The African e-Journals Project has digitized full text of articles of eleven social science and humanities journals.   This item is from the digital archive maintained by Michigan State University Library. Find more at: http://digital.lib.msu.edu/projects/africanjournals/

Available through a partnership with

Scroll down to read the article.

film policy and thedevelopmentof theAFRICANCINEMAONOOKOME OKOME

There are many rich cultural

events in the West-Africansub region. These multifaceted, multimedia andpolyvocal cultural eventshave been recorded in this

region in many anthropological studies andlately in studies dealing with performanceand theatrical shows. Bakare Traore's book.Black Africa Theatre is one major exampledealing with some of these artistic expres-sions. Oyin Ogunba and Abiola Irele's Thea-tre in Africa is another such book. Theatre inAfrica, a collection of essays on ancient andcontemporary artistic expression deals withthe Nigerian state, otherwise, designated asan Anglophone state. These cultural expres-sions, referred to by Ogunba and Irele as'veritable carnivals,' a phrase which Bakhtin

has upgraded from its folk root to the heightof academic contemplation, may be said tobe limited in scope as each ethnic groupdefines its space within this larger politicalconfiguration. The Egba (Yoruba), for in-stance, would restrict their artistic manifes-tation to their cultural history, so that thiscultural expression isiimited in scope. Whileits relevance in the totality of cultural mani-festation is not in doubt, its significance isrestricted to a defined ethnic unit. Such ex-amples exist everywhere in the West Africansubregion. This is a region that is abundantlyexpressed in ethnic multiplicity.

But while this subregion has known manysuch cultural festivals, none of these festivalshave proved to wield such momentous andstupendous influence on the people across

ethnic line, cultural divide, religious affilia-tions and political choices as the medium ofcinema. This medium has come to mean somany things to so many people in this sub-continent. Like no artistic expression beforeits arrival, the cinema quickly moved fromthe periphery of the cultural life of thesepeople to the centre. This movement was asswift as it was telling. Sembene Ousmane,the grand aesthete of this medium, has won-derful recollections of this medium in itsearly days; 'In the book on the history ofcinematography, this part of Africa is terraincognita. In spite of their age, (Africanfilmmakers) they have cleared the path withdetermination and a youth spirit'. Whatlooked like a virgin area of artistic expres-sion has now taken its own coloration.Sembene Ousmane knows this. He helped in

more than one way to make this possible. Therapid acceptance of this medium he makesobvious when he declares, 'Nowadays, thereis not a single film festival without the par-ticipation of at least one film from us'. Thecinema, according to him, is an eveningschool. This is the cinema which Clyde Taylorrefers to as the 'Last cinema,' meaning thatAfrican cinema is the last to develop closelinks with its cultural and political roots. Sofar, in the last thirty years or so, a newcultural fact has emerged - the fact of ourexistence in the 'movies' or the flickers as theBritish would put it. Individually our re-sponse to this medium has been enthusiastic,almost frenzied in some place. From oneWest-African country to the other, the me-dium has grown tremendously. The subregionaccepted the medium and the product whichits sells; and inevitably accepted the contentwhich the product brings to us. Because therewas little control over what kind of films wasinitially brought to the West-Africansubregion, European and American distribu-tion and exhibition cartels held the captivemarket spell-bound for a long time. These

authorities in West-Africa, the discussion ofcinema development follows the colonialpractice which Britain and France institutedupon the subcontinent. These policy optionshave had telling impact on the developmentof the cinema industry in West-Africa. TheFrench system of indirect rule has tellingeffects on the development of the cinemaindustry and French West-Africa, some ofwhich are lingering today. Indirect rule didprovide a false situation of calm in whichFrench West- Africans thought of themselvesas French citizens and their capitals as satel-lites of Paris. The French were quite liberalabout the regulation of the cinema industriesin the colonies. For quite some time aftereffective colonisation, nothing was done toregulate what was shown to the local popula-tion. This assumption was that the popula-tion of the colony was one with that ofFrance. As Diawara puts it, 'Unlike the Brit-ish and the Belgians, who had colonial units,the French had no policy of producing filmsthat were especially intended for their sub-jects in Africa. The only decision made byFrance concerning film in the colony was the

tion of African history and culture from acritical African perspective. This was not infavour of the colonialist discourse of Afri-cans. The fear that this trend might negate thevery crux of colonialism provided the schizo-phrenia which brought about the Laval de-cree. In this connection, therefore, the Lavaldecree was the direct result of certain anti-colonial slant in filmmaking of the 1920s and1930s in French West-Africa, prominentamong this small dissident group of film-makers is Jean Rouch, the so-called father ofAfrican ethnographic films. Diawara aptlysums up this situation when he says the Lavaldecree was ... believed by many filmmakersof this period, including Jean Rouch, to be adesign to postpone 'the birth of FrancophoneAfrican cinema.' Jean Rouch himself hasthis to say of the Laval decree: 'the rule waspractically never applied against French film-makers, it served only as a pretext to veryyoung Africans, judged to be too turbulent bythe colonial administration, the right to filmtheir own country'. That the Laval decreeconcerned itself with 'the creative role byAfricans in the making of films' is a clear

