USA Africa Dialogue Series - What I think is the implication for a country like Nigeria...2

[David Gritten points out that 'Without subsidy of some kind, our film culture will be completely overrun by Hollywood, and our sense of ourselves as a nation will be diminished, however subtly, by the absence of distinctly British films.' But this is of nothing to a government which believes in sacrificing everything to the fickle gods of the money market,] Dear Ms Obe,  I sent the news on the demise of the British film council for one reason in particular. I wanted those interested to read how "others" especially our former colonial masters think about films. Ten years ago, I took Richard Lang, former Director at Goethe Institute, Lagos, around some production houses in Lagos. Mr Lang was posted from India to Nigeria. He is a noted film critic and I wanted him to see what Nigerians (in the days of ex-Queens College old Girl, Lola Fani Kayode and others) were doing and what they were capable of doing. After the trip, I wrote a 10 page report for him just so that he may have a taste of what our books say about movie making. Can you believe that Nigeria has something written on how movie making links to our cultural development? I serve you my introduction and hope someone can remind Nigerians that Nollywood is a cultural statement and not just a product for Alaba boys.   Status of the Film Industry in Nigeria:    It is debatable if the present situation in the film/video market can be referred to as an industry where capital, machinery and resources are in place. One very heartening development is the presence of a film policy for the country. The history of the policy dates back to 1991 when Nigerian Film Corporation (NFC) constituted a panel to look into the existing regulations with a view of harmonizing and distilling the essence of a film policy. The film policy fortunately is a beautiful document that not only articulates the many possibilities and options open to the country but also attempts at providing enabling environment for the production of films. The document on its face value seems not to lack in the necessary guidelines and visions, for example the preamble recognizes that "the film is a unique means of communication, it is a means of education and entertainment, socialization, information and mobilization. More than any other means of mass communication the film can be used as a tool to promote positive social transformation as well as to consolidate and build a new relationship between culture and national development".   From the fore going it is evident that the brains that put together the policy are very current and visionary. However the present situation seems not to be in sync with the sentiments expressed. The situation of film production and consumption demands a critical attention. In terms of the technology of film production the country is presently undergoing a rapid retrogression and decay. The Cinema culture built over the years on foreign films and taste is fast dying out and replaced with indoors small-screen consumption that may be local in content but still largely foreign in concept. Whichever way the film consumption/production pattern is framed, this country seem to be in a bind, a resolution of which, may require a concerted cultural revolution that places premium on available and affordable technology. --- On Wed, 7/28/10, Ayo Obe <> wrote: From: Ayo Obe <ayo.m.o.obe@gmail.com> In Nigeria, the government's role in the entire 'Nollywood' phenomenon is to reap where it sowed little or nothing, to set up censorship and other regulatory bodies but fiddle while pirates destroy the income of the home-grown industry. It is possible that many of our well-known artistes, actors and directors learned their trade in the Nigerian Television Authority and its predecessors and/or state counterparts (remembering Jimi Odumosu's pioneering work for Lagos Television during the Jakande era) but if at all the government is putting money into the Nigerian Film (or telling of stories with moving pictures) industry, it may be with the same criteria that inform the many job creation schemes that the governments like to tout, i.e., not what you know or can do, but who you know.  Or can do. Ayo On Tue, Jul 27, 2010 at 9:28 PM, Oluwatoyin Ade-Odutola <kole2@yahoo.com> wrote: What do you think is the implication for a country like Nigeria... Demise of Film Council 26 July 2010 by putneydebater There is something very seriously rotten in the State when the Government can decide to abolish the Film Council to save £15m a year at the same time that the head of BP is said to be about to take a severance package of approaching the same amount. The disparity is all the more striking when you register that while BP is writing off more than £20 billion to pay for the Gulf of Mexico oil spill, the Film Council has been responsible for allocating a mere £160m of Lottery funding to more than 900 films which have entertained over 200 million people and helped to generate over £700 million at the box office worldwide, or almost £5 for every £1 of Lottery money thus invested. Part of a raft of cost-cutting measures at the DCMS involving the merger, abolition or streamlining of 55 cultural organizations ranging from advisory bodies on libraries and museums to historic wrecks and ships, the move has angered a lot of people: a petition set up as soon as the news came out garnered 1000 signatures within two hours, as well as a couple of Twitter streams. [Latest: 3739 signatures.] Anyone familiar with my opinions on the Film Council knows that I've been critical of its modus operandi, but I can only agree with Ken Loach when he calls the announcement an ideological move, explaining that 'The UK Film Council was essentially the equivalent of a research and development department. In cutting it, it is destructive to our emerging young talent. There