(Being text of a keynote by Femi Odugbemi, president Independent Television Producers of Nigeria, ITPAN at the 50th Art Stampede, the quarterly programme of the Committee For Relevant Art (CORA) held at the National Theatre, Lagos on March 7, 2004).
”The true capacity to act boldly to actualise our vision lies in how seriously we push our agenda politically. We need the motion industry taken seriously in Aso Rock and in the Senate and the House of Assembly in Abuja. We need Ministers and Governors and Commissioners who will not only know our business and recognize its economic potential, we need industry professionals who will attain political office and make the case by influencing directly legislation and instruments that will spur the industry’s growth’
Ladies and Gentlemen,
I BEGIN by warmly congratulating the organizers of the Stampede. The CORA Stampede has gradually established itself as a most credible bully pulpit for progress in the sustenance and management of Nigeria’s art and Culture. It is amazing to me that today already marks the 50th stampede. So many great ideas by much more brilliant minds have been born in discourse at this venue. Surely, were we to judge by the quality of discourse that have taken place in this very place over 50 CORA Stampedes, one ought to very well wonder why the art and culture “industries” in Nigeria is still seemingly adrift without economic profit or for that matter political clout.
I must confess that for a while now, to me at least, the CORA concept of having creative minds gather under a tree in the shadow of the National Theatre, our most recognised cultural monument, to react to socio-cultural and economic issues as it affects our artistic community is become something of a communal catharsis for which I carry the fear of the question “what follows?” Of course that thinking, given the mighty but lumbering presence of government in the management of culture in this country, is inspired by another question, “Is anybody out there listening?”
The focus of the stampede today, “Film as National Patrimony: What the President said” would suggest perhaps that my last question, at least as it concerns the movie industry, may no longer be necessary, which in turn frees one’s thinking in terms of suggesting ideas. Of course, in the light of the complexities of our politics, we are accepting that “what the President said” is EXACT to “what the President meant.” That said, we must dearly thank Mr. President for at least recognizing that the movie industry in Nigeria, currently run only by private initiative and enterprise, is politically valuable and has capacity to contribute strongly to our economic development.
Whatever follows now, the true value of “what the President said” in his 2004 budget speech really lies in our industry’s own ability to seize the moment and the political impetus of the President’s commitment to change the content of our conversation concerning our industry. We now must make the case for our industry in pure economic terms such that government and politicians understand. What the President said is our license to propagate the capacity of the motion picture industry in Nigeria as an engine of economic development. We must speak of its ability to generate employment. We must speak of its ability to foster investment. We must speak of its potential to generate foreign exchange. We must speak of its capability to expand our technological skills and preserve our history and cultural heritage.
The creative potential and economic viability of the motion picture industry in Nigeria is huge – In a country of 120 million people and with our diversity of culture and heritage, the industry has capacity to complement the oil sector in earnings. In pure economic terms, our industry, if well organized and properly encouraged can provide employment for thousands of people, generate earnings for small-scale businesses, earn foreign exchange, provide a platform for the positive promotion of the Values of the Nigerian Nation, its cultures, and peoples. It can become our biggest megaphone to lift our voice in the comity of nations. The economic capacity of the motion picture industry in a market like Nigeria, and with a potential expanded audience of francophone West Africa, should bestow our profession and by extension its professionals a pride of place and a strong voice in the economic growth and social development of Nigeria.
Now, if “what the President said” is “what the President meant” I guess we can presume that he already now accepts this premise. So to the question what next? That I presume is the point of having this discussion at all. I thought this through with a bit of wishful thinking. I visualized myself with the President with him asking the very question “what shall I do?”
Given Mr. President’s familiarity with the Holy Bible, I would say that the state of the Motion Picture Industry in Nigeria reminds one of Prophet Ezekiel’s spiritual flight into the “Valley of dry bones.” I suggest that the dry bones spiritually represented not so much decline and desolation but a metaphor of missed opportunities. It was imagery, not of the end of what once was, but a lamentation of what could have been. When Eagles, equipped to fly in glorious altitudes, nestle happily with chickens and ducks, we have come spiritually to the valley of dry bones. When potential is huge and achievement is not, we live in the valley of dry bones. That is why the question that arose in context, from the Prophet’s spiritual understanding, was “will the bones rise again?”