These policy options have had telling impact on the devel-opment of the cinema industry in West-Africa, The Frenchsystem of indirect rule has telling effects on the develop-

ment of the cinema industry and French West-Africa, someof which are lingering today.

cartels distributed and exhibited their filmsin the West-African subregion; leaving littlespace for the development of an indigenousWest-African cinema industry. Not long af-ter the introduction of this medium into this-region, the euphoria which attended its intro-duction began petering out, and a criticalstance taken by a small class of people whosaw beyond the glitter and gold of the silverscreen. Independent artistic movements inthe subregion added to this. Before long itbecame clear that there was the need torewrite how cinema should operate and howpeople of the subregion ought to be repre-sented. Sembene Ousmane, pioneer of Afri-can cinema, was one of those who lookedbeyond the glamour of the silver screen. Andbecause colonial authorities and states of theWest-African subregion had one form ofcinema policy or the other in place, West-African filmmakers sought first and fore-most to write-over these intimidating colo-nial policies which regulated cinema prac-tice and other entertainment outlets.

As there were two distinct kinds of colonial

implementation of a law in 1934 called LaDecret Laval', the purpose of which was tocontrol films that were shot in Africa and tominimise the creative roles taken by Afri-cans in such productions. It is significant topoint out that long before 1934 when theLaval decree was instituted and enforced, theBritish had established the notorious, 'TheTheaire and Public Performance RegulationOrdinance of 1912'. This liberal attitudefrom the French cohere simply with the ipdi-rect rule system, which sought to make Afri-cans as Ftench as possible. The assumption,I presume, was that the French colonialist didnot have any need for separate legislation forthe colonies because it was assumed that alllegislations enforced in France automaticallyqualifies for the colonies. The 1934 La DecretLaval was therefore an after thought.

It is for this reason that I argue, for instance,that the Laval decree was concerned prima-rily with the content of films 'shot in Africa'.The need to control and regulate the contentof films made in Africa was a direct way tocontrol any strain of 'undue' re-interpreta-

manifestation of the attempt to stifle thecreative potentials and the emergence of anindependent cinema industry in FrancophoneWest-Africa. The first film that suffered cen-sorship under the Laval decree is RobertVantier's film, Africa 50, which was clan-destinely filmed in Ivory Coast in the 1950s.The second film.that got-shot down by thisdecree was Les Statues Une Aussi made bythe French new wave filmmakers, ChrisMarker and Alain Resnais in 1955. Underthis repressive turn of this decree, PaulineVieyra, a graduate of Institute d' HautesEtudes Cinematographiques (IDEHEC), thesame film school where Nigeria's OlaBalogun trained in Paris, was also deniedpermission to film Africa.

France took on a total new attitude to thedevelopment of cinema culture in post-colo-nial era. In 1961, France inaugurated theConsortium Audio-visual International(C.A.I.). This organ was set up to help inde-pendent African nations to develop their cin-ema industries, stifled during colonialism.This sudden change in policy was not uncon-

47

nected with the need to keep up with whatwas going on in the former colonies, al-though the public reason for setting up theC.A.I, was to help develop indigenousFrancophone cinema industry. Obviously theFrench realised that the atonement they wishto show for the devastated entertainmentindustries in French West-Africa could workin their favour in more than one way.

Two names are consistent in the early sub-version of the Laval decree: Jean Rouch andJean-Rene Debrix. The role of both filmmak-ers in the development of Francophone West-African cinema is, to say the least, ambigu-ous, although I must say that they began thetrend upon which future development wasconsolidated. 'As a potent organ of colonial-ism', to use Frank N. Ukadike's phrase,' 'theearliest step towards a courageous portrayalof the African realitywas by MareAllegret's Voyage onCongo(1927), anon-cinematic record ofAndre Gibe's travelsin the Congo'. Sincethen there has been aspate of non AfricanAfricanists whose ef-fort at defining thepositive image of thecontinent and its peo-ple is worthy of note.

