Nollywood andilts Critics ONOOKOME OKOME Nollywood, the wonder cinema from Africa's most populous ‘ation, is reporting giant earnings. Its also generating intractable controversies about its place in the production of culture and society in postcolonial Nigeria. This sto be expected. The rise and fll of popular arts in Nigeria and elsewhere in Africa has always generated social debate, much of it beclouding the import ‘of such productions and their place in the life of those who live the debilities that they inscribe. Even ifwe have reasons to argue now that such attitudes are beginning to change, iis sill rue that dominant critiques have played down the socal significance ofthese forms of expression on the continent. This his- tory of abnegarion can be attributed tothe educational regime that colonialism bequeathed to A fica. I s also parly connected to what Chinua Achebe once referred toas the “ansiety of the postcolonial.” For scholars who buy into this discourse the fear is that privileging popular ats as the miror through which contemporary Africa i represented to the outside world grossly misrepresents the continent, But it could also be argued that this discourse is nothing but a ruse to legislate the production of cul- ture and knowledge about the postcolonial condition by these self-appointed cultural menor, even when they know litle or nothing about the objects of inquiry. By recapping and emphasizing these tactics of denial, these critics ste witeorer an ape af poxcoloial Aca that considered to be outside the teritory of their political concern. While the basis of this denial is at best suspicious, what comes out of these “enlightened” responses to popular forms of cultral productions isa deep sense of intellectual arrogance. 26 : Nollywood and lts Critics But, as Kwame Anthony Appiah wisely points out, in spite of such attacks the production of popular arts in Africa “grows apace.” My attention in this chapter will focus on one such popular-atform—Nollywood. Nollywood is not ‘only a huge industry in Nigeria; it is an exceptional feld of cultural production, the kind that is difficult to ignore, one that has crossed national boundaries, creating what is akin to a subregional expression of culture and society. Suf- fused with recognizable sentiments of the poor and vulnerable in the Nigerian postcolonial economy of want and deprivation, and keenly aware of the massive acceptance that it enjoys, Nollywood has articulated the popular consciousness of the African continent and its diasporas in a form unprecedented here or in cinematic practice anywhere in the world, My goal here is to interrogate a selected portion of the critical discourse that has formed around this at form and the anxiety it generates The Busines of Cuitural Mediation ‘The goal of Nigeria's cultural mediators is an obvious one. It is to bring Ni- geria to the world in a certain way. It is, as Appiah defines it, “a space-clearing ‘gesture,"' which also means that itis a taking ofa space of discourse by force. ‘There is good reason to focus tis effort cn Nollywood, which is as socially and culturally ubiquitous in Nigeria as it is popular across the continent. Embed- ded in the texts of Nollywood video films are the cultural and political debates of the day. The debates may be localized but they have deeper implications for Africa and its diasporas. Since it debuted in the late 19708, Nollywood has moved quickly from a comer in the social life of the people of Nigeria to the center of its cultural and economic life. As it fought its way into this position, it met stiff opposition from observers who consider it less than an artform. is eritical attention seeks t emphasize Nollywood's social and cultural ephemeralty by pointing to its popularity among a certain category of consumers—the popular masses. Nollywood is even expunged fiom the seri ‘ous realm of Nigeria’s postcoloniality. In other words itis intellectually naive. ‘Appiah seems to sum up this views AIL aspects of contemporary Aftican life—including music and some sculpture and painting, even some writing with which the Wests largely ‘not familar—have been influenced, often powerfully, by the transition, cof Aftcan societies through colonialism, but they are not al in the rel- evant sense postcolonial, For the past in postcolonial, like the postin postmodern is the port ofthe space-clearing gesture... and many areas ‘of contemporary African cultural life—what has come to be theorized as popular culture, in particular—are not in this way concemed with ‘transcending, with going beyond, olonality (548; emphasis in original) 7ONOOKOME OKOME [Appiahs position is fraught with inherent problems, if not contradictions. If the culture which the production and consumption of popular arts produces is not postcolonial even though itis generated by some of most enduring activa- tors ofthe conditions of postcoloniality, what then instigates the anxiety in the responses to Nollywood fils? What this critique fails to recognize is that the Past in the postcoloniality of Nollywood films is