 132.248.67.103 on Mon, 15 Feb 2016 22:56:29 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
This content downloaded from 132.248.67.103 on Mon, 15 Feb 2016 22:56:29 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Ikechukwu Obiaya
Fig. 5. Tunde
Kelani, renowned
Nigerian
filmmaker.
[Copyright
Mainframe
Productions.]
documentaries, 65 newsreels, and 390 short information films.75 As Haynes has noted, neither before
nor after Independence did [the British] give any
encouragement to Nigerians to make fictional feature
films.76 Thus, the newly independent Nigeria had no
tradition of feature filmmaking. The first film of this
kind to be made in the country by Nigerians would
come ten years after independence, in 1970.
According to Paul Willemen, the attitude of
Britain towards film in her colonial territories both
during and after colonisation should be traced not so
much to a deliberate policy aimed at the colonies but
rather to a flaw in Britains own developmental history
which led to film being considered as low culture.
Although Britain was the first country to embark on
the industrial revolution, it failed to carry it through.
The consequent social formation was marked
by a political-economic structure still in place
today: the industrial bourgeoisie was allowed
a significant measure of political power on
condition that it absorbed and defended aristocratic ideologies and values . Culturally,
this has meant that the bastions of feudal high
culture are very tenacious (symbolized by the
This content downloaded from 132.248.67.103 on Mon, 15 Feb 2016 22:56:29 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
inaccessible distribution channels, and an unsupportive government that, in the words of the producer, Amaka Igwe, considered their work to be mere
play.79 In spite of these obstacles, some production did take place.
Independent indigenous filmmaking began in
Nigeria in 1970. Son of Africa (1970), the first film
produced that year, was directed by Segun Olusola
and produced by a Lebanese-Nigerian production
company, Fedfilms Limited. However, the Nigerian
input was so minimal that Son of Africa is denied the
title of the first indigenous film. Kongis Harvest
(1970), which received that title, was produced by
Francis Oladele and directed by an African-American, Ossie Davis.80 Oladele went on to produce
Bullfrog in the Sun (1971), which was directed by a
West German, Hans-Juergen Pohland. Unfortunately, Bullfrog in the Sun, just like Kongis Harvest,
was not successful commercially. Oladele would
subsequently dedicate himself solely to the production of newsreels and documentaries on demand.
Ola Balogun was the next notable filmmaker to
come on the scene. Baloguns first works were short
documentaries, such as One Nigeria (1969), Les
ponts de Paris (1971), Thundergod (1971), Fire in the
Afternoon (1971), In the Beginning (1972), and
Owuama, a New Yam Festival (1973). His first non-fiction film was Alpha (1972). He established a production company, Afrocult Foundation Limited, in 1973
and produced two medium-length films, Vivre (1974)
and Nigersteel (1975). Baloguns first full-length film,
Amadi (1975), was the first Nigerian film to be made
in one of the indigenous languages, Igbo in this case.
Tapping into the interest raised by Amadi, as well as
the newly discovered advantage of filming in the local
languages, Balogun co-produced Ajani-Ogun (1975)
with Duro Ladipo, a well known actor of the Yoruba
travelling theatre. The film was in Yoruba and the cast
was made up of members of Duro Ladipos theatre
group. Balogun went on to make Ija Ominira (1977),
Aiye (1979) and Orun Moorun (1982), co-produced
with Adeyemi Folayan, Chief Hubert Ogunde, and
Moses Olaiya Adejumo (alias Baba Sala) respectively, all celebrated personalities of the theatre.
While all these films were hits, Baloguns other films,
in non-indigenous languages and on culturally distinct themes Musik-Man (1976), A deusa negra
(1978), Cry Freedom (1981), and Money Power
(1982) failed to strike a similar chord with the
audience.
Another pioneer of Nigerian cinema, Sanya
This content downloaded from 132.248.67.103 on Mon, 15 Feb 2016 22:56:29 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Ikechukwu Obiaya
Fig. 6. Nigerian
video-film crew
working on
location.