While I think it is im-portant to call into fo-cus the role of JeanRouch, the ethno-graphic filmmaker, itis necessary to be cau-tious about the influ-ence which his role in French West-Africafilmmaking has engendered. This cautiousnote is well recorded in Ukadike's encyclo-paedic book, Black African Cinema 'Rouchand his ethnographic film expedition to Af-rica called into question the whole traditionof ethnographic filmmaking.' For Ukadike,ethnographic filmmaking represented a stagein colonial filmmaking in West-Africa, be-cause like most European attitude to non-European world, extraneous critical criteriawere brought to bear upon a set of culturalexperiences that is not European. In Ukadike'sassessment, the exotic in African cultureswere emphasised in ethnographic films.Teshome Gabriel argues that this slant isobvious in the early films of Rouch, not in thelater, more articulate and fine-tuned re-searches into the 'African mind', via 'thegrowing tendency to personalise and fiction-alise.' However, Ukadike and Diawara agree

that Rouch's lasting and most telling contri-bution to Francophone filmmaking, indeedAfrican filmmaking, is the access which hiscollaborative work with Africans gave topotential African filmmakers to work thetechnology of filmmaking. This was some-thing denied Africans under the perniciousLaval decree.

The development of cinema in FrancophoneAfrica took a new turn with the inaugurationof the C.A.I. In 1963, Jean-Rene Debrix wasappointed director of the newly createdBurean du Cinema at the Co-operation. Be-fore this appointment, Debrix had worked inIDEHEC as adjunct director. His appoint-ment to the top position in the C.A.I, provedas ambiguous as the effort of Jean Rouch inhis ethnographic films in Africa. Before theappointment of Debrix, the emphasis of the

From the deliberations of Fespaci (Federa-tion Panafrican de Cineastes), Fespaco cameinto existence in 1969. When it began in1969, 'only five African and two Europeancountries participated in the FestivalPanafricain du Cinema de Ouagadougou.'Today, the Fespaco organisers have expandedthe pan-African scope of the Festival's ob-jectives. The 1995 edition was quite exqui-site, extra-ordinary. With more than 10,000delegates, the city of Ouagadougou witnesseda boom in everything - from sales of sou venirto the attendance boom at film screenings.The scope of its finances has been enlarged.In its early years of existence, Fespaco wasalmost solely supported by the French gov-ernment. Owing to the dedication of its or-ganisers more avenues of finance are open-ing up. The 1995 edition has a Jong list ofsuch support.

Fespaco has nodoubt energisedfilm production,marketing and dis-tribution in theW e s t - A f r i c a nsubregion. It hasalso opened up seri-ous debate on therole of African film-makers in shapingthe future of Afri-ca's culture andpolitics. ThisFespaco has done ina very serious man-ner.

OuMiianc Sembene(Left) and Idrissa Ouedraogo (right) Courtesy Of Christine Delorme.

French government through the C.A.I, wasto help post colonial governments ofFrancophone Africa develop film units withthe sole aim of producing newsreels anddocumentary. Debrix changed all that, argu-ing that the film will prove to be a useful wayof telling the African story. In a very signifi-cant way, Debrix helped the development ofthe cinema in this subregion. There was, inDebrix's time at the co-operation, a radicalneglect of the Laval decree.

The major criticism of Debrix's contributionto the development of Francophone cinemais that he arrogated so much to himself in theselection of what script to finance. He be-came the lord of the creative choice. Thepolicy of the French government has notchanged since Debrix's death in 1978.Fespaco, the biennial film festivalOuagadougou is a good case in point.

While some critics,especially criticsand filmmakers

from Anglophone countries have argued thatFespaco presents and represents only FrenchWest-Africa, recently more countries fromEnglish speaking West-Africa have discov-ered the importance of this cultural festival tothe continent. The Nigerian contingent, forinstance, has attended the last two editions ofFespaco - 1993 and 1995. In a discussionwith Malam Breudam Shehu at the 1995 edi-tion of Fespaco, the Managing Director ofthe Nigerian Film Corporation (NFC) madethe point that Fespaco is a very significantcultural event. He did say that there wereorganisational lapses here and there, but byand large, he is of the opinion that Fespaco issomething worthy of emulation. A numberof English speaking African films have wonprizes at Fespaco.

The significance of Fespaco is therefore notrestricted to French West-Africa, but to Af-

48

rica as a whole. It may have benefited FrenchWest-Africa most, but this is inevitable. Itstarted there and was painstakingly nurturedby the governments and people of the coun-tries within this block.

The case of the development of the cinemaindustry in English West-Africa is different.Some Anglophone countries have only be-gun to encourage film production, distribu-tion and exhibition. The governments areonly beginning to take nominal interest in theindustry. The cinema industry is not organ-ised on a sub-regional level as it began incolonial French West-Africa. Infrastructureis weak and finance none existent. The exist-ence of the industry in the different nations,especially Ghana and Nigeria, is only as-sured by the doggedness of independent film-makers. The historical precedence is, ofcourse, very crucial. Colonial Britain did notencourage film production in her colonies.