not and cannot be the same ‘post-as the “space-clearing gesture” ofthe small group of intellectuals who seek to mediate popular Aftica to the outside world and legistate the production of an “authentic” culture and society in contemporary AVfica. "The voices of these cultural mediators are very powerful in Nigerian uni~ versties, They are armed with the vestiges ofa colonial education even when con the surface of things they deny the enveloping presence of this heritage. It is through suck a prism that they (un)read the content and intent of popular artifacts produced by the popular public in Aftica, To them, these artifacts are no more than curios, which are produced by naive artists who have little or no critical sense of the “grave” matters that confront the African in the postindependence era. This negating attitude completely neglects the playful but surreptitious ways in which Nollywood depicts the ways that the poor and the vulnerable try out their fortunes in the dicey and often difficlt social and cultural problems they live through in Nigeria In contrast to the dismissive views of Affican critics, we may cite Arjun ‘Appaduras emphasis on the ‘role of the imagination as a popula, social and ‘collective act,” one that “encourages the collective patterns of dissent in which new signs of life emerge.” Itis thus possible to see Nollywood as, in Appadu- rails terms, a fculty thet informs the daly life of ordinary people in myriad ‘ways. Itallows people to consider migration, resist state violence, seek social re- dress, and design new forms of civic association and collaboration, often across national bouncaries” (4). On popular arts in ASica specifically, Karin Barber cloquently argues that works that we may take as “naive, cheerful and carefree + usually talk about matters of deep interests and concems to the people who produce and ccnsume them.” They may not be exactly what we know of them ‘but they do “speak to people about the conditions of their existence.” Nol- |ywood fits wel into this description. Why Mediate Nollywood? ‘The critics of Nollywood perceive ther tsk as one of correcting the erroneous and banal way that Nollywood films represent Nigeria to its own public to [Atica, and to she rest ofthe world. For this group, i is a matter of mediating the unwanted mediator—Nollywood. A good representative of this tendency within the scholarship of cinema in Nigeria is Ademola James, former head of 8 Nollywood and Its Critics the National Film and Video Censors Board. James summarizes the content (and lacunae) of Nollywood film: Storylines invasibly evolve aroun¢ infrity or chillessness, the prob- Jems of polygamy, child abandonment or desertion, legacy or inheritance issues, prostition, sibling rivalry, philandering wife or husband snatch- ing, problem of in-laws, house helps, bonding and oath-taking, Sensitive cultural issues such asthe Osu System, incest, witcheraft and fetishism are ako delved into... A number af the English-language productions have handled stories elated to crime, drugs, health and fraud based on ‘happenings in recent times. However, the major issues of our time such 4 joblessness, problems of the legal system, justice, equity, freedom, pol tics, social problems in education, medical services, housing, food, drug addiction and trafficking are sil begging for serious screen treatment. James based this assertion on a study that was carried out by the board in 1999. ‘He also complains about the “negative images” that Nollywood projects, which have a depreciating effect on Nigerians and on those who see Nigeria through this cinematic prism: “oceultism, cultism, fetishism, witchcraft, devilish spiri- tualism, uncontrolled tendency for sexual display, bloodiness, incest, violence, poisoning, etc. .. . are ‘negatively based themes’ that portray the people of [Nigeria and the country in bad light to the outside world and therefore ought to be censored.” He blames the preponderance of these themes on what he sees as the ‘commercialism of Nollywood,” and argues for ‘a sense of social responsibility and relevance.” “Thereis hardly anything new about these points. They echo the introductory notes to the book of essays, Operative Principles ofthe Film Industry: Towards 4 Film Poticy for Nigeria, which came out of the wonference organized by the ‘Nigerian Film Corporation in 1992. The speech that the minister of informa- tion and culture, Sam Oyovbaire, gave atthe meetingiis an even more emphatic version of what Ademola James put forward in his 1999 “cultural manifesto.” “The film,” according to the minister, “is a unique means of communication fand] can be used as a tool to promote positive social transformation.”