Factors Affecting Growth of Film Industry in Africa Essay Example

of Africa. Therefore investing in film is often taken as a gamble. Enahora of Nigeria noted that due to the risk nature of the business, financial institutions are often not willing to release funds for film funding and often the poor African filmmaker does not have enough assets to let as collateral security.

In other countries like South Africa and Kenya, while they have set up boards such as National Film and Video Foundation and Kenyan Film Commission respectively, to fund the film, the boards are also paralysed with no funds being poured into their activities. Baelseiro noted that KFC failed to meet its annual target of US$150 000 to fund films, leaving the Kenyan filmmakers with no option but to raise their own funds through any means necessary. In 1998, Film and Video Fund of South Africa funded only 105 out of the 605 films that were proposed.

Faced with these predicaments, Akashoro argues that that many African filmmakers spend more time searching for funding than they spend making films. Private business sector in Africa has also contributed little if not nothing to the financing of film since they still do not recognise the benefits that can be exploited through commercial advertising as in Western movies. In Western countries, a number of films are produced with the help of the private business sector who will benefit through indirect advertisements of their products that will feature in the films.

For example, the movie Star Wars was produced with the help of PEPS, Coca-cola and the McDonalds Restaurants which benefit through advertising of their products. The private sector is yet to make an impact in film funding in Africa.

In Nigeria Ogbo noted that the few merchant traders who have tried to enter into venture capitalists also doubles as producers despite their lack of knowledge in the area or they interfere with the filmmakers so that their interest are captured.

Ogbo further notes that the primary aim of these merchant traders is to recoup profits at the shortest time possible, meaning films have to be produced within a very short space of time and quality is compromised. Lack of film education and training in Africa is another hindrance to the growth of film industry in Africa. Lamenting this problem, Tichi Sitati of the Kenyan Film Commission noted: We have schools like Daystar and University of Nairobi... They teach media but concentrate heavily on journalism. They don’t have film lectures.

We want people to know about art of film. Don’t just teach me journalism and camera works and expect me to translate that into film. African institutions that offer film and video training course tend to lack the necessary training materials and equipment such as cameras, editing software, editing suites and the technology, as a result the graduates tend to know more of theoretical concepts rather than practical film production. As result they cannot produce a product of standard quality. For example, he National University of Science and Technology (NUST) of Zimbabwe where this writer is studying, has one video camera for the whole department and does not have even a makeshift studio despite offering film and television production courses in its curriculum. Commenting on lack of training facilities in Zimbabwe.

Film is a product of team work and not about one person playing five roles. Baya shared

the same sentiments when he commented that, “ film is specialised field. There is need for training for most if not all departments. We need proper writers, directors, and technical people. ” This shortage of qualified staff has lead to production of sub-standard films that cannot compete on the international market with Western films where there is enough qualified personnel to undertake division of labour and specialisation in the film production processes.

Technology is another factor affecting the growth of film in Africa. Sitati noted in Kenya, technology is not available, not affordable or obsolete. In some instances it is the knowledge on how to use the available technology that is lacking. Sitati noted that while today the boom of digital technologies has made shooting, editing using consumer software and distribution of the movie online through YouTube and other online channels relatively cheap and easy, the situation has been different with African countries.

He noted that Kenyans’ access to these technologies is either very limited or unaffordable. He noted that internet speed in Kenya is very low which is a problem in most African countries. Sitati states that it may take one hour or more to upload a three minute video on YouTube. Africa therefore remains lagging behind. In Nigeria, Ogbor noted that one of the challenges faced by Nollywood that has led to the production of poor quality movies is that unlike Hollywood and Bollywood, it does not have state of the art studios.

Due to lack of access to technology Nigerian filmmakers find themselves still using traditional advertising strategies such as television and posters. Posters are the most popularly used advertising strategy because of their cost

effectiveness. It is noted that Nigerians are yet to adopt the internet as means of advertising because of its problem of accessibility, speed and literacy in Africa. The few that are reportedly doing so are retailing and rental companies abroad that specialise in Nigerian movies. The ineffectiveness of using a poster to advertise a motion picture is undoubtedly crystal clear.