Yes, the motion picture industry in Nigeria today lies curled up in the valley of dry bones. There is potential. There is huge potential given the evidence of the activity in the home-video industry and given the huge audience available, and given the rich history of filmmaking in this country, there is potential. But there is little true achievements because of what we can only describe as missed opportunities. Mostly by the government.
Let me be clear: Filmmaking should not, and cannot, be a government activity. Creativity does not thrive in a civil service environment. Government cannot make movies, but government can create the atmosphere for movie-making to be fulfilling, rewarding, elevating and economically empowering both for the moviemaker and for “the rest of us.” So, first point – for the President to mean what he said, Government must shift its paradigm from LEGISLATING the movie industry to PROMOTING the movie industry.
To do that, Mr. President needs a true measure of sober assessment of the industry as it is. The metaphor of Ezekiel’s valley of dry bones works well here, because if you look around the industry, you will pick up dry bone after dry bone in our wasteland of missed opportunities.
There is the dry bone of poor content. Thanks to the Home-Video industry’s penchant for fecundity, we are now internationally recognized for our QUANTITY but not for quality. The spectacle of unprecedented international media attention lately received by the movie industry here just seems focused on sheer volume and the unfathomable speed with which our videos are churned out. Buried inside all the attention is the disturbing snicker and innuendos on the very poor quality and standards of these productions. Truth is, to find economic reward for this sector particularly in the international arena, we must refocus international attention by proving the fact that we have talented professionals with viable ideas and a winning creative vision. That is why I am cautious to celebrate the media barrage and various invitations to international film festivals many of our Producers are getting today. The recent Berlin Film Festival focused on Nigeria’s Home-Video industry. That is good news. But then it also convened workshops with subjects such as “How to make a movie in 10 days – the Nigerian experience.” That, my friends, is bad news. We must critically examine content. Poor content of course is directly related to poor professionalism. Too many folks are wielding cameras like Saddam’s famed Weapons of Mass Destruction.
Government must therefore encourage professionalism by encouraging training. Funding training should be government’s first and most important intervention in the industry. I will therefore suggest to Mr. President to seriously consider providing statutory budgetary funding for institutions that provide specialized skills for our movie-makers such as the Nigerian Film Institute in Jos and the ITPAN Training School in Gbagada, Lagos.
There is the dry bone of project funding. Movie-making is seriously capital-intensive. It requires a lot of money to put a movie together and regardless of how powerful a creative idea may be, in film making, in the end money talks. That is why the home-video industry today is controlled by marketers who function as Executive Producers. I personally have no problem with marketers who function as Executive Producers. In fact we must be grateful because as it were they are the only ones willing to invest their money in the uncertain terrain of the movie business. Banks will not. Government has not. But they do. My worry however is that their investment is formularised in such a way as to provide no opportunity for emergent practitioners. Their intervention is controlled to recoup the investment by only doing stories that are guaranteed to sell a predetermined number of copies if a certain so-and-so actor is used and a certain so and so Director produces.
In a capitalist economy, they have every right to do so. But that approach while economically rewarding, is short-sighted in terms of regenerating the industry with new ideas and new practitioners and breaking new markets in demography etc. I have problems with the fact that Emergent movie-makers have no structure to provide a financial springboard for them to work. So in my opinion, Mr. President needs to look at how we create a funding structure for movies particularly for emergent storytellers.
If I may offer a thought in that direction: Can government not create a special release for the SMIE funds kept away by so many banks to be available to filmmakers?? Because a movie, if well made can be a lifetime property, the banks can along with their 30% ownership, also hold copyright until the money is made back. And given that SMIE rules offer a five-year break-even period, there’s ample time to recoup investment if the project is undertaken with boldness and vision for impact internationally.