* To achieve this goal, Oyovbaire prescribes that film must adhere to certain rules, rules defined by a cultural and film policy that, among other things, encour- ages filmmakers “to mobilize and motivate the people by disseminating ideas which promote national pride, solidarity and consciousness” (3) In short, the ‘Nigerian film must be nationalistic. Thisdefinition of the role of cinema recalls the Pan-A fricanst agenda of the Kwame Nkrumah years. [sit the search for a nation long after political decolonization that prompted these cultural media~ tors to intervene in Nollywood?oNoOKOME OKOME (One source of this anxiety about the fame of Nigeria presented through video films is the diasporic dimension of Nollywood spectatorship, which has been growing strong and steadily in the lat ten years. Philip Cartlli reports of the influence of Nollywood in the faraway Caribbean nation of St. Lucia, where *Nigerian video films, and their counterpart industry in Ghana are by far the most popular bootleg DVDs sold on this sidewalk market in a city ‘where almost all media has been pirated from its original version.” According to Carelli, In 2004, Nigerian tabloid, The Daily Sun, published an interview swith Justin Duru, a Nigerian living in the Dutch island of St, Maarten, who claimed to intrcduce Nigerian films to the area by screening classics such as Glamour Girl” ‘Georgia East reports on the popularity of Nigerian video film in south~ ‘em Florida, where “fans of Aftican movies ... find themselves glued to the screens because, in so many ways, the far-away continent scems so familia.” ‘According to Ess, the attraction to Nollywood by people of Caribbean origin is undeniable; this diasporic audience simply “adores Nollywood.” One retailer is reported to have declared that ‘on an average Saturday, he sells about 400 [Nigerian movies... it is not the price but the storylines of these Nigerian films that keep them [patrons] wanting more." The success of Nollywood in ‘Ameria is not imited to southern Florida. “Industry specialists say easier ac~ ‘cess to the films is increasing their popularity, especially in New York, and ‘Washington DC.” In Europe, especially the UK, Nollywood has made significant inroads, catering not just to the immigrant communities of African and Caribbean origins but also to film enthusiasts interested in studying abject and alternative ‘works created in relative independence from the influence of global cinemas.” "The massive popularity of Nollywood can also be measured by the number cof Web sites it has inspired in the short span of its existence, One such site, recently installed by Britain Open University, is self-described as “part of a ‘yearlong pilot project designed to explore the growing international marketing and reception of the Nigerian video/VCD film industry with particular atten- tion to its consumption in the UK."? ‘In most of Africa, Nollywood is phenomenally successful, and itis common knowledge that Nollywood productions have invaded markets in neighboring countries—Ghina, Cameroon, Niger, Benin, even the entire African continent. ‘According to Oliver Barlet, Nollywood “offers some undeniable assets worth reflecting on,” including “selling methods which ae truly in touch with their audiences.” He contends that “Nigerian productions offer a popular film form ‘that s close tothe audience's preoccupation and reflects their daily lives." The success of Nollywood is recorded in numerous reports of box office earnings, Fd Nollywwood and Its Critics such as one for 2006 of well above 5.4 million naira." But for the cultural ‘mediators, itis precisely this level of penetration by Nollywood into the global cultural market that constitutes a worrisome development. Nollywood and African Filmmabers of the First Generation ‘Among the harshest critics of Nollywood are the established African flm- makers ofthe frst generation. Their postin is articulated, with some nuance, ‘by Manthia Diawara. Diawara holds up the black-and-white still photography of the 19608 and 2970s, a8 a successful model of Affican “self-representation.” In contrast, he notes, “Some African filmmakers in Paris even suspect tht racism is behind the recent success of the Nigerian video film in Europe and America” and accuse those who patronize Nollywood of seeking to “turn back the wheel and to once again ghettoize Afiica cinema.”* ‘As botha filmmaker and a reputable scholar, Diawara believes that these Afi- can cineastes may have a point as far a the politics of production and exhibition is concerned, This response locates the pelitics of critical engagement outside the realm of popular culture while also recognizing Nollywood as a kind of aristic expression that caters to another Affca. It is within this framework of such an understanding that Diawara declares, “I believe that the Nigerian video makers... are aware of the technical and aesthetic requirements of their audi- ence, and realize that they must work hard to rise to their level to survive” (3). ‘There is no doubt that Diawara takes Nollywood seriously. He is certainly aware that it is cultural fact, a point Suzanna Kero makes when she argues that Diawara is a border crosser” who has “taéfen] into account that there are 125 nillion people ving in Nigeria and thatthe films are spreading all over English~ speaking Africa and among Afticans in Europe, Canada and the USA.” Ac- cording to Kero, Diswara attributes the success of Nollywood to “money” and argues that “intellectuals in Nigeria generally dont ike the flms” because “they find the content too stereotyped’ yet Diawara concedes that "Nollywood films correspond to what people are dreaming of, in contrast tothe films financed by Buropean money that are currently dealing with issues ike HIV/AIDS, poverty, discrimination of women, or children living on the street." “Taken in total, these comments represent the attitude of Aftican filmmakers to Nollywood. They hedge when they are confronted with the successes of the industry. Its a hedging that borders on shame, But there is aso a veiled sense of triumph that something worth discussing has indeed come out of Africa. ‘As Diawara himself puts it, Nollywood films are “something that people are dreaming about.”” This s also the attitude that many Nigerian academics take to Nollywood, Whatever their view of the contents of the films, they cannot but accept their loud presence. This presence is remarkable enough for writers xONOOKOME OKOME ‘and critics such as Wole Soyinka and Femi Osofisan to take note. But as one Nollywood operative puts it, “Our films have stories that people can relate to «they are stories for our own people about our own people”.* ‘On the other hand, anglophone Affican filmmakers come from another critical direction to Nollywood, one slightly different from that of their fran cophone counterparts. Certainly they have no reasons to please London, the ‘metropolitan home of the early anglophone film in West Africa, by calling up the moribund iceologies inscribed in the discourse of the “noble savage.” But they are not tender toward Nollywood either, resurecting a sense of “cultural correctness” of cultural authenticity, which they insist the video films lack.” ‘This cultural politics has been mobilized to vilify Nollywood and even to call "upon government to intervene in the industxy. ‘Anglophone filmmakers do not fil to raise the same questions of aesthetic finesse and integrity as their francophone counterparts. What distinguishes their common critique from that oftheir francophone counterparts is its lack of reference to any European or American metropolis as influencing the char acter of Nollywood. Kwaw Ansah, the Ghanaian filmmaker, said in a 2006 interview with Steve Ayorinde and Olivier Barlet, “I think video has played a role in making the Ghanaian film industry go down a bit.”® Yet in an earlier interview, Ansan talks about the “new challenge in the production of images in Africa” thatthe video boom in Ghana has instigated. “I must say that the explosion of vidzo in Ghana to me i healthy; ofcourse it comes with its nega~ tive aspect as wal,” he argues. “I dont think video in terms of quality can be compared to film but when there is io money and there is an alternative which could also address the same issues I think I will try to encourage it.” ‘As for the booming video industry in Nigeria, Ansah comments, “Nigeria hasnt realized what Africans have gone through. .. . We have stories t0 tell in Africa. 90% of the film [si] I see are juju, juju, juju, what is it? I know Nigerians, I grew up with them, they were the best traders, they come to our village and were hardworking people. And I didn't see many Nigerians making it through jul... Whats this wrong impression that every successful person from Nigeria should have gone through juju?” Ansah’s argument is carefully couched in the pan-Afiicanst discourse of cultural restitution when he asserts, “Hollywood has made so much against the black race and when we have the ‘opportunity toll our own stories, we are confirming the same thing!”” "To confront this negative image ofthe Affican in the Nigerian video indus- try, which he say i also copied by its Ghanaian counterpart, Ansah has set @ target for himself “to organize African filmmakers from all over Africa . well set certain standards to tell healthy stores, not the juju juju, juju and the ‘murder, murdes, murdet!” This cultural Pan-AGficanism is also expressed in 3 Nollyroood and Its Critics Nigeria’ cultural and film policies. It is described as “the glorious past” of our fatherland. Ansah does not try to explain why juju and murder are common denominators in the video films from Ghana and Nigeria, He i simply irked by the preponderance of these narrative items because they do not speak well ‘of the Afiica he envisions, But where do these juju themes come from? How do they get so much narrative attention? Who consumes them and why are they 30 popular with audiences of West A\fica and the African diaspora? ‘Taitsi Dangarembga also has something to say about the popularity of the video film in Affica. A trained Zimbabwean filmmaker and the author of the ‘African feminist classic Nervous Conditions, her voice in matters relating to filmmaking in Africa carries some weight. She has made two relatively suc~ cessful flms—Bveryone Child and Kare kare zoako (Long, long ago). Reacting to this popularity, she gives her version of the tongue-in-check criticism of the industry. tis no less vehement and condescending, She sees the “fast-growing [Nigerian film industry,” as lacking “depth, artistic and technical quality, and range.” As far as she is concerned, “What you see is what you get.” In her ‘opinion, Nollywood lacs “intellectual exerise, engagement and envisioning the farure’; bu that shortcoming “is not that bad, sometimes people need chewing ‘gum for the bran.” Like Ansah, the tendency to prescribe explicit ideological ‘goals for filmmaking in Africa is obvious in Dangarembgas response.” For Chief Eddie Ugbomah, the Nigerian filmmaker who once referred to himself asthe “James Bond of African cinema," Nollywood is “trashy.” It is “garbage.” The Nigerian film industry, accarding to Chief Ugbomah, “ended in 1982 when the home video film came up.” ‘Since then we have been dreaming and kind of wallowing in the home video thing but I cant find myself working in it.” Chief Ugbomah is an important name in the industry, described by ‘Nwachukowu Frank Ukaike as ‘te most prominent independent filmmaker in Nigeria.” If he is concerned about Nellywood being “an aberration,” itis because he secks to place Aftican film within a defined ideological project as- sociated with the first generation of Nigerian cineastes, who saw their media as «tool dedicated tothe cultural restitution of an ASftica that colonialism is sid to have fractured. (Ola Baloguns critical attack on Nollywood is no les scathing.” His criti- cism of Nollywood is a response to another article, published in the Nigerian Guardian newspaper in which Teyin Akinosho praises Nollywood as “the larg est and most profitable movie industry in Aftica’ and compares it to South Afiican film production. Balogun disputes this claim vehemently;” he has always maintained that “Nigeria does not currently have a film industry.” an argument that dates back to an interview he had with the film critic and histo trian Hyginus Ekwuazi in 1981.” Instead, he describes Nollywood films as “theONoOKOME OKOME poorly put-together contraptions that are inappropriately called films in Nige- ria" (¢4). He condemns Nollywood videos as “childishly conceived, amateur~ ishly written, and thoroughly predictable within three or four minutes of the ‘commencemert of action, The acting is mostly of the ‘market woman’ variety, and generally consists of untutored actors gesticulating wildly and shouting at cach others at she tops oftheir voices” (). He is disappointed with Akinosho for encouraging parochialism instead of helping “these misguided home video producers... heading in a totally wrong direction with their amateurish pro~ ductions (3). eis not only the celluloid filmmakers but also prominent members of the ‘Nigerian literati that have responded to Nollywood in this way. These include ‘Wole Soyinka, the first Affican to win the Nobel Prize for Literature, whose approach is somewhat more cautious. At a 2006 talk shop at Northwestern University, Soyinka acknowledged the important presence of Nollywood, “wryly noting that “Nollywood films lead the discussion about immediate and current features of political social life." Comments from Femi Osofisan and (Olu Obafemi have followed the same guarded pattern, Nollywond Writes Back Nollywood’s responses to these critiques have come slowly but sharply. Ac- cording to Charles Novia, a prominent video filmmaker, Ola Balogun is the “celebrated director... ofa fading generation.” Convinced that Nollywood is doing the best it can in the worst of economic and technological situations, ‘Novia declares, “We tell our own stories and I can attest that they are well- ‘received by our own people and are more accessible to them than the celluloid movies shot by your generation years ago, which we never get to see” (6). Novia also notss,Pethaps Dr. Balogun does not know that our Nollywood has an annual turnover of so billion Naira’ (57). In addition, he makes the argu- ‘ment that Nollywood does not depend on “endless proposals to the European Union and foreign film funds for sponsorship,” as is the case with celluloid filmmakers of the first generation. Bob Ejike, snother key figure in the industry, refers to Balogur's comments as acrimonious,” a“tirade... reminiscent ofthe ‘market woman’ criticism that [Nigerian filmshave faced from disgruntled specialists, former this, former that, secking relevance where they have not invested.” ‘As Nollywood writes back to the cultural mediators of Africa to the world outside it, the tension seems to me to be located inthe reality associated with the producti of knowledge in contemporary AMftica and the denial of that re- ality by those engaged in the space-clearing gesture that Appiah writes about. ‘This procedure of denial, which is, by its own presence, an acknowledgment Nollyrooed and Its Critics of the social presence and efficacy of popular culture, is constructed out of a pastness that does not speak eloquently to the present. I argue therefore that as a means of cultural enunciation, Nollywood operates outside the ideologi- cal bracket of established African intelletual formations. What it offers is a medley of social, political, and cultural discourses framed within the discursive regime ofthe popular, commodified, and commercialized in the informal ma- chine of popular-arts production in Nigeria. In this sense, the social narratives thatit chums out playfully retell the society it deals with from another perspec~ tive, opposed to the one that the cultural mediators acknowledge or prefer. It isa perspective that is not programmatic but inclusive and digressional. The discursive strategies that Nollywood chocses to deal with the narratives ofits primary society are nonetheless effective as a way of reaching the popular pub- lic, a category I must admit is difficult to pin down, but one that suggests an identity that crosses both class and ethnicity. 