I propose to discuss in some detail the con-tent of all the policies on film that Nigeria hasenacted since 1912 when the first policycame into existence. In addition, I will exam-ine the impact of these policies on the devel-opment of film in Nigeria and on the Nige-rian film, and the short-comings of thesepolicies. Nigeria presents an interesting pic-ture of colonial attitude to the developmentof the cinema in Anglophone West Africa.

I have identified the period in which the firstfilm was screened, 1903 to the late 1950s, asthe first phase of the film in Nigeria. Let usrefer to this period as the crude era, notsimply because indigenous production wasat its foetal stages, but also became indig-enous infrastructure did not exist. The sec-ond period began in the late 60s and thenestablished itself as an emergent film tradi-tion in the 70s with the release of Kongi'sHarvest in 1970. I wish to designate thisperiod as the beginning of Nigerian films: forit was from this period that we began to feelthe tempo and temperament of indigenouscultural patterns in the body of the Nigerianfilm. Here, too, film as a cultural fact beganto take indigenous habits into consideration.The contingency of the production of filmsduring this period may, of course, be sourcedpartially in that of the first period that I haveidentified, but it is clear that a new apprehen-sion of the medium and its potential in Nige-rian took off. The third period which, by itsindexical, iconic, and productional criteria,belongs to the crucial period of the Nigerianfilm, began when the age-long practices ofthe theatre of the southern Yoruba countrywas transformed into the medium -of film.This started in the mid-70s and became sig-nificant in the tableaux of the Nigerian cin-ema with the release of Aiye in 1979.

has its own film culture derived from thecomplex interplay of the distribution, exhibi-tion and production of films and the patternof audience responses vis-a-vis the content,timing, ideology and ethnic peculiarity.

My analysis of these policies and how thepolitical contingencies of their various peri-ods empower (or disempower) this mediumwould soon make this point clear. Suffice itto say that a film culture is born partly out ofthe perceived role and place of the filmwithin a given society by individuals livingwithin it, and it is this relationship that partlydetermines the cadence of film production.

In the history of the film in Nigeria, we havehad three policies specifically designed andpromulgated to regulate, encourage and shapethe film environment.

They are: the Theatre and public Perform-ance Regulation Ordinance, 1912; the Cin-ematography Act (1963); and the NigerianFilm Corporation (NFC) Decree (1979).

However, there are other cultural documentsthat have been promulgated which may havebeen designed to further the aim and aspira-tions of film and cinema in the cultural land-scape .

Each of these periods of the film in Nigeria These are: the Nigerian Enterprise Promo-

On the location of the film Orun Mooru

49

John Sekka (left) and the late Orlando Martins in the film Things Fall Apart produced by CalpennyCompany.

tion Degree No.4 (1972); the Mass Commu-nication Policy (1987); the Cultural Policy(1989); and the Copyright Policy (1989).

In one way or another, these policies havebeen promulgated to cater for a viable enter-tainment environment which favours thegrowth and expansion of the film and itspotentials in Nigeria, but the content, biasand direction which each of these policiesassumed depended more on the ideologicalpersuasion of the government that issuedthem.

The first film policy was 'The Theatre andPublic Performance Regulation Ordinanceof 1912. This law. according OnyeroMgbejume, was 'proposed and published inthe government gazette, ready to be intro-duced into the legislative council of Nigeriain 1912. However, there was public resent-ment over the idea of regulation and licens-ing the new industry for reasons to be dis-cussed'. Although this act failed to reach thelegislative council according to Mgbejume.the first Cinematographic Ordinance Act (No.20) was passed by the Council. Going by thesubmission of Mgbejume, the 1912 Act wasnot the first regulating document in the Nige-rian film environment, since it was not passedinto law However, he is or the opinion that in1933, the 'first' Cinematographic OrdinanceNo. 20 was passed by the legislative assem-

W'n one way or anmother, these policies

Jm^have been promul-gated to cater for a vi-

able entertainment envi-ronment which favoursthe growth and expan-sion of the film and itspotentials in Nigeria,

but the content, bias anddirection which each ofthese policies assumeddepended more on theideological persuasionof the government that

issued them.

bly.