is no other organisation that could invest in the future as it did.' It's well worth quoting some of the choice Twitter comments: Fourth Flight: Let's brace ourselves for attack on the bfi and the BBC. Yes, these and the UKFC, all are flawed but all are essential. Michael Hirst: The Tories are scum. So not only will there be no jobs, poor welfare and no police, we're not going have films either? Peter A Rae: Surely cancelling the Pope's visit would save enough for a 1-year reprieve? Nick Donaldson: Why not cancel Trident instead! Would save a shit load more money. Matt Copson: Why? What is the benefit in destroying one of the UK's finest outlets for creativity? labellaraquella What is the saving on axing the ukfc? What is the point of it? Its like trying to pay back your mortgage by not going to blockbusters Daniel Sheppard OMG! Tories need to get real! The 2 most important things in my life are school and films… Why are they destined to fuck both of them up? In short, for not much money at all, the Film Council has promoted a digital screen network of 240 screens across the country; this includes giving rural audiences the opportunity to enjoy a modern digital cinema experience (including live opera, theatre and sport satellite events beamed across the UK). It provides support for over 200 film societies and independent regional film venues, as well as UK film festivals like Edinburgh, the London Film Festival and the Sheffield Documentary Film Festival; and has given over 20,000 young people the opportunity to get involved in filmmaking. The UK film industry has a turnover of £6.8 billion. It contributes a total of over £4.5 billion a year to UK GDP, returns more than £1.2 billion to the Exchequer and supports a total of 100,000 jobs directly and indirectly. The UK box office has grown by 62% since the UK Film Council was created (in 2009 it reached record levels of £944 million), with British films accounting for 23% of all UK cinema takings over the ten years to 2009. Recent figures show that in 2009 cinema admissions rose to 174 million, the highest figure for seven years; British films and talent won 36 major film awards, 17% of the total available; inward investment reached a record £753 million, up 111% on 2008; and UK film exports exceeded £1.3 billion, 92% higher than in 2001. (Details here) But the arguments are not just economic. Even The Daily Telegraph's  despite the arguments of the best economists, such as Krugman and Stiglitz and Blanchflower, that trying to cut the national deficit now risks the hope of recovery—bourgeois economists, never mind Marx, who long ago warned of the hostility of capitalism to art. Of course many of the films the Film Council has supported are far from distinctly British and contribute little to any self-respecting sense of film culture, but that's not the point. The politicians may be scared that the country will be bankrupted on their watch, and are therefore not prepared to face down finance capital, but imposing cuts like these—without consultation or considering alternatives—demonstrates only that it is they themselves who are morally and ideologically bankrupt already. In light of which it is time to say loud and clear that what gives value and meaning to life and society is not money but creativity, imagination and playfulness (and love, of course) outside and beyond the market, and these attacks on society's cultural capacities are unconscionable. We are told that the DCMS will do further work over the summer to finalise the details and timing of the changes proposed. It will also look at its other 'arm's length' bodies and explore further opportunities to improve accountability and efficiency. As a charity, the British Film Institute was not within the scope of this review, and the Government says it is committed to its long term future, but it will now consider how to build a more direct relationship between the BFI and Government. We are warned. This is an anti-Keynesian government, and it was Keynes who in helping to create the Arts Council in the 1940s, defined the 'arm's length' principle: that government should not administer such affairs directly, in order to be free of any possible charge of partisan interference or political patronage, but should delegate responsibility to special agencies, of the kind nowadays called quangos (quasi-autonomous non-government organisation). It's ironic, really, since not so long ago I reported on the last government's plans for a merger between the BFI and the Film Council to which I was totally opposed. I never imagined that the plan would fall by the wayside because a new government would come along and decide to get rid of the latter. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the "USA-Africa Dialogue Series" moderated by Toyin Falola, University of Texas at Austin. For current archives, visit http://groups.google.com/group/USAAfricaDialogue For previous archives, visit http://www.utexas.edu/conferences/africa/ads/index.html To post to this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue- unsubscribe@googlegroups.com -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the "USA-Africa Dialogue Series" moderated by Toyin Falola, University of Texas at Austin. For current archives, visit http://groups.google.com/group/USAAfricaDialogue For previous archives, visit http://www.utexas.edu/conferences/africa/ads/index.html To post to this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue- unsubscribe@googlegroups.com

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the "USA-Africa Dialogue Series" moderated by Toyin Falola, University of Texas at Austin.
For current archives, visit http://groups.google.com/group/USAAfricaDialogue
For previous archives, visit http://www.utexas.edu/conferences/africa/ads/index.html
To post to this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue-
unsubscribe@googlegroups.com