For instance they are geographically located and cannot cross boundaries as internet and they are static and therefore it is difficult to capture and demonstrate what is in a movie using posters. Other countries like Zimbabwe had to rely on neighbouring countries like South Africa for the supply of technology which also limits their capacity to develop films. For example the recently premiered film, ‘Player Warriors’ by Rumbi Katedza had to be edited in South Africa because Zimbabwe did not have the appropriate technology.

The unavailability of technology combined with other obstacles such as lack of funding and shortage of qualified personnel has led to the production of the so called low-budget films as the poor African filmmaker tries to utilise the few resources at his/her disposal to come up with a film. For, example in countries likes Nigeria, Ghana and Ethiopia there has been a revolution of what Lucy Gebre-Egiziabher called ‘ video-films’ “ because they are not necessarily films produced in the traditional ways of cinema, rather stories of home videos. Summarising one of the films titled Kezkaza Welafin of Ethiopia, in which Tewodros Teshome was the producer, cameraperson, director of photography and director, Gebre-Egiziabher noted: While some of the character, with minor roles, delivered realistic depictions of the characters they played, the lead actors

were either over dramatic or just did not have any presence in front of the camera.

The Story was structured well, but the technical deficiencies were so evident that it rendered the story disjointed, overall the sound quality was very poor, the actors’ lines were sometimes out of synch, the composition of each shot seems obituary with no objective, the use of silence was none existence and there was no natural environmental sound. The killer, though, was that every possible gap between dialogues was filled with melodramatic music. This shows us how poor these video-films are in quality despite being produced in quantities.

As a result they cannot compete on the international market with the Western and Indian films. The problem of technologies has been further worsened by the monopolisation of technologies by the developed world. Even if the companies from the developed world shoots a film on an African soil, bringing their own equipment, the entire post-production process which includes editing, graphic designs, animations and other processes, is done in their home countries like America and Britain.

They take their equipment back while the African talent is given minor roles like acting. This, according to Enahora  is done to make sure that there is no opportunity for the locals to learn, thus technology remains monopolised. Some examples of films that have been shot in Africa and whose production was done outside Africa are: African Holiday, Stanley and Living Stone all shot in Kenya and A Far of Place shot by Walt Disney in Zimbabwe in 1993 to mention but a few.

In Zimbabwe artist have often been reportedly fighting running battles with vendors who sell pirated disks as

they take the law into their hands because the police are failing to contain piracy. Reporting in one of the incidents, Maxwell Saungweme of the Daily news wrote that: The police do not even have to hunt for those selling pirated music and films because they are visible everywhere in town and you can actually see policemen passing through or even sifting through the pirated copies as they search for their favourite titles.

After the African filmmaker has toiled to gather and invest the little resources and come up with his or her film which may be of good or poor quality, he/she expects some returns from the project. However, in Africa the film once it is on the market, or even before officially released on the markets, it will find its way through illegal dealers who reproduce as many copies as they can. The copies are sold at a giveaway price, with nothing going into the film owners’ pocket.

As if to add salt to a bleeding wound, different films are normally compressed on one disk. This has led to the so-called 20-in-ones CDs sold to as little as $1 for two. For instance, the South African Federation Against Copyright Theft recorded that when the movie, Tsotsi, was released, it was sold for as little as R50 for the pirated disk, while the original disk was going for between R150 and R200. Faced with these two options, the African audience, with his poor income will opt for the pirated disk to which he can spend less on more movies.

Enahora noted that generally, in Africa and Nigeria in particular, there are two types of censorship. The first

one he described as bureaucratic censorship which is the filtering of films by censorship boards established by the governments through legislation. Examples include Nigerian Film and Video Censorship Board, Kenya Film Censorship Board, and the Zimbabwe Censorship board. These boards decide which film should be consumed by the public or which of the proposed films deserves to produced.