Entitled, 'An Ordinance for the Better Regu-lation and Control of Cinematograph andSimilar Exhibition and Purpose ConnectedThere', it was applied to both the LagosColony and the rest of Nigeria. This Ordi-nance was the first in the industry to specifi-cally create a censorship board and a censor-ship committee to determine the kind offilms that were exhibited to the local popula-tion. Among the provisions set out in thisOrdinance were that:

(i) It was unlawful to show films onunlicensed premises;

(ii) Licenses were not to be grantedunless government was satisfied aboutthe suitability and safety of the proposedpremises;

(iii) During the time films were beingshown, government officials must beallowed in to ensure that there was nopotential danger which might be caused byfire;

(iv) The Censorship Board include theDirector of Education and tenotherpersonsappointed by the Governor;

(v) The Board was empowered to ap-points from time, to time C e n s o r s h i pCommittee;

(vi) Films and posters were not allowedto be displayed unless approval hadbeen given;

(vii) The Committee was empowered toscreen films and examine posters;

(viii) Owners of censored films have theright to appeal forfurther hearing; and

(ix) Private home movies were not cov-ered by the law.

The 1933 Cinematographic Ordinance,Mgbejume tells us, underwent series of mu-tations, first in 1934 when it was radicallyredefined in many respects; in 1941, 1944and 1964.

Properly considered, therefore, the 1963 Cin-ematography Act is actually an advancementof the 1933 Cinematographic Ordinancewhich regulated the film environment duringthe early days of film in Nigeria.

Although Hyginus Ekwuazi contests the factthat the 1912 Ordinance Act was not passed

50

into law, thereby making it the first of suchlaws passed in this country which regulatedentertainment, a critical examination of boththe 1912 and 1933 which underwent muta-tion into the 1963 Cinematographic showsthat their contents are not altogether differ-ent. Perhaps the point I should make here isthat the 1933 Act was, in fact, an improve-ment of the 1912 "Theatre and Public Per-formance Act' For as Ekwuazi points out',"The Theatre and Public Performance Regu-lation Ordinance' has two parts: 'The firstwhich dealt with issues of license as it af-fected the venue: by this, stage plays (andthis included the cinematographic) could beexhibited only in • • ~H buildings as were dulylicensed for SUCH , .- ormances. Otherwise,the exhibitor incurred a penalty of N20 (thenequivalent of about N40) for each day ofperformance. The other part of the Ordi-nance mandated that for a license of exhibi-tion to e granted for any such performance, adetailed description of the play was to befurnished to the licensing officer infringe-ment of this attracted a fine of #50 (thenabout N100) (1990:4).'

Both Ordinances, in various guises, mani-fested the latent political interest of imperial-ist ideology .

These Ordinances removed the sphere ofactual production from indigenous peoples.Ekwuazi makes this point when he assertsthat: 'From scripting and directing, throughshooting to editing and sounding, Africansfeatured only in significantly minor roles.Even when traditional African stories weresolicited for scripting such stories ended upbeing slanted to reflect the stance, the biasand predilection of the producer (the CFU):production policies were formulated overand above the heads of Africans for whomand with whom the films were made.'

The shortcomings of these Ordinances, in-imical to the even development of indig-enous film production, were therefore in-scribed in both documents. But while theseOrdinances did not favour the even develop-ment of all aspects of the film in ColonialNigeria, both Ordinances were harsh on thefeature (narrative) film. Ostensibly, becausecolonial cinema was based on the ideologicalpractice which sought to further a discoursepattern which favoured and legitimised colo-nialism, the documentary genre was favoured.

From the reading of both Ordinances, twopoints stand out clear. First, the attempt tokeep the local population outside the enter-tainment arena, and secondly, the expedi-ency to develop only those facets of the

industry that the colonialist thought favour-able to his ideological practice. Situatedwithin this practice was the pernicious dis-tortion of the Blackbody. The Blackbody inthese films featured not as signifier of au-tonomous authority, but as a vast untraversedmap, a territory waiting to be inscribed upon.

The implementation of these Ordinances andthe implicit colonialist discourse thereinbrought further a film culture in the early partof the development of film in Nigeria thatwas (and still is) ambivalent, alien and incon-sequential to the cultural roots of the indig-enous population. An attitude to film iconbecame the vogue: that attitude which theindigene took to the film image as somefictive interpretation that lacked any signifi-cant anchor in real life. The shortfall of thisattitude is with us today. We have not totallyimbibed the film image as an approximationto the life we crave for. the whole complexmachinery of cinema as an image-makingfactory, at least not when it tells about us. Byentrenching the filmic image that is far-fetched to the aspiration of the local popula-tion, early cinema in Nigeria demobilised itspotency. It became elitist, bourgeois.

The content of 'The Theatre and Public Per-formance Ordinance' and 'An Ordinance ofThe Better Regulation and Control of Cin-ematograph and Similar Exhibition and Pur-poses Connected Therewith' fostered thisculture and encouraged parochial cinemadevelopment in colonial Nigeria.

