International Journal of Humanitatis Theoreticus. Vol. 2. (Special Edition); December, 2019
THE THIRD CINEMA: A VIEW FROM THE NIGER DELTA BY Achibi Sam Dede Ph.D DEPARTMENT OF THEATRE AND FILM STUDIES, FACULTIES OF HUMANITIES UNIVERSITY OF PORT HARCOURT
Phone No: 08033107728 Email: [email protected]
AND EMIMEKE HENRY DIENYE DEPARTMENT OF HISTORY AND DIPLOMATIC STUDIES, IGNATIUS AJURU UNIVERSITY OF EDUCATION, RUMUOLUMENI, PORT HARCOURT.
Phone No: 08038437106 Email: [email protected]
ABSTRACT The debate concerning the “location” and the “situating” of the “third Cinema theory” in the third world has effectively wane and over, as the debate on “issues” of the “tenor” and “contours” of “third cinema theory” in new emerging film industry of the third world had remain persistent. Most of these emerging “third world” film industries, especially, in Africa (Nigeria) grew without any good theoretical foundation, but spontaneously. The spontaneity in the emergence of these film industries in the third world does have the index of these countries unique history and circumstances. The unique histories of these countries had propelled and necessitated the singular desire of telling their stories. The location of these stories outside the confines of the institutionalize standards is what had necessitated the contestations amongst scholars, filmmakers and practitioners. Though the idea of “third world cinema” theory is relatively new to Nigerians judging the age of the “Nollywood” (acronym for Nigeria’s film industry), but it is agog with same contestations amongst critics, scholars, filmmakers and practitioners. The contestation of “Nollywood” lacking in good theoretical foundation had left a great void and gulf among scholars and critics, thus this paper joining in on the existing contestations with an effort of presenting the “Niger delta film genre” view(s). From the pole position of these contentions and debates the paper did set out to find and locate the contours and tenors of the third cinema theory in the Niger Delta film genre, in order to effectively present the Niger delta view(s). This effort again, led the paper to several conclusions, thus, the recommendations canvassed herein.
Keywords: Third cinema theory, Niger Delta genre, Government, Third World and Nollywood.
Introduction Most protagonists of the “third cinema theory” have presented the logic(s) and argument(s) that “third cinema theory” has no boundaries as it captures and presents the essences of a people, culture(s) and race(s). The increasing acceleration of globalization and of this thought
- 144 -
International Journal of Humanitatis Theoreticus. Vol. 2. (Special Edition); December, 2019 had necessitated the scrutiny and reviews the “third cinema theory” had been receiving across continents and regions of the world. One of such reviews was done Pines (1994) who subtly agreed to the fact or reality of the “current” “international system”, by acknowledging the presences of cultural diversifications and viewpoints that had elicited opposition to European — American practices and standards. These viewpoints had translated at the level of society into different concepts and theories, especially in scholarship, thus the dawn of “third cinema”. Again, the opposition to European — American practices had led to the contestations amongst scholars over the “third cinema” theory (Progress expansion and its impacts on emerging film industry). The contestations have succeeded in creating a void and gulf amongst practitioners, scholars and critics which did invariably translated into Pines (1994) describing the third cinema as third worldismor third world essentialism, essentially due to the reason(s) of history. The question that Pines (1994) failed to answer is whether there is anything wrong with third worldism or third world essentialism, especially, within the context of the framework (third cinema theory). The analysis of Pines (1994) did give out a warning and a caveat which is a direct poking of the non-acceptance of the reality of existence of the third world in the current international system. The existence of the third world was acknowledged and traced to first (developed) world chauvinism. First (developed) world chauvinism is known to be indexed by ideological, political and cultural expressions (differences), thus, Pines (1994) quoting Clyde Taylor who aptly captured one of the visible and realizable characteristics of first world chauvinism being its denunciation of third world postures of struggles for their particularism i.e. ethnicity, nationalism, cultural nationalism, and populism, while concealing the use of such orientations for first world interest disguised as internationalism, post-nationalism, cosmopolitanism and post modernism. The crux of the matter going by Pines (1994) and Clyde Taylor’s position is that there are the underlining facts of bias in the debate concerning the appropriateness of third world posturing in their struggles and its impact of third cinema theory.
