Africa Media Review Vol. 6 No. 11992
©African Council for Communication Education

Nigeria and India: The Use of Film for

Development-Whispers in a Crowd

by Matthew E. Sauer*

Abstract

Nigeria and India have both attempted to use the film industry  for development but in both
cases the full potential of the medium has been stymied by lack of government support and a
general  feeling  of  disinterest  among  the nations'  populations.  But  there  are  directors  and
producers in each country who are attempting to raise their voices above the commercially-
dominated noise of their respective country's cinema.

Film could be a strong tool for development. It can be used to contribute to a feeling of
nationhood,  as  a voice  for national  planning, to help teach necessary  skills, to extend  the
effective  market,  to help people  look  to the future,  and  to prepare people to play  a role in
nation building. But without serious changes in the structure of government relations with the
cinema in Nigeria and India changes may not come. A few directors and producers in each
nation have started to use cinema for development, but their efforts  must be fostered  by the
national government to be  effective.

*Mr. Matthew E. Sauer is the Executive News Editor of the Independent Florida Alligator, the
University of Florida's student newspaper.

25

Inde et Nigeria:  Utilisation  du Film pour le

Developpement

Resume

Le Nigeria etl'Inde ont fait des tentatives pour utiliscrl'industriedu film pour lc developpement,
mais pour  l'un  et l'autre  cas , le potcntiel  global  de ce genre de medias  a ete  fruslre  par
1'absence  du  soutien  du  gouvemement  et  le  d&intcressement  general  des  populations
respectives des deux pays.

L'industrie du cinema peut reprdsenter un puissant outil pour le developpement. Elle peut
etre utilisee pour developper  le sentiment nationaliste en tant qu'expression de plannification
rationale  pour  aider  a enseigner les techniques  necessaires, aider la population a avoir un
regard sur l'avenir  et la preparer a jouer un role dans le developpement national.

N&inmoins, en l'absence des changements dans l'attitude du  gouvemement vis-a-vis du

cinema aussi bien en  I'lnde qu'au Nigeria on risque d'etre  force' a  la stagnation.
Bon nombre de dirccteurs et realisateurs de chacun des deux pays se sont deja embarques dans
l'usage du film en tant qu' element de developpement, mais leurs efforts doivent etre encourages
par le gouvemement pour etre efficaces.

26

Introduction

Nigeria  and India,  though  thousands of  miles apart, have striking  similarities  that
make a  comparison  of  their use of  cinema  for development  informative  research.
Both developing nations have the potential to cater for the highest populations on their
respective continents. Nigeria had a mid-1990 population of  117 million, making it
the most populous nation in Africa (Van Baren, 1991). India, by World Bank estimates,
will  have  more  than  one billion  inhabitants by  the  year  2000. Both  nations  have
extremely diverse cultures, languages and religions. Nigeria has more than 250 different
ethnic groups within its borders.

Both of these vast and populous nations have at least made an attempt to use film
as a method of development, but neither too extensively or with much success. But
things appear to be changing in the case of India. The volume of films produced in
India has been astounding (Downing, 1987), but the actual contribution of the majority
of these films to development is questionable. In Nigeria's case, vestiges of colonialism
have left the means of production mostly in the hands of Westerners, leaving indigenous
African producers very little opportunity to create their own cinematic works (Diawara,
1984). But there have been exceptions and some indigenous directors have contributed
to the production of a small cache of films with development themes, recognized as
true classics by the international film industry.

This paper  will  survey  the  historical, economic  and  social  background  of  the
Indian  and  Nigerian  film  industry  and  assess  its  contribution  to  each  nation's
development. The paper will analyze two particular films — one from each nation —
to assess, at least in microcosm, what has and has not worked in both efforts. Then it
will offer suggestions on how to make better use of the power of cinema as a vehicle
for  innovation  and  change.  The  paper  will  also  identify  successful  cinematic
development in each country and emphasize how further work along such lines could
benefit future  efforts.

The primary method used in the paper is a historical evaluation of both countries'
use of cinema for development. A critical content analysis of the two films in the case
study  provides  examples of  typical  motion  pictures  produced  by  their  respective
industries. The general themes, means of production, and level of government financial
contributions  to each  film  are  cited  as  examples  of  the  successes  and  failures  in
communicating development themes.