The problem with this censorship is that it has been politicised as a result films that does not toe the status quo ideological lines are often deemed not palatable to the public and banned. This often limits and prevents films with different ideologies from those of the ruling class from being produced. This problem is further worsened by the fact that television broadcasting in most African states is monopolised by the state. Once the state refuses to broadcast a film, the producers may have no alternatives, because cinemas do not attract large audiences in Africa.

According to Baya, an end to broadcasting monopoly may bring a breath of fresh air into the landscape of film industry in Zimbabwe and other African Countries. The second type of censorship which Enahora describes as industrial censorship refers to the power possessed by the film distribution and exhibition agents to select which film from those at their disposal they should promote better than others. This can simply be identified as distribution and exhibition problems. These include the theatre owners.

According to Ogbor this is due to the public perception that imported products are of superior quality than those produced in Africa. The myth surrounding this perception is that, Nigerain movies are also seen as sub-par as compared to Hollywood and that Nollywood. To try

and curb this problem, African filmmakers have tried to organise film festivals such Pan African Cinema and Television Festival held every two years in Ouagadougou, Burkina Faso, Zimbabwe International Film Festival and Southern African Film Festival to mention but a few.

While these festivals try to bring the African film on the light, it has been argued that it is just for short life span like two years. This distribution problem has created a double tragedy for the African filmmaker. Apart from blocking the African film from reaching its audience, Enahora noted that the exposure to Western films has conditioned the African audiences into the styles of the Western film and they now find it difficult to appreciate the African film when it happen to reach them. They now measure the films according to Western standards.

A small domestic market as a result of small populations in African countries is also cited as a challenge being faced by filmmakers. The basic argument postulated by film scholars is that while not negating the prospect of an international market, the primary consumer of a film should be the local audiences. As noted by Isabel Balseir, the primary viewers of an African film should be the Africans themselves. African countries by virtue of their small population, they find it difficult to recoup the cost incurred when producing film.

Other countries like America, with a total of 250 million by 1998 are able to repay the costs before they even start to export. For this reason, it is not surprising that India being the second biggest country in the world in terms of human populace is the world’s biggest film producer and

Nigeria and South Africa by virtue of their bigger population sizes, are also the leading film producers in Africa. In relation to markets, Joffe noted that there is a lack of strategic information and research vital for the film industry sustainability in Africa.

Without understanding of the markets trends and audiences analysis, Joffe argued, industry participants are unable to make effective investments decisions. The fact that most African filmmakers produce their films on sporadic occasions also means that they fail to build an audience. The uneven erratic production of films by Zimbabwean filmmakers also means that they are not able to build a film audience base. Once they disappear they will lose their audience and when they come back after a long period the audience might have been lost already.

Lack of strong film associations in Africa is also seen as a draw back to the vibrancy of film industry in Africa. Barsum noted that “workers in the industry formed labour unions for the standards reasons; they sought worker representation, equity in pay and working conditions, safety standards and job security. ” In developed countries like America, many facets of the film industry have developed unions and guilds, for example, the Screen Actors Guild, Directors Guild of America, American Society of Cinematographers and other unions.

These unions ensure that professionals working in the film industry in America work hard on behalf of the members to ensure that they are treated fairly. In Africa, it is either these unions do not exist, or where they exist, they are seen as toothless bulldogs who do not do anything to advance the filmmakers needs. For instance, the Kenya National Film and

Television Producers Association, Filmmaker Association of Nigeria and the Zimbabwe Film & Television Actors' Union among others have been blamed for their inactivity in their respective countries.

Lambasting these kinds of associations in Nigeria Enahora noted: They are not militant enough to exert pressure on government and promote collective criticism of the contradictions of the exploitative film companies, thus impeding the revolution of film in Nigeria. Tichi Sitati also concurred with Enahora and noted that in Kenya, the filmmakers’ interests are supposed to be represented from the association mentioned above, but that does not happen. ‘Feeling betrayed’ Sitati noted, ‘the filmmakers wanted to break away from the associations. In Zimbabwe, Baya identified this obstacle when he noted that ‘individuals are doing their own things indifferent places,’ and proposed that “if we are serious about film industry we need to start coming together and organising the sector into proper structures” Lack of professionalism among the film makers has also been cited as challenge hindering the growth of film in Africa in general and Nigeria in particular. For example, Ogbor notes that there has been some series of labour disputes between filmmakers and producers actors/actresses and their marketers.