1 will push this argument further by insisting that Nollywood has close ties ‘with this primary society and that the truth of Nollywood is found in this very sociality. But this proximity to this socal hase and the factuality ofthis socality ddoes not mean that Nollywood aims to present its primary society in a realistic ‘way that finds a one-to-one correspondence between the narrative world and the real world. Staying close to what matters to the people and discussing socially immediate matters, Nollywood has provided a sort of social diary of the collective life that ordinary people live in Nigeria. It has done so since the classic Living in Bondage made its debut. in 1992. While that films narrative scope is not limited to this world of abjectness, in many video films there is the gesture toward the narrativization of the suffering army of the poor and ‘vulnerable in Nigeria wish to stress here thar the Nollywoos film is distinguished in its own right as an aesthetic object Taso seek to acknowledge that the industry has succeeded ‘where other forms of literary and mass media ongans have filed abysmally: to reach a cross-section of the vast and intemally differentiated Nigerian society. Even though its politcal sense may prove blique, as some of the responses from the intellectual flmmakers clearly show, Nollywood also “gestures to politcal discourses in very surreptitious manner.” We need to pay close attention to the ways it writes society and culture as politcal utterances. To be clear, Iam not speaking here of the obvious political videos such the ones that Jonathan Haynes has so cleverly written about." Unlike Haynes, I do not seek to revise the conventional wisdom about the critical character ofthe Nigerian videos; rather 1 wish to locate the latent politcal character of a spectrum of the video films produced in Nollywood to date. While T must concede that this analysis may not apply to a significant segment of video films, the presence of the political in oneONOOKOME OKOME of the earliest and very influential Nollywood productions, Living in Bondage, is an indication of the industry’ usefulness asa politcal platform, Haynes provides a valuable definition of the “political” in Nollywood films as “the level ofthe banal, everyday production of authority, the personal level of gender relationships, witchcraft discourses—all the myriad social tensions and controversies to which the video films have responded with literally thousands of stories whose political valence deserves analysis”™ Like the critics of the popular Onitsha market pamphlets that came before, the new cultural mediators (of Nollywood have refused to acknowledge the cultural other that Nollywood inscribes in the discourse of contemporary life in Nigeria. What is designated by these intellectuals as fetish is indeed the symbolic fetish, the narrative of explanations thatthe society seeks ata crucial juncture of is cultural flux. The symbolic fetish flourishes in the industry because it is part of the psychology of a lange proportion of Nigerians. Nollywood uses this fetish to explain to a bewildered population the drift and rot in contemporary Nigeria society ‘Our new cultural mediators are unable and in some cases unwilling to get into this zone of understanding. This unwillingness leads to the utterances that Ihave cited in this chapter. It is also responsible forthe declaration, which comes in many guises, that Nollywood is nothing or that Nollywood produces a false culture. If Nollywood is nothing, why is it “able to spoil our youth and denigrate our culture"?®” My reading of this discourse of anxiety built around the social relevance of Nollywood is that it represents nothing but the con- structed anxiety ofits authors. How do the producers of Nollywood fit into this great cultural debate? Not at al, in any active sense; they are only brought in by the cultural mediators. The grand theme of decolonization, which mattered to the intellectual critics, does not matter to producers in Nollywood. Nollywood caters to a ditferent segment of the Nigerian public, which has very litle to do with the grand theme of decolonization and all that came with it. These cultural mediators, by inserting the activities of Nollywood within the discourse that they try to promote, signal an unwillingness to see what Nollywood is all