[Copyright Femi
Odugbemi.]
tures.82 The filmmaking of the Yoruba theatre practitioners created a bridge between celluloid film production and the eventual video-film production. They
are credited with being the initiators of video-films
which they saw as the cheapest possible way of
producing audiovisual material for projection to an
audience.83
Rejection of a legacy
Thanks to an economic depression, the early flow of
celluloid feature films in Nigeria began to decline by
the late 1980s and finally died out in the mid nineties.
Nigerian celluloid film production was plagued
throughout by the problems listed above. It was
heavily dependent on foreign resources, especially
as regards postproduction work. Thus, the industry
was crippled by the economic crisis of the 1980s.
With the presence of filmmakers willing to make films,
an audience wanting to be entertained and a technology which was within reach, the resort to video
filmmaking was merely a logical step. Although the
Yoruba travelling theatre artistes began to put their
work on video as early as 1988, Kenneth Nnebues
Living in Bondage (1992), which was shot in Igbo, is
considered the pioneer video-film. This is so because it was the first to be packaged in a full-colour
printed jacket and wrapped in cellophane, like an
imported American or Indian film.84 Nnebue himself
had previously made a video-film in Yoruba, Aje Ni
Iya Mi (1989).
The advent of video-films drastically changed
the outlook of film production in the country. Videofilms, as Haynes describes them in the introduction
to his book on the subject, are something between
television and cinema.85 They are shot on camcorders and distributed directly to the viewing audience
on video tapes or, with the new technology, on VCDs.
The productions are generally low budget and tend
to be shot within the space of two weeks. The purists
of Nigerian filmmaking initially snubbed this form of
filmmaking, but it provided answers to problems
which the industry had always faced. In the first
place, by making creative use of the new technology,
the cineastes overcame the absence of infrastructure, such as studios, soundstages and postproduction facilities. The new technology made available
lightweight cameras which were easier to manage,
and the filmmakers shot in borrowed houses and on
This content downloaded from 132.248.67.103 on Mon, 15 Feb 2016 22:56:29 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
This content downloaded from 132.248.67.103 on Mon, 15 Feb 2016 22:56:29 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Ikechukwu Obiaya
low-cost video-films which are anything but documentary style film. Their offerings are sold directly to
their audience on CDs or DVDs thereby bypassing
the regular distribution channels. Furthermore, the
industry, which generates hundreds of jobs annually,
has made the government sit up and take notice,
thus changing the traditional perception of cinema in
the country. Above all, the industry has made the
breakthrough that previous African cinema failed to
do which is that of attaining a popular outlook by
presenting the people with unprejudiced cinematic
representations of themselves.
There is no doubt that the colonial experience
has played an important (even if negative) role in
defining the film industry in much of Africa. It is certain
that other socio-economic factors have come into
play in the structuring of the Nigerian video-film industry. But it is equally certain that the industry has
chosen to overcome that experience and find new
grounds.
Notes
1.
9.
2.
Jean Rouch, Situation and Tendencies of the Cinema in Africa, in Jean Rouch, Cine-Ethnography
(Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2003),
47.
Jonathan Haynes, Nigerian Cinema: Structural Adjustments, in Kenneth Harrow (ed.) African Cinema:
Post Colonial and Feminist Readings (Trenton NJ,
and Asmara: Africa World Press, 1999), 143175.
10.
3.
Jude Akudinobi, Introduction to Specal Issue: African Cinema/Critical Configurations, Social Identities 6.3 (2000): 237.
11.
12.
4.
5.
6.
http://www.uis.unesco.org/ev.php?ID=7650_201&
ID2=DO_TOPIC (6 May 2009).
7.
Simon Faulkner and Anandi Ramamurthy, Introduction, in Simon Faulkner and Anandi Ramamurthy
(eds), Visual Culture and Decolonisation in Britain
(Hampshire: Ashgate Publishing Limited, 2006),
119.
13.