Conceptualization

Film can help spread ideas of development through means of communication grounded
in the new or integrated paradigm. The subjects of such films can generate discussion
among  audience  members  and  reinforce  the  innovations  or  development  themes
proposed by face-to-face  communication. According to Mowlana and Wilson (1990,
p.  143),"in  projects  that use  film  in  a  more explicitly  developmental  manner  and
context, the medium  usually takes more of a supporting role. In such projects, care

27

must be exercised to plan appropriate facilities".  In the cases of Nigeria and India, the
cinema  is a  fairly  popular  medium  that  could  easily  reach  a large  segment  of  the
population.  In  comparison  to  other  developing  countries,  both  nations  have  an
abundance of theaters and the potential to reach large audiences.

Film can have advantages and uses that go beyond other forms of mass media.  Film has
the advantages of mobility and flexibility, which the broadcast media alone do not possess.
Although frequently  used in conjunction  with broadcast technology such as television,
film can also be used independently in local gatherings or for project training purposes. In
fact, the necessity of a community gathering to see a film is one of the benefits  of this
medium;  subsequent  discussion  and peer reinforcement  are valuable in  achieving  the
purposes of projects. Film is also widely applicable in education projects (Mowlana and
Wilson, 1990, p. 143).
In the context of this research, development is regarded as a term different  from
that  which  is  generally  used  in  most  mass  communication  research.  It  does  not
necessarily mean technological development, but is more man-oriented.  The concept
of  development in the context of film is one of  liberation. Enahora (1989)  quotes
Claude Ake saying, "If we think in terms of liberation we can accept that we are not all
that we ought to be without necessarily feeling inferior to someone else. If we think in
terms  of  liberation,  we  will open  the  question  of  the path  of  our  social  evolution
instead of committing ourselves blindly to the path someone else has taken" (p. 105).
The cinema in both Nigeria and India  could be used to contribute to a feeling of
nationncss and as a voice for  national planning, to help teach  skills, to extend the
effective  market, to look to the future  and to prepare people to play their role as a
nationals among nations (Enahora,  1989, p.  105). The cinema in both  nations has
diverted its attention away from questions of national development Yet, it can improve
the quality of life much more easily since it overcomes the barrier of illiteracy. This
research takes the position that film can have such a decisive role in development with
proper support from government and with  proper planning and implementation.

Case Study: Nigeria

Nigeria underwent a virtual cultural transformation 50 years prior to its independence
on October 1,1960. The process of decolonization came only after "Western religious,
economic, political and educational forms deeply penetrated the country. Enormous
transformations  resulted  and  led  to  a  devolution  of  many  traditional  forms  while
many of the transplanted Western  forms  evolved into major  institutions"  (Jarmon,
1988,  p. 9). Although Nigeria is independent, deep cultural and social connections
with the West remain. The nation's film industry, for example, has remained virtually
dominated by Western filmmakers and their products.

Nigeria is a country  of many nations within a nation. There are more than 250
different ethnic groups within its borders (Obotette, 1985). Many difficulties in selecting
an appropriate development program, especially in the film industry, which requires
some homogeneous knowledge of cultures and political systems, stem from the nature

28

of Nigeria's diverse cultural backgrounds. There are three major ethnic divisions. It is
believed that the country's "unique problems lay not in the scores of small tribes, but
in (these) three principal groups, each large enough to be a nation" (Obotette, 198S, p.
29).

Prior to independence in Nigeria, film  was the monopoly of the white directors
and producers. The medium was thought to be too complex for indigenous Africans to
produce  any  substantial  films.  "The  argument  went  firstly  that  these  films  were
technically too sophisticated for the African  mind to understand, and secondly that
they were a bad influence on Africans because they depicted the negative aspects of
European  lives" (Diawara,  1984, p.  10). Even  after  independence  in  1960,  films
remained  under the control of Europeans for years until a small cadre of  Africans
began to train in film making skills.