International Environment and Third Cinema Theory Historically, the third cinema had gone through several historical vistas since its birth appearance and dawn in the 1 960s. These historical vistas were recognized and identified in the studies of Teshome (1994), Willemen (1994), Taylor (1994) and Kapur (1994) that threw up new hindsight and trajectories. The common denominator in all of these analyses is what “third cinema” represents to the different cultures and peoples that constitute the international system especially for the reason(s) of their unique experiences and history. “Third cinema” or “third world cinema” aesthetic and movement has its roots in Latin America but found expression in Africa and other developing (film industry) regions of the world, as an “alternative” to Hollywood (first cinema) and aesthetically oriented European films (second cinema). From the third world perspective, third cinema represents a socially “realistic portrayals” of life and emphasizing realities (issues) such as poverty, national and personal identity, tyranny and revolution, colonialism and cultural practices. The term “third cinema” was first used by Argentine Filmmaker FernadoesSolanas and Octavio Getino, the producers of La hora de los hornos (1968; the Hour of the furnaces), one of the best-known third cinema documentary films of the 1960s in the manifesto, Hacia un Terrier Cine (1969; Towards a Third Cinema).
Third cinema is rooted and enveloped in Marxian aesthetics, and as at the time and period the “third cinema” emerged, Marxism was in contest with capitalism for global presence and
- 145 -
International Journal of Humanitatis Theoreticus. Vol. 2. (Special Edition); December, 2019 recognition. The rivalry between Marxism and capitalism in the words Churchill, reconfigured to the iron curtain that had fallen on the world. It is against this backdrop of intense rivalry between east and west (ideologically) that third cinema emerged. The word “aesthetic” represents something beautiful, pleasing in appearance and attractive thus, Homby (1998:19) quoted in Sotonye (2004) concurring this definition by noting that aesthetic concerns “beauty” and “beautiful”. Going by the definition, the pertinent question is: can something be beautiful and attractive yet attract damnation? For an effective understanding of answer(s) to the question why the controversy and debate surrounding third cinema (third world cinema) in the current international system is so intense, requires an understanding of the following given positions:
(1) The current international system is structurally divided — developed and developing world (2) The developing world by reason of history has been made a “recipient” of “history”. (3) The developing world operates in the current international system from the position of weakness (4) There is a systematic bias against the developing world.
From these given positions, the next question is whether these given positions impact the controversies and the division amongst scholars concerning third cinema in the current international system. Since most scholars tend to use developing world and third world interchangeably, it is pertinent to clarify what constitute third world, thus the paper relies on the analysis of Thomas (2010) and Ayoob (1980). Both of these scholars noted that the term third world is both a concept and a definition, with Thomas (2010) noting that the concept “third world” was introduced by a French scholar Alfred Sauvy on the eve of the 1965 Bandung conference to describe the group of developing countries that differed in their essential characteristics both from the developed capitalist countries and the socialist countries. Though Ziegleir (1987) argues that the third world is a label lacking in precision, as both Sweden and Switzerland were neutral states yet they were not considered third world. The third world countries are located in Asia, Africa and Latin America, but these areas include, Taiwan and Israel, not considered as part of the third world. In short, the third world is a residual category, were the “leftovers” are put Ziegler’s (1987) concludes. The conception and usage of the term “residuals” does represent the North’s perception of developing world (third world) and reflects the conditions of the third world. The third world consists of the developing (under developing, less developed, poor, weak, dependent) states of Asia, Africa and Latin America. The analysis of Zieglers (1987) gave room to Ayoob (1980) to ventilate its opinion concerning the third world. To Ayoob (1980) the third world does exist and it partakes in international politics and relations from a position of weakness, thus, the demand for autonomy….
It is this perception and corresponding desire to change this state of affairs and to regain a degree of autonomy within the basically hierarchical international system that gives a certain amount of unity to the third world despite its diverse nature and its own internal problems particularly vis-à-vis the dominant powers within the international system.
- 146 -
International Journal of Humanitatis Theoreticus. Vol. 2. (Special Edition); December, 2019
The acknowledgement of the desires of the weaker states (third world) by the custodians (Europeans) of the international system of some form of autonomy means there is a great disparity and rivalry. This simple acknowledgement by Ayoob (1980) means at the level of society in the international system, there is the clash of interest that had permeated all facet of live in the international system including scholarship. Again, from the prism of structural division of the global system (international system) and all the other given positions, one can explain the undercurrents for the rivalry (if any), master/servant relationships between the global north and south, especially, when cognizance is given to international politics and economics that has the index of colonialism, neo-colonialism and imperialism. For the reason(s) of neocolonialism and imperialism and international politics, there is a systemic bias against the third world at the global stage. This best explains why the current international environment and its security architecture structure is seen and considered to be targeting the third world (Africa inclusive). Simply put, the third world represent nation- states that are underdeveloped — sharing common economic and political, social denominator and characteristics as:
• General poverty • Producers of primary products • Weak economy • Demographic problems • Lack of enterprise • Technological backwardness • Foreign trade orientation • Political instability etc.
Thus, scholars like Ake (1996), Aja (1998), Offiong (1998), Akani (2004), Sachs (2005) and Rodney (1972) all concluding that there exists the underdevelopment “problematigue” in the third world. But the snag in the conclusions of all of these scholars is their acknowledgement of underdevelopment not been natural and divine. Underdevelopment is a human factor and a product of history. In this vein Offiong (1980) concludes:
… development and underdevelopment are both comparable terms as having a dialectical relationship. By this meant that the interaction of both produces each other. In the interaction between Europe and Africa the former was the master while the latter was the slave and the result were the transfer of wealth from Africa to Europe. This relationship has resulted in a great imbalance or disequilibrium which has remained the fundamental problem in African underdevelopment. It goes without saying that Africa must find a way to liberate herself from economic dependence. And this is what the struggle is all about...
The international environment that was engendered was a mixture of hope and hopelessness, poverty and wealth, wars and peace, strong and weak nations and progress and despair, exploitation and assistance. It is against this background that the third cinema (movement) emerged with the cardinal thrust of telling the stories and presenting the unique realities of the Latin Americans within the global context of the Cold War (ideological war) that ensued between “East” and “West”. The cold war did carry with it serious social and political
- 147 -
International Journal of Humanitatis Theoreticus. Vol. 2. (Special Edition); December, 2019 luggage that impacted all states in the third world. Throughout the period of the cold war, Latin America had struggled and grappled with the problems of finding a basis for social justice, cultural autonomy and economic security, by adopting ideologies from abroad or by developing especially Latin America approach to the problems. The third cinema (movement) came as an innovation to fill the void and to tell the Latin American stories and experience.
Third Cinema: A view from the Niger Delta in Nigeria Attempting to find and locating the Niger delta view in the debate concerning the third cinema requires the understanding that the Niger Delta region of the Nigerian state is not insulated from global happenings especially if cognizance is given to the region being the hub of the petroleum industry in Nigeria. From the historical accounts that litter the region, the region is known to be home of great nationalists that had raised their voices against external and internal colonialism. Currently the region is on top of its voice demanding from the Nigerian state that the people of the region should not be seen and construed as second- class Nigerians. As already noted, the third cinema movement is traceable to the Bandung conference (1955) and Latin America with an Argentine film makers FerandoSolanas and the Spanish born Octavio Getino that launched the term in the late 1960s in their works La Hora de los Horns (1968) and published Hacia un TercerUne (Towards a third cinema, 1969). This was quickly followed by a work of a Cuban Julio Garcia Espinosa’s “classic” avant-gardist” manifesto for an imperfect cinema written in 1969 published in the cine Cuban No 66/67 of 1970 that argued for an end to the division between art and life and by extension to professional (practitioners) and scholars. This simple demand is what Willeman (1994) seen as utopian and considers the avant — gardist manifesto (text) as an utopian text that foreshadows policies advocated during the Chinese cultural revolution which elicited several writings in Latin America and in “post 68” Europe. The posture of Willeman (1994) in his analysis continued with the logic that due to the volume of the writings, there is the muddling of third cinema, third world cinema and revolutionary cinema as same, thus, being used as synonym without him drawing or giving his preferred line of difference. The salient point raked up by Willeman’s (1994) analysis is the fact that there was the latent desire of the Latin Americans to tell their story and realities to the world.
