BOOK REVIEWS 229abandoned because of alleged abuses, though Chakanza lists severalother sources of Catholic resistance. He takes a theological stand Infavour of renewed inculturation and, like Hinga and Phlri, takes liberationrather than oppression to be the high road to acceptability. Gundani alsotakes the historical approach, following good groundwork on the characterand meaning of the indigenous rite, which demonstrates its complexity.There are in fact multiple statuses in transition, not just that of thedeceased person, to be catered for. This may account for the cautiousand tortuous Catholic deliberations on the issue over a period of 18 yearsthat eventually produced a model rite, complete with a set of operatinginstructions, but with at least one contentious matter outstanding. Itappears however, that the majority of the laity are not sufficiently informedabout the new rite. In other words, they continue to make their owncompromises with tradition.This last observation strikes an ominous note for the volume as awhole. That theologians and academic specialists in religion should bewrestling with the problem of integrating two separate religious traditionsis to be expected and this effort is no better or worse than others of itskind. But there is a missing dimension, that of everyday life Š what liesbeyond the standard statements provided by informants, as Bourdillonpoints out in the epilogue. To what extent are the two religious systemsseparate, or rather, in whose mind(s) are they deemed to be divided fromone another? It tends to be a middle-class urban concern to lace themtogether in some formal way, precisely because their disjunction is largelyconceived by the urban middle class. Ordinary people on the groundhave little time for theological niceties and, in their everyday practiceand interaction, they readily integrate the two to form a single system. Itis this living conjunction, the articulation of a dynamic folk-religion, thatis largely absent from these pages and that bears further investigation.University of Natal J. P. KlF.RNANImages of Yesteryear: Film-making in Central Africa By Louis Nell. HarperCollins, 1998, ISBN 1-77904005-9, 206 pp.Louis Nell's book provides a first hand account of pioneering film-makingin Southern Rhodesia, Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland through theCentral African Film Unit (CAFU) over the fifteen-year period 1948-63. Inthat time 625 films were made. Initial support for the CAFU project camefrom the British government through the Colonial Development welfarefunds.230 BOOK REVIEWSEngland's ruling elite had great faith in the power of cinema as aninstrument of persuasion when communicating with the masses, whetherthe working class of urban industrial England or illiterates in Britain'sAfrican colonies.1The original objective of CAFU was to make films for African audiences.With the establishment of the Central African Federation in 1953, controlof CAFU was assumed by the Federal Department of Information and thepriorities shifted to the making of propaganda and publicity films topromote the federation locally and overseas.2The author, Louis Nell, was appointed to CAFU as a director-cameraman, being part of the CAFU team made up of Allan Izod (producer),Denys Brown (cameraman), and Stephen Peet (director-cameraman). Nell'swork primarily covered Zambia, but also Malawi and Zimbabwe. His bookis the first comprehensive account of CAFU activities produced by one ofthe participants. It therefore fills an important gap in the historiographyof film-making in Central Africa.The book provides important information on the technology of film-making in the 1950s. The work was primarily based on small budgets andindividual enterprise. CAFU laid the groundwork for modern day filmproduction in Zimbabwe. Sadly, some of the gains of the pre-independenceera such as the development of the Central Film Laboratories (CFL) havebeen lost. The CFL went out of business because of a failure to upgradeits facilities. The country has therefore not been able to build on thepioneering base of knowledge, skills and facilities established during thecolonial period.CAFU films were made during an era where the majority Africanpopulation was discriminated against socially, economically andpolitically. These problems were played out in the work activities of theunit. Oral interviews with African participants who worked for CAFU, andarchival materials, have shown that film-making by CAFU was in someways uplifting to local communities, particularly the use of instructionalfilms. The audiences embraced them when they judged them to beconsistent with their social and economic aspirations. However, there isevidence that CAFU activities were resisted by local communities, whochallenged the political assumptions on which they were based. There isevidence that Africans in Northern Rhodesia became openly hostile toCAFU films that promoted the Central African Federation which theyconsidered to be detrimental to their political aspirations for self-1 R. Smyth (1998) 'The British Colonial Film Unit and Sul>Saharan Africa', HistoricatJournalof Film, Radio and Television, 8, (iii), 285.2 R. Smyth (1983) 'The Central African Rim Unit's images of empire. 