Nigeria ranks as one of the biggest producers of films in Africa, only surpassed by
Francophone  nations  like  Senegal. The  nation  has  more  than  100 movie  theaters
(Diawara, 1984). Directors such as Ola Balogun, a Nigerian novelist and playwright,
have been successful in the country where a vast population makes it possible for such
artists to survive on local revenue from their films alone.

But by Western  standards, Nigerian productions have been few  and far  apart
Balogun  attributes  this  relatively  sparse production  and  consumption  of  Nigerian
films produced by Africans to a vestige of colonialism. He argues that such preference
for Western products stems from the habits of Nigerians to consume products made in
Great Britain during the colonial epoch. Film is such a product 'Today, film distribution
in Nigeria is in the hands of foreign companies, which dictate their will in the matter
of the cinema. Since the distributors benefit more in buying, at a very low price, old
American, English and Indian films, their policy has consisted, then, in discouraging
all attempts to create a national film production" (Diawara, 1984, p. 22).

In Nigeria, films are the province of businessmen who can raise the capital to
effect their production and distribution. Some Nigerian directors have put pressure on
the government to nationalize distribution, but the so-called "liberal" economic systems
of the nation prefer to leave the work to private local businessmen. The Indigenization
Decree  of  1972  "gave  exclusive  monopoly  for  the distribution  and  exhibition  of
feature films to Nigerians with the capital and business contacts," (Diawara, 1984, p.
182) but, as Diawara stated, "the feature films produced in Nigeria by Nigerians are
having  marketing  difficulties"  because the government  has not made an  effort  to
enforce the decree.

So any idea of supporting development cinema through government means at this
time is next to impossible in Nigeria.  The Nigerian cinema has relied primarily on
films of  "oriental  martial  arts, thrillers,  Indian  melodrama  and  American  action-
adventures. Nigerians have been overfed  with  these cinedrugs" (Enahora,  1989, p.
102).

A prime example of this is "The Mask," directed by Eddie Ugboma. This is our
Nigerian case-study. "The Mask" premiered in London in  1980.  The story is about
recovering a part of African cultural heritage which has been stolen by colonialist art

29

scavengers. The heritage is the mask of Queen Adesua of Benin, stolen from Nigeria
in 1815 by a British officer and eventually ending up on display in the British Museum.
The actual mask became an object of tension between Nigeria and Britain. In 1977,
Nigeria demanded its return (Downing, 1987).

"The film  owes part of its inspiration to this controversy for, as Ugboma points
out, it is dramatization of how Nigerians could have more satisfactorily  recovered
their property" (Downing, 1987, p. 21). Critics pointed to the movie as an allegory for
the loss of cultural identity in many developing nations because of the influence of the
former colonial powers in Nigeria and other nations.

But "the Made" is an example of where these concerns for such cultural imperialism
are completely lost in the problem itself. Lost in the blatantly Western manner that
Obagum tells the story. The plot of the film has a James Bond-style agent, Major Obi
(dubbed agent 009), working  for  the Nigerian  government, using  high-technology
gadgets to recover the mask. The bulk of the action takes place not in Nigeria, but
London. Obi manages to squeeze in displays of that staple of all Bond films — the
passionate love scenes, but this time with black gusto! (Downing, 1987, p. 21).

The plot alone reveals the lack of seriousness in the film's goal. Nigerian critics
decried the film for a myriad of flaws in conception, style, performance,  coherence
and ideology. The film is a bad example of what Ali Mazrui labels "counterpenetration."
Nigerian directors and producers use Western themes in their films, merely transplanting
them to Nigerian soil.

Although "The Mask" was a commercial success by Nigerian standards, it lost a
valuable  opportunity  to  confront  a  true  problem  of  national  development  —  the
export of Nigerian resources by the West coupled with the problem of Western media
overshadowing the efforts of  Nigerians—to flashy Hollywood-style escapist appeal.
Nigerian critics faulted Obagum for wasting such a potent instrument of mass political
education as film in a purely entertainment method (Downing, 1987).

Case Study: India

Indian cinema has always been an astonishing medium. The nation's output of film
production has spiralcd incredibly in recent decades.

India makes one out of every four theatrical films produced annually in the world and,
since 1971, has been first in the world in the number of films produced annually. Cinema
has been ranked as one of India's ten largest industries, producing an average of about two
feature films per day. During the 1970s, India was the only Third World nation among the
world's major film exporters, selling films to some one hundred foreign countries. By
1983, weekly attendance at movie theaters had reached ninety-one million, and the recently
increased dissemination of films through video cassettes and television had enlarged die
total audience for Indian films, although it has cut down on actual attendance at movie
theaters (Downing, 1987, p. 145).

30

India's commercial cinema developed under colonial rule, the only major national
cinema to have done so. Since independence, the growth of India's cinema has been
astronomical: from 241 features in 1950, output rose to 305 in 1960,396 in 1970,462
in 1975,710 in 1980 and 763 in 1983. Though there was, by the 1980s, a large number
of  schemes on  both  the national  and  state levels to foster  the development  of  the
cinema, the roots of the upsurge lie within the growth of Indian capitalism, as the film
industry, with its peculiar financial structure, offered a direct reflection of the amount
of risk capital (often illegally acquired, or at least hidden from tax authorities) generated
in the Indian economy (Armes, 1987, p. 177).

Much of the impetus to produce films in India has been at the state level; but there
has also been crucial input from the national government. The government took on a
direct involvement with the industry through the establishment of the Film Finance
Corporation (FFC), and Indian Motion Picture Association (IMPEC), whose functions
were merged in 1980 under the umbrella of the National Film Development Corporation
(NFDC) (Armes, 1987).

The NFDC has been mainly responsible for sponsoring international film festivals
and funding some production and distribution of "quality" films. The funding has led
to the development of  a type of  Indian film that has been called  the "New  Indian
Cinema" by some authors. This type of cinema is fostered through direct support from
both the state and central governments. The forerunner  of  these films was "Pather
Pachali" produced and directed by the notable Satyajit Ray. The movie was produced
completely from  a grant from  the government of West Bcnghal. "This example has
been widely imitated in India, and government and state aid for production has been
plentiful, but such initiatives have never been accompanied by a similar development
of an art house exhibition circuit" (Armes, 1987, p. 123).

Although  most  Indian  films  continue  to  reflect  the  purely-entertainmcnt
commercialism,  there  was  a  clear  sign  in  1980s  "of  attempts  to  bridge  the  gulf
between the commercialism of the all-India movie and the esotericism of much of the
new Indian Cinema" (Armes, 1987, p. 127). Even though the New Indian Cinema is
not an organized, clearly cohesive movement in the nation, its film makers are linked
by  their rejection  of commercial cinema's  values, themes and stylistic approaches.
And New  Indian Cinema directors and producers tackle the issues of development
with gusto.  As Downing  (1987) notes "in  dealing  with  social and political  issues,
most New  Cinema films tend to reveal problems  rather  than  suggest  solutions  or
attempt  to  mobilize  their  audiences toward action, but  a growing  number  of  new
Cinema film makers are concerned with possible political role of cinema in transforming
India into a more just society" (p. 152).

But the New Indian Cinema has faced some obstacles. One major blockade to the
successful  distribution of development films  is the barrier of language. There are 16
official languages in India, but most films tend to be produced in the Hindi language
because it is accessible to the largest number of people. Another obstacle is the New
Indian  Cinema's  reliance  on  commercial  distribution  and exhibition  of films. The
government has been slow in responding to this problem.

31

Some films have run into the barrier of India's rigorous system of government
censorship. "This system has served to reinforce the inherently conformist tendencies
of commercial cinema. In contrast, New Cinema films have tested and sometimes
extended the boundaries of censorship, especially in relation to politically and socially
sensitive subjects such as political corruption or religious and caste tensions" (Downing,
1987, p. 153).

The  case  study  film  for  this paper  is  an  unusual  Indian  film  that  tested  the
government's limitations. Shyam Benegal's "Manthan" (The Churning,  197S) was
funded  by  500,000  Indian  farmers  —  members  of  the Gujarat  Milk  Marketing
Foundation —  who donated two rupees apiece to its production. The movie is the
story of an attempt by a small government-sponsored team to organize a milk marketing
cooperative in a village of the western state of Gujarat. The investing farmers turned
out in bus-loads for its premier in 1976 (Bamouw and Krishaswamy, 1980).

The film, which communicated some important development themes, met with
great commercial success. "Manthan's primary focus is on caste and class oppression
in Indian rural life. It is about the struggles to organize a cooperative in opposition to
the entrenched rural power structure" (Downing, 1987, p. 152). The film begins with
a scene of railroad tracks, accompanied by a folk-style song on the beauties of the
village and inviting a stranger to visit it. The entire film addresses the questions of
government intervention to bridge the gap between the accelerated development of
the cities to the slow changes of the rural villages and farms.

Conclusion

Although both countries  have  made use of  the medium  of  film  for  development
purpose, Nigeria and India differ in the cooperation that their respective governments
have given to such efforts. Though cinema in both nations has bias for entertainment-
oriented movies of  the West,  India stands out  from  the pair.  Its government  has
supported the nation's New Cinema through grants and support for the construction
of theaters that would primarily show such motion pictures.

Nigeria has shown a rather lame start in the field of cinema for development
Because of  the vast influences  of capital  and production from  outside the nation,
indigenous filmmakers have been stymied in their attempts to produce films that
educate and inform rather than merely entertain. With few exceptions, the Nigerian
film industry has relied on Western themes and messages in their movies.

Enahora (1989) criticizes  the condition of the Nigerian film industry when he
remarks "Films screened in Nigerian theaters today have neglected our educational
philosophy,  its  goals  and  objectives,  our  institutional  framework  and  cultural
background. They have created social and cultural problems" (p. 100). The structure
of Nigerian film industry remains much the same as when it was controlled by the
colonial powers.

32

Enahora's conclusion that a radical restructuring of the Nigerian film industry is
necessary  to promote  the  more effective  use of  the  art  for  development  methods
should be taken seriously. Following the Indian example, the Nigerian government
should contribute to the development of the industry through financial  support and
protection  from  outside competition. "Nationalization  of  the film distribution  and
exhibition industry in Nigeria would contribute greatly to development of film industry.
This method has worked in Algeria, Brazil, and Burkina Faso and if this is correctly
interpreted, it would create the same favorable conditions in Nigeria" (Enahora, 1989,
p. 108).

As Enahora notes, dialogue cannot exist in the absence of the exploiter's interest
and absence of faith in the development of film industry in Nigeria. "The answer to
the question is not negotiation but nationalization because the culture of domination
can  only  be confronted  through  action"  (Enahora,  1989, p.  108).  Nigeria  should
nationalize the film industry complete with educational and production facilities and
thus  create  an  atmosphere  where  locally  produced  films  could  compete  with  the
influential  movies  of  the West. The  Nigerian  public  must  be re-educated  in  their
appreciation  of film to the point where both feature and documentary  are of equal
worth.

As for India, the efforts  there seem to be in the right direction. The government
should offer  more financial  support to the nascent New Indian Cinema to promote
more films with development themes. But compared to Nigeria, things there seem to
be burgeoning. In both countries the national government must recognize the value of
film for development and education. India and Nigeria should make use of film to
improve the well-being of the majority of their citizens.

References

Armes,  Roy  (1987).  Third  World  Film Making  and  the  West.  Berkley:  University  of

California Press.

Barouw, Erik and S. Krishnaswamy (1980). Indian Film. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Diawara, Manthia (1984). African Cinema: The Background and the Economic Context of

Production. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

Downing,  John  D.H.  (1987).  Film and Politics  in the Third World. New  York:  Praeger

Publishers.

Enahora, Augustine-Ufua (1989). 'Film Makers and Film Making in Nigeria: Problems and

Prospects.' African Media Review, Vol. 3, No. 3.

Jarmon, Charles (1988). Nigeria: Reorganization and Development Since the Mid-twentieth

Century. New York: E.J. Brill.

Mowlana,  Hamid and Wilson Laurie J. (1990). The Passing of Modernity. New  York &

London: Longman.

Obotette,  Bassey  E.  (1985).  Mass Communication for  National Development in Nigeria:

Analysis of Content and Structure. Washington D.C: Howard University.

VanBaren, Lind (1991). New African Yearbook 1991-92. London: I.C. Publishers.

33