about, which is that itis not consciously political and has so far stayed away from overt politi- cal topics. Nolywood filmmakers are concerned with the everyday and with those things that matter to the man and woman in the street. While it would bbe unwise to pretend that Nollywood is still primarily a local cinematic expres- sion, it would be intellectually unjust to drag it outside the critical province of popular expression and to asign to its modes of ideological narrativization ideological and aesthetic programs that do not concern the practitioners. Jonathan Haynes and I have argued in another essay that the social sig- nificance and political value of Nollywood must be located in the practice of. 36 : Nollyswood and Its Critics popular arts in much the same way as we do study of, say, the Onitsha market pamphlets or the concert parties of Ghana ofthe 1950s." And like the Onitsha ‘market pamphlets, the video film has, inthe last twenty years, developed its distinct tropes of narrativization. That narrativization is @ speech fashioned out of its locality and defined in the hybrid mobilization of the technology of video. Nollywood shuns the grand ambition of debating (de)colonization and lacks the grammar of big cinema; it ignores the space-clearing project of the cultural mediators, It focuses instead on the social and cultural forces of the local and how they cope with the glebal on their own terms, Nollywood films are consumed in the homes, the video parlors, the convention grounds of Pentecostal churches, and the many unorthodox viewing venues found in poor neighborhoods. As the vernacular of the poor who live the “lottery capitalism of the millennium," Nollywood film draws its own map of social and cultural programs and narrative responsibilities. Faced with the difficulties of living in the debilities ofa criminalize state, the text of the Nollywood film defines the situation of the crushed and de- feated. But these groups lke the video fmmakers and the characters in the constructed world of Nollywood films, donot give up hope of social mobility F1¢URE 2.1. The inside view of an open shed.video parlor at Bogobiri,ashantytown. in Calabat. At screening times chairs and tenches are arranged to accommodate the clients. Courtesy of Dr. Babson Ajbade 7igure 2.2. A video parlor at Bogobiri. At screening times the owner sits at the entrance to collect gate fes. Courtesy of Dr: Babson Ajibade FIGURE 23. A video parlor under the shade ofa tree. The antenna on the roo! sug- gests that cliens can see Bollywood, Chinese, and Nollywood features, as well as European soccer matches through satellite TV. Courtsy of Dr. Babson Ajibade . Nollytoood and Its Critics In this way, Nollywood and the cultural products it sells constitute one social document, a tableau vivant if you like, of contemporary Nigerian social and cultural history from the bottom up. As a cultural fact, the Nigerian video film responds to its locality, debating and critiquing i atthe same time. Members of the popular audience patronize Nollywood and respond tot on a daily basis because the social and symbolic metaphors embedded in its naratives provide answers they seek to the many questions of everyday existence in a brutal post- colonial city such as Lagos. As sites of citical intervention into socal debate, the post- in the postcolonial status of Nollywood films is not and cannot be the pot in the self-critical and conscious interrogation of the classical African filmmakers and scholars who seek to remain within the dogma of a cinema sts on an ideological project. Notes x. With the exception of Karin Barbe; Readings in Afican Pepular Culture (Bloomington: Indiana University Pres, 1997) Stephanie Newel, Readings in Af- rican Popular Fiction (Bloomington: Indiama University Pree, 2003) 2Chinua Achebe, Morning Yt on Creation Da: Essays (London: Heinemann, 992), 19-29, See also Onookome Okome, “Writing the Anxious City: Images of Lagos in [Nigerian Video Film,” in Under Siege: Fur Afican Citi-—Freetown, Jobannesurg Kinshasa, Lagos, Oki Enwezor etl (Kasse: Hate Cantz, 2002), 585-34. ‘3. Kwame Anthony Appiah, “Is the Post-in Postmodernism the Post: in Post- colonial?” Critical Inquiry 7 (3990: 336. +4 Appia, “Is the Post-"336-37 5. Arjun Appadurai, “Grassroots Globalization and the Research Imagination,” Public Culture x (2000): 6. 6. See Babes, Readings in Culture 2. 7-Ademola James, “Warning Notice: The Need for a New Direction in Nige- sian Film Content,” Nigerian Film and Video Censors Board, Memo FVCB/A.15/ vol. 1,14 July 1999. 8, Hyginus Ekuazi and Yakubu Abdullshi Nasidi, eds, Operative Principles of ‘be Fils Industry: Towards A Film Policy for Nigeria (Jos: Nigetian Film Corpora- tion, 1992), 3. 