Cinema in the Colonial Period: A Tool of Empire and a Catalyst for Change

Also Read

 

(toc) #title= (Table of Content)

Introduction

The story of African cinema is deeply entwined with the continent's colonial past. Far from being a neutral form of entertainment, cinema during the colonial period was introduced as an ideological tool to reinforce European dominance and reshape indigenous cultures. Yet, over time, what began as a tool of cultural imperialism evolved into a medium of resistance, documentation, and self-expression. This article explores the origins and purposes of cinema in colonial Africa, tracing its development from Eurocentric propaganda to the early seeds of African film education and production.

The Arrival of Cinema in Africa

Cinema first arrived in Africa not as an inclusive cultural event but as a European import. The earliest screenings were targeted at European settlers and expatriates living in African cities such as:

• Alexandria and Cairo (Egypt)
• Tunis (Tunisia)
• Dakar (Senegal)
• Lagos (Nigeria)

These urban centers were hubs of colonial administration and commerce, where European residents created enclaves of their own cultural life. Films screened in these cities largely mirrored European tastes and values, reinforcing a psychological and cultural divide between colonizers and the indigenous African population.

As the colonial project expanded, cinema took on an additional role: as an educational and propagandistic tool.

Colonial Film and Cultural Domination

The use of film by colonial powers went beyond entertainment. According to Manthia Diawara (1992), these films became mechanisms for the “systematic dismantling of indigenous African cultures and traditions.” This cultural engineering was particularly evident in British colonial efforts like the Bantu Educational Cinema Experiment.

The Bantu Educational Cinema Experiment

Initiated by the British colonial administration, this project was designed to:

• Educate adult Africans about modern European ways of life
• Encourage adaptation to colonial rule and economic systems
• Reinforce the superiority of Western norms and institutions

In theory, these films were meant to “uplift” the African viewer. In reality, they perpetuated stereotypes, simplified complex African societies, and presented colonization as a civilizing mission. The Colonial Film Unit (CFU), which succeeded the Bantu Educational Cinema Experiment, expanded this approach across British colonies.

The Paradox of the Colonial Film Unit (CFU)

Although the CFU purported to involve Africans in the filmmaking process, it maintained tight control over production and narrative content. By 1949, it had established a film school in Accra (Gold Coast, now Ghana) with the stated aim of training Africans in film production. However, the training was far from empowering.

• Africans were trained only as technicians and assistants—not as creative decision-makers or directors.
• They served under European filmmakers, often without meaningful input into the storytelling process.
• The CFU’s educational materials remained fundamentally Eurocentric.

This initiative exemplifies a colonial pattern of offering limited opportunities that fell short of genuine empowerment.

Withdrawal of Support and African Response

By 1955, the CFU ceased funding African film production entirely. Africans were left to fend for themselves in a field they had been deliberately underprepared for. This withdrawal of support created a significant void in technical capacity and financial resources.

Similar efforts by other colonial powers yielded equally limited results:

• France attempted to establish a film school in Algeria, a major site of colonial control and rebellion.
• Belgium tried to do the same in the Congo (now the Democratic Republic of Congo).

These initiatives failed largely because they replicated the British model—focusing on technical subordination rather than creative empowerment.

Legacy and Irony

There is a deep irony in the fact that while colonial film projects claimed to "educate" Africans, they ultimately equipped them only to serve the colonial narrative. Yet, in doing so, they inadvertently exposed many Africans to the tools of filmmaking. Though constrained in their roles, some Africans gained experience in camera work, editing, and production—skills they would later harness in the post-independence era.

This colonial period laid a paradoxical foundation: cinema was a tool of oppression but also became a seedbed for postcolonial resistance and creativity.

Conclusion

The colonial history of African cinema is a testament to how cultural tools can be both instruments of control and vehicles for liberation. While colonial administrations introduced cinema to reinforce European dominance, they also—perhaps unintentionally—opened the door for African filmmakers to reclaim the medium. As the colonial era waned, a new generation of African artists began to reimagine cinema not as a mirror of colonial ideology, but as a canvas for African voices, stories, and visions.

In understanding the roots of African cinema, it is essential to recognize both the constraints of its colonial past and the resilience that transformed it into a powerful medium of African identity and resistance.