8.
14.
This content downloaded from 132.248.67.103 on Mon, 15 Feb 2016 22:56:29 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
39.
Ibid., 35.
40.
16.
17.
41.
42.
Nwachukwu F. Ukadike, Anglophone African Media, Jump Cut http://www.ejumpcut.org/archive/onlinessays/JC36folder/AnglophAfrica.html (26 May
2008).
43.
44.
45.
46.
47.
Ibid., 199.
48.
Ibid., 206.
49.
18.
19.
20.
21.
Rosaleen Smyth, The Roots of Community Development in Colonial Office Policy and Practice in
Africa, Social Policy & Administration 38 (August
2004): 418436.
22.
Ibid., 424.
23.
Ibid., 424.
24.
25.
Ibid., 425.
50.
26.
Rob Skinner, Natives Are Not Critical of Photographic Quality: Censorship, Education and Films
in African Colonies Between the Wars, University of
Sussex Journal of Contemporary History,
http://www.sussex.ac.uk/history/research/usjch/p
astissues (12 November, 2010).
Norcutt as quoted in Diawara, African Cinema: Politics and Culture (Bloomington: Indiana University
Press, 1992), 1.
51.
British Film Institute, The Film in Colonial Development: A Report of a Conference, 26.
52.
Ibid.
53.
54.
55.
Ibid.
56.
57.
58.
Ibid., 7.
59.
Ibid.
60.
27.
28.
Ibid., 428.
29.
30.
31.
Ibid., 288.
32.
Ibid., 295.
33.
34.
Vans Carry Visual Education to Rural Areas in Nigeria, Colonial Cinema 10.4 (December 1952):
9294.
35.
Rosaleen Smyth, The Post-War Career of the Colonial Film Unit in Africa: 19461955, Historical Journal
of Film, Radio & Television 12.2 (1992): 163178.
61.
Ibid.
62.
Ibid., 167.
63.
37.
64.
Segrave, American Films Abroad: Hollywoods Domination of the Worlds Movie Screens.
38.
British Film Institute, The Film in Colonial Development: A Report of a Conference (London: British Film
Institute, 1948).
65.
66.
36.
This content downloaded from 132.248.67.103 on Mon, 15 Feb 2016 22:56:29 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Ikechukwu Obiaya
http://postcolonial.org/index.php/pct/article/view/
524/418 (13 December 2007).
83.
Haynes and Okome, Evolving Popular Media: Nigerian Video Films, 55.
84.
85.
86.
68.
69.
Smyth, The British Colonial Film Unit and Sub-Saharan Africa, 19391945, 294.
87.
70.
88.
Haynes and Okome, Evolving Popular Media: Nigerian Video Films, 64.
89.
90.
71.
72.
73.
91.
74.
92.
93.
Mark NeuCollins, Nigerian Cinema, Mark Neucollins Web Site http://www.mark-neucollins.org/writing/NigerianCinema.pdf (11 May 2009).
94.
National Film and Video Censors Board, Classification Decisions http://www.nfvcb.gov.ng/statistics.php (14 May 2008).
95.
96.
75.
76.
77.
78.
Ibid., 142.
79.
80.
81.
82.
Abstract: A Break with the Past: The Nigerian Video-film Industry in the
Context of Colonial Filmmaking,
by Ikechukwu Obiaya
This article examines the Nigerian video-film industry from the perspective of the countrys colonial past.
It begins with the premise that the development of the video-film industry can be seen as part of a
decolonisation process. It therefore seeks to establish what links, if any, exist between the present day
video-film industry and colonial filmmaking. It posits that the growth and success attained in the industry
reflect an overcoming of the strictures which, thanks largely to the legacy of colonialism, had held back
the growth of African cinema.
Key words: Nigerian video-films; African cinema; Bantu Educational Kinema Experiment; Colonial Film Unit
(CFU).
This content downloaded from 132.248.67.103 on Mon, 15 Feb 2016 22:56:29 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions