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

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

Load more