Finally, there is the dry bone of poor distribution. Currently, traders and non-professionals dominate the informal distribution structures while exhibition theatres are practically non-existent. I don’t really worry about a lack of exhibition theatres because quite a lot of movies made in developed countries do now go straight to DVD and video. And in fact, I realize even if government were to build theatres now, there are issues of re-energizing the theatre-going culture in Nigeria aside of course issues of personal security on our roads at night.
The distribution issue for me surround the absence of credible data or numbers on our industry. No one seems to have any hard numbers on how many videos are actually produced, we only rely on how many were vetted by Censors board. We don’t know how many are actually sold because the appearance of video clubs renting home-video beclouds estimation. Without credible statistics and numbers, it is impossible for serious investment to come into the industry. I certainly know from experience that the SMIE Managers will not even break a smile at the thought of poor data.
So, can government begin by commissioning a full and thorough data on what we really have and where the opportunities lie? There is a need for the government to truly understand the dynamics of the home video industry. It is absolutely imperative that the government understands the industrial bases that require strategic input necessary for an economically empowered film industry. It may be wise to take a look at the model used in South African with the South African Film and Video Foundation. Instead of a Censors Board, can we have a Film and Video Promotions Board? Can that Board have departments that deal with providing funding information and opportunities to movie-makers? Can it have departments that collect hard data and provide export promotion support for filmmakers?
The creation of an effective export promotion facility for the industry will be the key to foreign exchange inflow into the economy. Now that the industry is experiencing international interest it is imperative that an effective promotion structure is put in place so are to further strengthen the profit index of the industry as it relates to the national economy.
Can it have departments that promote training and professionalism?
Can it have departments that focus on revenue generation? Governments of successful film industries like the United States of America have a revolving structure aimed at ensuring revenue generation from films. Part of these formulae is the creation of a pay-per-view system that ensures that viewers are billed for films they want to see on televisions, cables, etc. A truly professional formula will ultimately yield returns for government.
Can it have departments that enforce piracy laws so that our practitioners can be free of fear of losing the just economic reward of their creative property?
Please understand that I am not looking for government to create yet another bureaucratic hold on the industry. Such a commission or Board should not be a hindrance if, as I said when we started, a paradigm shift from legislation to promotion is the foundation of government’s intervention.
To end I must return to where my conversation with Mr. President began… the valley of dry bones. The biggest dry bone in our industry’s wasteland of opportunities now is one for which we all have shared a responsibility. It is the bone of a lack of vision. Without a vision the people perish… The word ‘perish’ in the original Hebrew does not actually mean physical death. It means that people go naked and are impoverished. But one does not need to understand Hebrew to see that this is exactly the state of our industry today. It is impoverished because our professionals are working but they are not making a living. It is impoverished because the profile of a Producer in Nigeria is no higher than that of the artisan at least in the corridors of economic and political influence.
We can round up the usual suspects if we desire to play the blame game. Government is not supportive, the banks won’t give us loans, the industry itself is fragmented by egomaniacs and politics, ITPAN is not working, CMPP is bad, the problem is the NFC, blah, blah, blah…
But it behooves us all to define a vision of a powerful and economically rewarding industry and draw a roadmap to it. Cooperative industry bodies and associations and regulatory organs like the Nigeria Film Corporation, Censors Board etc are bus stops on that map. They should rightly be supported. In a democratic environment, however, opportunity exists for us to elevate the platform of our agitation and take the vision to the seat of influence and power.
The true capacity to act boldly to actualise our vision lies in how seriously we push our agenda politically. We need the motion industry taken seriously in Aso Rock and in the Senate and the House of Assembly in Abuja. We need Ministers and Governors and Commissioners who will not only know our business and recognize its economic potential, we need industry professionals who will attain political office and make the case by influencing directly legislation and instruments that will spur the industry’s growth.
Our industry is important. We need to be taken seriously politically. We need to showcase motion picture professionals of quality intellectual depth and sagacity. To achieve the vision of a vibrant film industry, we must forge a new political consensus whose agenda is the political and economic development of the film industry and its practitioners.
I thank you for listening.