Since the motive and thrust of third cinema film makers was simply to capture and tell their unique history, realities, and experiences within the context of a hierarchical, bias and turbulent international system, it was the vision of these film makers to seek alternative approaches, thus, their adopting what most film critics see as revolutionary and a radical departure from the aesthetics of the first cinema. Both Solanas and Getino had stated that they refused to wear their films the garments sowed for films and film makers by the American film industry (first cinema) for the simple reason of a “new historical situation”. A “new historicalsituation” that was elucidated by years of Cuban, Vietnamese revolutions and the growth of worldwide liberation movement that found energy and expression in third world countries that demanded a new approach to film making which anti-third cinema scholars had refused to consume and digest. Though, the new approach was experimental, but, the salient fact worthy of noting is that the word “experimental” represents a deviation from the known norms (traditions) in the context of film making. These known norms (traditions) were imposed by the first cinema (American films) — models of form, language, industrial commercial and technical structures and festivals magazines and film schools that
- 148 -
International Journal of Humanitatis Theoreticus. Vol. 2. (Special Edition); December, 2019 had sustained its values overtime. From the standpoint of the precursors and other third cinema film makers, they had argued that the institutional framework of the first cinema encourages and guarantees the hegemony of films made by the colonial (imperialist) and developed countries, as films made by the emerging film industries of the “developing world”, like Nigeria, Argentina, Mexico and Ghana are lacking in the competitive edge or too flimsy and underfinanced to compete effectively with films from developed countries, even in their own markets. In other words, the “third cinema” torpedoed the all known standards, norms or institutionalized standards of the first cinema. The third cinema is basically an interstice of the system and against the system, independent in production, militant in politics and experimental in language.
From the vital features of the third cinema, one can claim that films from Nollywood, especially, those that tend to authenticate the existence of Niger Delta film genre, fit into the mold of third cinema. According to Ekpenyong and Dienye (2010) both scholars had noted that the region (Niger Delta) consists of a total area of 70,000 square kilometers inhabited by six million people cutting across twelve major ethnic groups living in 800 communities. The analysis of both Ekpenyong and Dienye (2010) further reveals that the term and expression Niger Delta is both a geographical and a geological term. Geographically, the area is known to have rainfall figure of 4. Om and its constituent(s) (core Niger Delta states) includes the following: (1) Delta (2) Bayelsa (3) Rivers (4) Akwa-Ibom (5) Cross River, while the additions include (6) Imo (7) Abia (8) Ondo. At the operational level of society in Nigeria, there are two existing definitions of the Niger Delta due to the complexities of politics. Again, the reason of politics and social justice, the current Nigerian state is considered a “legitimization” of corruption, nepotism, maladministration, and ethnicity over social justice. It is these legitimizations, coupled with dynamics of economics that caused ethnic groups in Nigeria to rise against one another. The cry of marginalization cuts across all the nooks and crannies of Nigeria. It is in this deformed, social, political and economic environment that scholars have had to ask a simple but pertinent question — on what basis can one define Nigeria, as Nigeria does not have a common history? Okowa (2005) had noted inter alia:
… so, on what basis can one define a Nigerian nation? We do not have a common religion. Our common history is less than a hundred years and it is clearly too short to provide basis for the definition of a sustainable nationhood... or is it the case that the oil wealth of the ministries of the Niger Delta has provided a looting basis for the contemporary manifestation and definition of the business called Nigeria? The continuous looting and plundering of the nation’s treasury regimes after regime, civil and military —clearly evidences the fact that our leaders do not believe in Nigeria as their nation... from the foregoing, it is logical to argue that the fundamental plank that serves as the basis for the definition of Nigeria is the common interest of all to loot and plunder the oil and gas resources of the peoples of the Niger Delta...