In 2004, it is reported that the Nigerian Association of Movie Marketers suspended some top rated movie actors and directors on the basis of what they saw as ‘unethical behaviour, high fees and indiscipline’ This reportedly led to lose of some audience who lost interest in watching the Nigerian movies because of the absence of what they call their screen idols. In Zimbabwe, the replacement of characters such as Joyce and Jabulani of Studio 263, soap opera often screened on the

local television is among factors that have been attributed to the dwindling audiences of the once household soap opera.

Global filmmakers also pose a grave threat to the growth of film industry in Africa. These pose a multi-dimensional of problems with their monopoly of distribution and exhibition channels. The global media is dominated by the American film industry in Hollywood Los Angeles. Disney, Time Warner, Viacom, News Corporation, Universal Pictures are some of the global media that dominate the global market. These big moguls have an oligopoly because they are both vertically and horizontally integrated. For example, News Corporation’s Twentieth Century Fox produces films that will be showcased through US Fox Broadcasting Network.

Therefore they can easily make a film even it makes a loss they can compensate that loss from profits made from other sectors of the business. For example, the movie produced by Disney in 1996 called The Hunch Back Of Notre Dame generated US$99 million at the American and Canadian box offices. This was considered a disappointing return. However, the movie went on to generate $500 million in merchandising of soft toys of the characters and stationery with pictures of the characters.

Profits reaped from the films are invested into the next film, which means that the next film will have a bigger budget and is likely to improve in both quality and standard. Scholars argue that the best selling films in the developed world are those with bigger budgets of at least $60 million. The process keeps going on which means that the gap between the African film quality standards and that of the developed world keeps widening. The oligopolisation of the global industry

increases the barriers into the global markets by smaller national based firms including those from Africa.

The big conglomerates also tend to move into foreign countries and gobble up the local media producers, broadcasting and cinema chains by offering better incentives than those offered by the local countries. For example, Time Warner moved into South Africa through their distribution deal with NU-Metro and their stake into the new television channel. By meddling into the local firms, the big moguls do not only define what is offered internationally, but also control what should be screened in local countries they are operating in .

As a result the films being aired tend to reflect the nationals less and less. As local content production becomes more and more expensive, local broadcasters have turned to cheap foreign film dumped to them by the global film industries to fill their broadcasting time. Examples include the Bold and The Beautiful, Every Body Hates Chris, Desperate house Wives, and many others shown on the various South African Broadcasting Corporation Television Channel stations. Infrastructural problems like roads, telecommunications, power supply and transportation also makes the film business unfeasible.

While from the prima facie they seem to be of no value, in essence they affect film production directly or indirectly. For instance due to poor communications or transportation issues shooting can be postponed because the director has failed to communicate or transport the talent to the scene and the film may fail to fit in the timeframe set by the producer. Barlet (1996) summarised the political, economic, institutional, technical and environmental challenges faced by African filmmakers as follows: Actors aren’t on the telephone.

How do you get in

touch with a P. O Box in emergency? And when custom demands that they should be present at a wedding, should you let them go? African cars are ‘tired’, the powers goes down when there are storms or surges of current blow lights, generators are unreliable or inordinately expensive, transport is chaotic and exhausting, there are constant breakdowns in all things mechanical, the light is infernal, the technical resource are in adequate, the political and customs authorities are irksome and illness is never far away...

But a solution can be found. In summation, one can note that, while the African film industry is growing; this growth is taking place at a very low pace. Where it seems to be booming, it seemed to be in the video-films which are being produced in large quantities but poor qualities. While the African filmmaker is attempting to expand, obstacles such as lack of technology, lack of funding, censorship, competition from global players, small audience base, and weak film associations are drawing him back.