No doubt, the 1963 Cinematograph Act is acarry over from the legacy of colonial cin-ema. It bears the imprints and pretensions ofcolonial cinema in its operation and in thenegation of significant approval of the localpopulation for which it was adapted. Indeed,someone has ventured to say that it is a copyof the Cinematograph Act of England. If it is,then, the wholesale adoption gave it a biasedslant, and made it, from the very beginning ofits operation, inadequate.

However, I think it would be useful to look atthe Act closely and show why it becameinadequate in this society, and why the Nige-rian Film Corporation Decree of 1979 be-came inevitable.

First, this Act, like the ones that came before,empowers the Minister of Information toconstitute a Board of Censors. This Board isthereafter put in the position to censor filmsthat are produced and exhibited in Nigeriaand those imported into the country. TheBoard, this Act glibly states, should com-prise 'fit persons and organisations repre-

senting the thought and opinions of personsresident in Nigeria'. The vagueness of thisterm of reference is of course not lost to us.How does one determine the 'fitness of peo-ple' who ought to censor films meant forpublic consumption? Who determines thefitness of the members of this Board?

Ekwuazi illustrates the problem of such am-biguous terms and shows the formation ofthree such Boards, pointing out how theseloosely defined terms of reference could beread from different positions of bias. Thesebiased readings were, according to Ekwuazi,apparent in the constituted Boards of 1959,1971 and 1977. Supporting his claims withthe University of Lagos study, he concludesthat the Boards constituted for 1971 and1977 were made up of members over 40years of age and goes on to point out thepaternalism that such bias caused in the de-velopment of the film industry and in theculture of the film audience. It is significantto point here that the research which Ekwuazi(1984)1 undertook, entitled 'Findings fromthe Lagos and Ibadan Cinema Audience Sur-veys' and that of Onookome Okome (1990)entitled 'The Sociology of the Folkloric Cin-ema in Nigeria' show clearly that the majorpatrons of Nigerian Cinema are found amongteenagers. The group constitutes more thansixty per cent (60%) of the total film-goingaudience. As Ekwuazi points out in his study,this age bracket was born in the film era - theglobal film culture. The Boards constitutedin 1971 and 1977 would have ignored thisimportant variable in their deliberation. Apartfrom these Boards, there have been ad hocBoards created at irregular interval, but thereis no evidence to show that they surmountedthis problem that we stated here.

A second problem is the criteria under whichthe Board would grant a film screening li-cence. Approval would not be given underthe these conditions: undermine national se-curity; induce or reinforce corruption of pri-vate or public morally; encourage illegal andcriminal acts; expose peoples of African de-cent to ridicule and contempt; and encourageracial, religious and ethnic discriminationand conflict. (Ekwuazi, 1991).

Although the Board is vested with the powerof censoring both domestic and importedfilms, there is a portion in the Act whicheffectively delimits the Board's sphere ofinfluence. This section excludes certainclasses of cinematographic films from beingcensored. These are short films that take nolonger than five minutes to exhibit, such as8mm films and 'any film imported, producedand issued by the direction of the govern-

51

ment of the federation or any state; the diplo-matic representative of any commonwealthor foreign country, the United Organisationor any organ of that organisation or anyeducational, scientific or cultural body orsociety, including broadcasting and televi-sion organisation'.

The problems inherent here are enormous.The vagueness of the term 'imported films'that is kept outside the Board's power is anegation of national security and may be asource of the denigration of our culturalvalue as recent events have shown. This is abig gap. It is equally amazing why the 8mmfilm is excluded from censorship. If we real-ised the potential of this film gauge in theexperimental work of foreigners on our land,the dimension of distorted images encased inthem, then this particular condition becomesa serious oversight or a deliberate copy ofcolonial cinema which the adopters of thiscolonial Act failed to see.

astly, the provision thatstipulates the punishment of offencescommitted is rathermild. Besides, sincethere was no monitoring arm in theMinistry of Informa-

tion, this Act became only apiece of 'govern-ment paper', as the saying goes. It did nottouch the average film goer or the exhibitor.Furthermore, as the Board and its parentbody never exercised any control over theimportation of film, it was doubtful if theyhad any input in the actualisation of the Actin this direction. They never had. The evi-dence before us shows that the importation offilms soared in the 70s and even the NigerianFilm Distribution Company (NFDC) im-ported foreign films for screening, about 80per cent of total screen schedule betweenJanuary and December 1982. If we put thistogether with the nefarious activities of Leba-nese businessmen in the film exhibition anddistribution network and the activities ofAMPECA, the situation became rather pa-thetic- a massive influx of foreign films whichthe Censorship Board had no direct controlover. It must be added here that the influx ofvideo machines and satellite dishes made thecensorship climate even more porous.