The hopelessness captured by Okowa (2005) had accelerated the collapse of the social, political and economic arms of the tripod of the Nigerian state, thus the agitations that
- 149 -
International Journal of Humanitatis Theoreticus. Vol. 2. (Special Edition); December, 2019 currently littered the Nigerian state. In the midst of these agitations came Nollywood. Dede (2005) had noted that;
… Nigeria ‘s film industry popularly known as Nollywood is by far a creation of circumstances. It grew out of its own steam by constantly challenging itself through a process of experimentation and improvisation. Although, film making in Nigeria dates back to the colonial era and developed through the post-colonial 70s and 80s. It really could not be recognized as an established industry in the sense of large-scale finance generating sector of the main stream economy...
The reality in the views of Dede (2005) is that Nollywood is a “child of circumstance” and from this humble beginning, the industry had grown to be the third largest film industry in the world. Whatever the grouse and shortcomings of Nollywood might be, Nollywood had not wavered in telling the Nigerian story. Part of the Nigerian story is the Niger Delta crisis which films like the Militants (Njama, 2007) Liquid Black Gold I and II (Ikenna Anekwe, 2008) Amnesty (Ikenna Aniekwe, 2009), Tears of Oil (Jeta Amata, 2007) and more recently, Black November (2013) and Oloibiri (2017) had tried telling. The conditions, environment, and the reason(s) of the unique colonial history of Nigeria that necessitated and engineered the current Nigerian social, economic and political situations (conditions) upheavals, is neck dip in the colonial period; it is these social, economic and political realities of the Niger Delta that these films had captured and presented. The Niger Delta crisis has the index of environmental degradation; poverty and hopelessness, unemployment, minority activism, human rights, liberties, militancy and the definition of Nigeria and ethnicity. All of these themes had become offensive and troubling to the managers of the Nigerian state. Following through on the analysis so far and to effectively situate the topic of this paper, Dede (2018) did deem it fit to categorize the plethora of films according to their genre(s). This categorization led Dede (2018) to the conclusion that there is indeed a Niger Delta film genre, thus, putting to rest the contestation over the existence of the Niger Delta film genre. From the pole position of the and analysis of Dede (2018), he did leave this paper with a caveat and a warning that;
…the classification and hierarchical taxonomy of genres is not a neutral and “objective” procedure. There are no undisputed maps of the system of genres within any medium (‘though literature may perhaps lay some claim to a loose consensus). Furthermore, there is often considerable theoretical disagreement about the definition of specific genre. A genre is ultimately an abstract conception rather than something that exists empirically in the world...
Dede’s (2018) analysis did throw up an important and salient question which is whether there are “tenors” and “contours” of third cinema in the Niger Delta ethnic nationality film genre. The answers to this question inadvertently give away the views of the Niger delta film genre on the third cinema debate. The kernel of thoughts of this paper is that the Niger Delta film genre share similar and same features that invariably support the existence of “contours” and “tenors” of third cinema in the “Niger Delta ethnic nationality film genre”. Again, the Niger delta film genre does not conform to rules, standardization and norms of first or second cinemas. The Niger Delta film genre simply captured and presented the “essence” and
- 150 -
International Journal of Humanitatis Theoreticus. Vol. 2. (Special Edition); December, 2019
“realities” of a people and culture and theserealities, though, not pleasant and comfortable for the administrators of the Nigerian state nevertheless, it had been presented to the world through the several works of Nigeria film makers. The debate over conformity and application of standardized norms of first cinema does not arise, as Nigeria’s film critics and scholars want us to believe. Again, it is pertinent to state and bring the views of Lomtadze (2014) that capture the views of Rodwick’s (2013) to bear on this paper that notes
… in fact, film theory is part of a larger crisis and uncertainty that surrounds the humanities today in his essay “sea-change: Transforming the “crisis” in film theory, Robert Brink succinctly put it ... the humanities today are under siege on two fronts: external pressures to become more geared to the needs of new information economy; and internal pressures either to relate the concept of the human or to reduce this concept to a naturalistic rump.