1948-1963', HistoricalJournal of Film, Radio and Television, 3, (ii).BOOK REVIEWS 231determination.3 Interviews that I have conducted with African assistantsto CAFU crews have indicated that rural audiences resisted some CAFUfilms that promoted land resettlement policies and the re-location ofAfrican peasant farmers in support of the Land Apportionment Act.4 Athird area of difficulty for CAFU were the controls imposed by the stateon the production and marketing of crops. There were selective bans oncash crop production of some commodities (e.g. Tobacco In SouthernRhodesia) and discriminatory commodity pricing policies. These rashpolices were intended to promote White agriculture against Africancompetition. Given these policies, CAFU films that promoted enterpriseand wealth accumulation through hard work ran into obviouscontradictions that the audience came to increasingly discern.There is hardly a hint of these difficulties in Nell's account. He choosesto be largely detached from the political context of his work. The furthesthe gets addressing these problems is to comment vaguely that, 'peoplewere openly beginning to show hostility to anything federal".5 But whenhe says that, the example that he goes on to cite is that of campaignsagainst the federal health system, rather than CAFU activities. This isunfortunate, as a more deliberate engagement of the problem of film-making in the colonial context would have enriched his narrative. Suchan account was all the more necessary because the professed goal of theunit was to promote African development, particularly rural Africans.This goal became increasingly elusive because of discriminatory landtenure policies that relegated African farming to marginal and over-crowded land. Peter Fraenkel's book on the development of early radio inZambia is an outstanding example of a narrative that fully engages theproblem of mass media in the political context of the region during thesame period as is covered by Nell. Commenting on the problems of radiobroadcasting in Northern Rhodesia during the federal period he notesthat:The faith that our audiences had once had in our broadcasting stationslowly collapsed completely. Our announcers were threatened. Ourrecording-vans had their tyres punctured in remote villages. Peoplerefused to record for us. If they could be persuaded to do so, many oftheir songs had the refrain, 'We don't want the Federation." We hadreached rock-bottom.63 Interview with David Hlazo, 1987. Hlazo worked as an assistant to CAFU crews in Zambia.All the interviews cited were conducted by Dr. K. Manungo and myself, unless otherwisestated.4 The Land Apportionment Act of 1930 was a cornerstone of colonial discriminatory policies.It allocated land on the basis of race and provided the legal framework for the forcedeviction of Africans from areas designated for White settlement by the state.5 L. Nell, Images of Yesteryear: Film-making in Central Africa, 187.6 See Peter Fraenkel's Wayaleshi (London, Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1959), 207.232 BOOK REVIEWSIt would have been useful to dwell on the broader social problems offilm producing over the period under review. Nell however, chose toconfine his discussion of audience reaction to episodes where receptionswere enthusiastic and audiences were entranced by the magic of the'moving images'. Ultimately CAFU was a White run organization thatsought to promote a limited vision of African development in a segregatedsociety. Nell defends the absence of Africans in CAFU's decision-makingstructures citing the absence of suitably qualified Africans. It is not clearwhy he is motivated to such a defence, when it is patently clear that theracial politics of that era would not have allowed Africans to be trained infilm-making. That there were Africans who could have been co-opted andtrained as film-makers is evidenced by recent oral interviews with formerCAFU 'African assistants', David Hlazo and Samuel Tutani.7 Both hadgood academic qualifications, having received at least four years ofsecondary education. They could have been taken on as trainee director-cameramen or scriptwriters. Indeed there is evidence from interviewswith Stephen Peet8 that African assistants were sometimes asked to docamera work, but this was not officially acknowledged. The bottom line isthat CAFU never considered such positions as open to Africans, whichwas consistent with the politics of the day. The failure to open up film-making for Africans created problems for CAFU that were inherent in thecolonial government's native policy. In the end, as the political tensionsrose, leading to the break-up of the federation and UDI, CAFU lost some ofits staff through emigration, and those who remained were largelyabsorbed by the Rhodesian government as part of its propaganda machine.The shortcomings in Nell's account notwithstanding, his book is animportant account of the history of film-making in Zimbabwe.Faculty of Education, University of Zimbabwe KEDMON N. HUNGWEThe ZAPU and ZANU Guerrilla Warfare and The Evangelical LutheranChurch in Zimbabwe By Ngwabi Bhebe. Mambo Press, 1999.1 read this book on Heroes Day, when the leaders of the liberation strugglewere expecting the masses to gather at Heroes Acre, a monument for thedead built by the Koreans in the outskirts of Harare. Bhebe's book is ofinterest to read today as an important addition to stories about theliberation struggle by Africans. One hears about ZANU, ZAPU and/or7 Interviews with David Hlazo, 1987 and Interview with Samuel Tutani. 1988.8 Inteview with Stephen Peet, 1987.