9. Philip Carteli,"Nollywood Comes tothe Caribbean,” Fil International 5 ro. 4 (2007): 13. Cartels essay is quite graphic in its description of the popularity ‘of West African video films in the Ceribbesn, x0, Georgia East, Nigerian Film DVDs Fly Off the Shelves in South Flor,” South Florida Sun-Sentinel, September 8, 2007 1 1 use alernative and abject not as conscious oppositional terms to denote a certain kind of cinematic practic, the kind we generally refer to 38 Thitd Cinema, but to describe a specific spontaneous artsic enterprise that i still in the process of finding itself. See Michael Martin, ed, Cinemas ofthe Black Diaspea: Diversity, Dependence, and Oppesitionality (Detroit: Wayne State University Pres, 1995). »ONooKOMm: OKOME 12 The Nollpwood Film Industry and the African Diaspora in the UK, hetp:// worwopen.accul/Ants/ferguson-centre/nollywood-uk/indes ht. 15, OlivierBarle,“Is the Nigerian Home Video Model Exportable?”Afriultures, July 2002, hepl/swwafricultues.com/php/index.php?nav-article8en05666. “4. Chikidi Okereoch, “Nollywood: The Making ofa Billion Dollar Indust,” Broad Street Jownal, May x, 2006. The naira isthe primary unit of Nigerian cut- rency. At the time of writing, one naira equaled about 0,67 U.S. cents 15, Manthia Diawara, “Handbook,” presented at the NEH Sommer Institute on Aftican Cinema, Dakar, Senegal, 2005, 12. Subsequent page numbers are given intext. 126. Suzanna Petersson Kero, “Manthia Diawart—A Border Crosser,” Nordic AF- ricalnstitute htp//onwvenai.se/events/conferences/en/z006/0si0ToooeoUs! diawara/indexaml, Kero is eporting on an unpublished talk that Diawara gave at the Nordiska Aftikainsttutet in Uppsa 1p. Diawara,"Handbook,” 14, 18. This quotation is credited to Peace Fiberesima, a Nollywood producer and marketer for the documentary film This ls Nelytood, dit. Franco Sacchi (Nige- ria, 2007). "ig, N. Frank Ukadike, “Video Booms and the Manifestation of ‘Firs’ Cinema in Anglophone Attica,” in Rethinking Third Cinema, ed. Anthony R. Guneratne and Wimal Disanayake (New York: Routledge, 2003), 126-46. 20. Kwaw Ansah, "We Are Doing Worse Than Hollywood’: An Interview ‘with Kwaw Ansah,” by Steve Ayorinde and Olivier Barlt, Accra, October 7, 2005, buipi/Avwwafécanflmnyorg/network/interviews htm 2x. See Kaw Ansa “Speaking to Kwaw Ansab:'Cinema Brewed in the Afr- can Pot)" intersew by Sakbolle, Eons d'Afrique 5 no. 3 (993) 1. 22. Kwaw Ansah, interview by Steve Ayorinde and Olivier Barle, http://www affcanflmay.ory/network/news/lansab.btml. 2, Taitsi Dangarembga, “Rivers of Change: An Interview with Titsi Danga- rembga,” by Percy Zvomuya, Mail and Guardian, February 9, 2007, hasp//www chico.mweb.ca.za/ar/2007/2007feb/o7ox08-tivers html, 24, An extensive discussion of Ugbomabis cinema is presented in Onookome Okome, “The Rise of the Folkloric Cinema in Nigeria” (PAD diss, University of Thadan 1991), 2225. 25. Okoh Ache, “At 60, Eddi to Reconcile with Family and Profession,” Nige- rian Vanguard, February 24,2001 15. 26, N. Frank Ukadike, Questioning African Cinema: Conversations with Film- ‘makers (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2002), 85. 27. Ola Balogun is perhaps the best known ofthe pioneers of Nigerian cinema. His filmography is impressive; it includes Black Goddes (978), Cry Freedom (298), and Money Pover (ro), which marked the beginning of Balogunis cinematic co- ‘operation with directors from the Yoruba traveling theater troupes. 28, Ola Balgun, “The Nollywood Debate,” in NEH Affican Cinema Institute Reader (Dakat: private circulation, 2003), 4-88; Toyin Akinosho, “Don't Envy 4 : Nollywood and Its Critics the South Afticans,” Nigerian Guardian Newspaper, March 13, 2005,57. Akinosho is a cultural activist and art enthusiast who lives in Lagos. He is also the coordi- nator of the Lagos Art Stampede, a quarterly gathering of artists from all over the country. 29, Balogun, "Nollywood Debate,” s4~st. Subsequent page numbers are given intext. 30. Hyginus Ekwuaz, “Towards a Film Industry: The Film in Nigeria” (mas- ters thesis, University of Ibadan, 198), 5. 531. Wole Soyinka, talk shop, “Nigeria 2007: Political, Social and Economic “Transitions,” Program of Alican Studies, Northwestern University, 2006. 2. Subsequent page numbers are given in text. Novia’ response to Balogusis critique is reprinted as part of Balogun, “Nollywood Debate.” Novia is credited with the production of well over twenty Nollywood films. Among them are Tée AIDS Patient (2008), The Bridesmaid (20051, Real Love (2093), and You Broke My Heart (2003). 433, See Bob Ejike, “Dr. Ola Balogun and Nollywood Critics,” September 22, 2005, hetp//wwvenaljarules.com. 34. Onookome Okome, “It Is Difficult to Ignore Nollywood: An Interview with Onookome Okome,” by Ezechi Onyesionwu, Nigerian Vanguard Newspaper, October 22,3007. 3, Jonathan Haynes, “The Political Critique in Nigerian Video Film,” Aftican Afjoirs 46 (2008): +~23; Haynes, “Mobilizing Yoruba Popular Culture: Babangida ‘Must Go," Africa 72, m0 4 (2002): 77-87. 36. Haynes, “Political Critique,” 537- Okome, “It Is Difficult to Ignore Nolywood.” 38.Jonathan Haynes and Onookome Okome, “Evol ular Media: Nige- daveeria eases eee eer 539. Fora perspcacious discussion ofthe “magic of despat” that promotes lottery «conomies in the twenty-first century ae Jean Comaroff and John L. Comaroté “Millennial Capitalism: Fist Thought on a Second Coming,” Public Culture 12, no. +3(2000) 291-345 *