The void filled by the Nigerian filmmakers especially as it concerns the Niger Delta crisis should not elicit the debate it has generated amongst scholars of film and practitioners. Though, the healthy rivalry stemming from the structural division of the world amongst film critics/scholars never negates the realities or the essences of the people and culture of the Niger delta region.
Conclusion The “tenor” and “contours” of third cinema found in the Niger Delta film genre is an acknowledgement of a view(s) from the Niger delta which supports the position of African scholarship and doings, liberating itself from colonial mentality and looking inward (Africa’ s realities) to solving her problems. This position is applicable to Nigeria as a whole. The conclusion that the third cinema found expression in the several films on the Niger Delta and in other emerging film industries of third world meant these films not requiring stereotyping just to suite the whims and caprices of European scholars and scholarship in order to confine it to the dustbin of history. While the third cinema (theory) movement does not negate the existing thoughts, it rather helps to expand the human horizon and scholarship.
REFERENCES Aja-Akparu, A. (1989). Fundamentals of Modern Political Economy and International Economic Relations: Changing with Times.Owerri: Data-globe press.
Akani, C. (ed) (2004). Globalization and the Peoples of Africa. Enugu: Fourth dimension press. Ake, C. (1996). Democracy and development in Africa. Ibadan: Spectrum Books.
Ayakoroma, B.F (2008). Trends in contemporary Nigeria video film industry: A study of selected emergent genres being a PhD dissertation of University of Port Harcourt.
Clyde, T. (1994). “Black Cinema in the Post Aesthetic Era” in Jim Pines and Paul Willemen (ed) questions of third cinema. New York: BEL publishing.
Coffin, J.G et a! (ed) (2002). Western Civilizations. North and company: New York.
- 151 -
International Journal of Humanitatis Theoreticus. Vol. 2. (Special Edition); December, 2019
Dede, S.A (2018). “The Concept of Nationalism and Cinema: A Critical Study of Liquid Black Gold I &II”. In FAHSANU Journal Vol. 1 (Sept).
Dede, S.A and Dienye, E.H (2018). “Retrieving the Niger Delta Crisis from the Court of Nollywood” in FAHSANU Journal Vol. 1 (Sept).
Ekwuazi, H. (1987). Film in Nigeria Film Corporation: Jos.
Geeta, K. (1994). “Articulating the Self into History: Ritwikghatak’sJicktitakko at gappo” in Jim Pines and Paul Willemen (ed) Questions of Third Cinema. New York: BEL publishing.
Lomtadze, A. (2014). From Theory to Post-Theory and beyond: Politics and film being a PhD dissertation of Wesley College. London.
Offiong, D. (1980). Imperialism and dependency. Enugu: Fourth Dimension.
Okowa, W. (2005). “Oil”, “Babylonia” “Matheconomics” and “Nigerian development” being an inaugural lecturer of the University of Port Harcourt.
Otu, E. and Dienye, E.H (2010). “The logic of international terrorism and its imperative on the Niger Delta crisis” in international journal of humanities, 2(1). Pan Africa books: Ghana.
Paul, W. (1994). “The Third Cinema Question: Notes and Reflections” in Jim Pines and Paul Willemen (ed) questions of third cinema. New York: BFL publishing.
Rodney, W. (1972). How Europe Underdeveloped Africa. Overture publications: London.
Rodowick, N.D (2007). Elegy of theory. Harvard University Press; London.
Sachs, J. (2005). The End of Poverty: How we can Make it Happen in our Lifetime. Penguin Books: London.
Steams, P.E (ed) (2001). World civilizations: The Global Experience (1450 to present) Volume 2. New York: Longman press.
Teshome, H.G (1994). Towards a critical theory of third world cinema in Jim Pines and Paul Willemen (ed) questions of third cinema. New York: BEL publishing.
Thomas, A.N (2010). The Proxies of Development and Underdevelopment.Ethiope publishing Corp. Benin City.
Ziegler, W. (1987). War, Peace and International Politics. Little Brown & Company: Boston.
- 152 -