The call for restatement of government onpolicy matters and the encouragement of thefilm industry as an indigenous form of enter-tainment predated the 1979 seminar on filmand culture organised by the National Coun-cil for Art and Culture, Lagos. However, itwas the culmination of the call to create a

body which should take charge of this impor-tant aspect of our cultural life. In any case,this call was a recognition of the inadequa-cies and failures of former legislations. Fromthe beginning, therefore, the Nigerian FilmCorporation Decree was laced with an enor-mous task. It had to shed the appendages ofcolonial cinema and then set the pace by itsown agenda for indigenous film productionin Nigeria.

i o this end. the NigerianFilm CorporationDecree has made significant progress.The Decree enlargedthe narrow interestgroup formation ofthe 1963 Cinemato-

graph Act to include specialists in perform-ance, literary and cultural activities as mem-bers of the Board. It also includes indigenousfilmmakers for the first time. Properlyindigenised, the Corporation was inaugu-rated to carry out these functions.

(a) the production of films for domes-tic consumption and for export;

(b) the establishment an maintenanceof facilities for film production;

(c) the encouragement of productionby Nigerians of film through financialand other forms of assistance;

(d) the encouragement of the develop-ment of cinematographic theatres by Nige-rian by way of financial and other forms ofassistance;

(e)films;

the acquisition and distribution of

(0 the provision of facilities for train-ing and advancing the skills and talentsof persons employed in the Nigerian filmindustry generally and the conduct of re-search into the matters pertaining to filmproduction and the film industry as awhole; and

(g) the carrying out of such activities asmay be necessary or expedient for thefull discharge of all or any of the functionsconferred on it under or pursuant to thisDecree (Nigerian Film Corporation decree,1979, No. 61; p. A430).

Undoubtedly, these are laudable goals. Infact, the Decree is a timely re-writing of thefilm industry. Apart from the resuscitation ofthe place of the indigenous filmmaker in the

tableaux of the Nigerian film, four of thefunctions are particularly noteworthy: theestablishment and maintenance of facilitiesfor film production; the encouragement ofthe development of cinematography theatresby Nigerians by way of financial and otherassistance; the establishment and mainte-nance of a national film archive, and theprovision of training and advancing the skillsand talents of persons employed in the Nige-rian film industry.

There is no doubt that the most outstandingproblem militating against the viableproductional aspect of the film industry is thelack or total absence of film productioninfastructural units such as laboratories, ed-iting studios, etc. It would be recalled that thesituation was so acute that Sanya Dosunmu,a filmmaker, began setting up his film labo-ratory in the 70s, but he was soon priced outof business as he found out that cost ofequipment escalated all to often. The Decreetook cognisance of this. And the Film Corpo-ration under the leadership of Shehu Brendanhas seen to it that these infrastructural unitsare put in place. Although it is not clear if theCorporation has done anything to encourageindigenous ownership of cinema exhibitionshalls, it is hoped that it will in due course.

n any case, it would be necessaryto increase the frequency of indigenous film production before engaging in this aspect ofthe provision of the Decree because an increase in local filmswill justify money spent on local film halls by business peo-

ple. Although it is not clear if this is theattitude which the Corporation holds, onecannot but hold the opinion that this may wellserve its purpose.

Perhaps the finest provision of the functionof the Corporation is that which emphasisesthe setting up of a film archive. The signifi-cance of this provision places, on a verycomfortable place, the cultural dimension offilm, a popular medium in Nigeria, as it iselsewhere. I have argued elsewhere that as ameans of reconstructing political, culturaland social history, film archives are indis-pensable. This is especially so in a societysuch as ours where there is an acute lack ofdocumentation. The 1979 Decree which setup the Nigerian Film Corporation settled thismatter and the administrative machinery sawto its implementation.

It is also noteworthy to point out that tFBsDecree also made provision for the trainingof those engaged in the industry. This provi-

52

sion has not been quite put to test. The reason,I presume, has to do with the fact that theCorporation has not set up its academy. Suchan academy would, when operational, takecare of training staff and other categories ofworkers in the industry.

There is no doubting the fact that the 1979Decree which set up the Nigerian Film Cor-poration (NFC) began a new phrase in thehistory of the Nigerian cinema. So far, it hasbeenthemostpracticalandresult-onenied.lthas, as I have pointed out, rewritten Ihc placeof film in Nigeria. More than anything else,the execution of the functions assigned to theNFC has carried forward the aspiration ofthis Decree, especially the years beginningfrom 1985 to date.

I have discussed the 1912, 1963 and 1979legislations as they affect the development ofthe film industry in sonic detail, but while Ihave dealt with the first two as documents, Ihave consciously read the last (1979) as botha document and a realisation. The reason lorthis is obvious. Until now, the only legisla-tion that carried within its written (theoreti-cal) outlook a comprehensive unambiguousframework is the 1979 Decree. Besides, atthe level of implementation, the success re-corded so far in less than a decade far outrunswhatever gains the practice of the other twolegislations could garner. Backed by the Ni-gerian Enterprises Promotion Decree of 1972.and the indigenisation euphoria of the pe-riod, the brains behind the 1979 Film Decreecame up with a near perfect master plan.

Both the Mass Communication Policy (1967)and the National Cultural Policy (1989) havesimilar content. They aredeclamatorily com-plimentary to the 1979 Decree. While the1979 Decree establishing the Nigerian FilmCorporation emphasises the creation, main-tenance and sustenance of structures withinthe film industry, the Mass CommunicationPolicy and the National Cultural Policy do nomore than spell out the role of film in nationaldevelopment. In fact, the CommunicationPolicy even specifies the role of the NFC: thebody that is saddled with the functions ofproviding basic infrastrucutral facilities forthe industry. It is also important to point outthat the Copyright Law (Decree No 47 ofDecember, 1988) of Nigeria recognises theeligibility of the cinematograph for copy-right.

Although I have argued here that the NFCpushed the film industry a step further, andthat the import of this push may becomemore evident in a couple of years, certaincomments and suggestions are necessary at

Oumarou Canda (right) in L'exile (1981)

this point.

I find that the provisions outlining functionstor the NFC do not include the duties ofcensoring films distributed, exhibited, andproduced locally and internationally. For thereason that Nigerian film going audience hasbeen weaned on foreign films, and for thereason that what the industry should high-light Ihe cultural, social and political valuesoi the nation, it is essential that a definitepolicy of censorship be inaugurated. Ofcourse, this call has been forcefully put in adocument: a draft film policy. One or twocomments, I believe, are in order here.

In trying to correct the shortfalls of the 1963Cinematographic Act, this policy documentsuggests among other things the streamlin-ing of the regulations of the Censorship Boardand its functions into one set of rules for theFederation (p. 23), the upgradement of thepenalty stipulation for infringement of therules, the establishment of zonal branches inLagos, Kano, Port-Harcourt and Yola, andthat the secretary to the Board should comefrom the NFC.

The functions which this policy ascribes tothe Board are quite exhaustive, comprehen-sive and well-meaning, but the suggestionthat every zonal branch should determine itsown rules of infringement is a negation of thecentrality of the Board of Censors in thescheme of things. This bogus autonomy mighteven cause problems. Furthermore, I thinkthe NFC should fully take charge of theCensors Board. For if the functions of theNFC are set right and realised in due course,it would be in a position to provide thenecessary data for the judgement that theCensorship Board would base its wisdom.

The idea of the establishment of film socie-ties and other voluntary film associations islaudable, but the operational bases should

move into the schools (Primary, Secondary,Colleges and Universities) where film clubsshould be encouraged and public screeningof significant national films are done at regu-lar intervals. The extension of exhibitionsinto the rural areas of the country by means ofmobile vans should be encouraged.

The development of the cinema industry inWest-Africa is therefore a study of the differ-ence in the history of colonial practices in thesubregion as well as the enthusiasm of post-colonial governments in the face of paucityof resources and/or sheer neglect of thiscultural means of articulating national differ-

While French West-Africa, through the helpof France and other willing internationalbodies, has been able to establish andstrengthen an important international sub-regional film festival, Fespaco, a culturalevent which calls attention to films made inAfrica biennially, no English speaking West-African nation has come near the magnitudeof the organisational zeal of Fespaco. Butthis has little effect on the product of thecinema industry in Anglophone West-Af-rica. Many Anglophone films have won prizesat international film festivals. KwawAnsah'shove Brewed in An African Pot and OlaBalogun's Black Goddess are some exam-ples. Anglophone films have also won prizesat Fespaco meetings. Only recently, the Ni-gerian Film Corporation has tried to promotethe place of the cinema industry in Nigeria'scultural life. The NFC organised its first FilmFestival from December 9- 12, 1992. No-where near the grandeur of Fespaco, the firstNigerian Film Festival was understandablynational in outlook. In a significant way, thisfestival has started the industry on the rightfooting. Since this festival, no one is left indoubt as to the potentials and enthusiasm ofthe Nigerian audience. GR

53