Cinematic Fact, Aesthetic Norms and Key Skills in Film Production
This section is one of two chapters that discuss and analyse the findings of the study. The approach employed is one in which findings are presented and analysed simultaneously to avoid the hazard of redundancy that sometimes characterises separate data presentation and analysis. The main endeavour of the current chapter is to trace the themes and aesthetic norms of the four films employed as case studies in this thesis. These themes are then related to the periods during which the films were produced, paying particular attention to the nature of services and key skills employed in their production. The political economy of such services is assumed to have had some influence on the themes of the films. This chapter therefore attempts to explore the key skills, organisational arrangements and intermediate inputs exploited in the production of film in Zimbabwe deriving from the four films used as case studies, and at the same time explain the relationship between film services and thematic issues in varying contexts. A detailed discussion of the assumptions underlying this exercise has been conducted in chapters One and Four. In the table below, is an adaption of Clouse’s (2012) classification of film industry occupations to distinguish between people/entities whose occupations are primarily in the film industry and those “that work in the film industry, but are primarily in other industries” (2012:17). This classification is delimited to the four films, namely: King Solomon’s Mines, Everyone’s Child, Tanyaradzwa and Sinners?
which as discussed in Chapter One and Two, were produced during different but systematically connected epochs of filmmaking in Zimbabwe. As Geiger (2012) has done with the Nollywood cinema, it is necessary to review the stylistic and professional endeavours of films produced in Zimbabwe by tackling the aesthetic norms and production strategies employed in making the films, hence a cinematic fact analysis.
Key skills, organisational arrangements and intermediate inputs in the specific films: Production contexts
Some observers judge the quality of films based on comparisons of both their substance and aesthetics (Mhiripiri, 2010; Fisher, 2010; Powdermaker, 1950). In the Zimbabwean context, among these observers are critics writing in the mainstream media, some of whom have
expressed concern over what they perceive to be deterioration in the quality of films made in Zimbabwe. One critic argues thus:
Whenever Zimbabweans talk about the greatest films ever made in the country, on many occasions they refer to films produced in the 90s. This decade produced “Jit”
(1990), “Neria” (1992), “More Time” (1993), “Everyone’s Child” (1996), “Flame”
(1996) and “Yellow Card” (2000), which are probably some of Zimbabwe’s highest-grossing movies of all time. But seldom is there mention of movies from 2000 onwards and if they do, it is usually with a lot of criticism. The major reason being that movies are no longer made in the same manner (emphasis added) as they used to (Yikoniko, 201425).
Yikoniko’s observation relates to the production of films in Zimbabwe. The argument can, in one analysis, mean that some services that were available in the production of films back then, are no longer there. She further argues that the themes of latter day movies are ‘less weighty’ compared to the strong social messages of the donor-funded films. From this, one may argue that the themes of recent films appear to be ‘shallow’ because they lack the necessary support to engage better aesthetic norms. Furthermore, it appears taboo for filmmakers to tackle the most topical issue of their time – the political crisis, while during the donor- era they could easily tackle the social problems of the time, with government support too. Mhiripiri (2010) has made this observation with reference to the themes of post-2000 short films. He observes that while documentary films attempt to portray the political realities in the country, this theme inexplicably does not appear in contemporary feature films. A contemplation of the reasons for this inability or unwillingness by filmmakers to depict Zimbabwe’s political crisis, is possibly an area of future inquiry.
It is necessary to follow up on Yikoniko’s (2014) assertion that post-2000 films are no longer made in the same manner as their predecessors of the 1980s and 1990s. A comparison can be made with Hollywood, which by 1917 had reached a climax in terms of its classical narrative and technology of production, including its “laws of editing, lighting and story-telling”
(Fawell, 2008:1; c.f Powdermaker, 1950). Can the same be said in the Zimbabwean context?
What are the laws of editing, lighting and story-telling peculiar to the Zimbabwean setting?
These are possible entry points. A follow-up on film production in Zimbabwe traces the production roles and norms constituting different films. These production roles depict the service providers on the value chain of film production in the local context. They are part of the cinematic fact; “a multidimensional socio-cultural complex” (Stam et al, 1992:35). Below
25 From www.sundaymail.co.zw/whats-gone-wrong-with-our-film-industry/
is an outline of the services employed and key skills as well as organisational arrangements in the production of the four films under study. It must be noted that the character of the production value chain for each film relates very much to the period of its production, as explained in Chapter One. The data below was yielded by analysing the credits at the beginning and end of the films as well as from conversing with filmmakers who worked in the respective productions. The data gives a cross-section of the production value chain for all the four films in terms of their pre-production, production and post-production activities.
The table below gives a condensed reflection of the key skills/occupations and services, as well as supplemental occupations employed in the four films used as case studies in this research. It gives an idea of ‘who’ did ‘what’ and ‘to what effect’ in the production of the films and ultimately in the seen filmic product reflecting the notion that “within the filmic, then one encounters the cinematic” (Stam et al, 1992:35). The illustration captures the value chain of the four films, at the same time showing their differences, which as postulated in this thesis, are results of their different contexts of production. To some extent, the value chain in the respective cases is also comparable to the film industry structure modelled in Chapter Three. The idea to classify occupations as demonstrated below is adapted from Clouse’s (2012:23) standard occupational classification (SOC), “a system used to categorize occupational groups and classify employees into...detailed occupational categories.” This system helps map out the production value chain in different settings/contexts. While in Clouse’s study, Ohio’s Bureau of Labour Statistics provided this data; in Zimbabwe this endeavour is cumbersome due to the informal nature of the industry. Film credits were therefore a primary source of data in this research. Furthermore, some of the people involved in the film productions gave their insights into their roles and some key moments in production, which may help understand and explain some of the aesthetic norms used in the narratives.
Primary film occupations/services
King Solomon’s Mines (1985) Everyone’s Child (1996) Tanyaradzwa (2005) Sinners? (2013)
Producers Yoram Globus;
Menahem Golan
John Riber [1]; John Persey (project coordinator); Ben Zulu;
Louise Riber [1] (Line producer)
Dorothy Meck [1] Daves Guzha [1] (executive);
O’Brian Mudyiwenyama [1] (co- producer)
Directors J. Lee Thompson;
Stephen Chigorimbo (3rd assistant)
Tsitsi Dangarembga [1] Tawanda Gunda Mupengo [1] Gamu Tawengwa
Production Management
Cannon Group Inc. Media for Development Trust AfroVision Entertainment Rooftop Promotions
Post -production Studios
Twickenham Film Studios. Media for Development Trust Media for Development (facilities); 14 10th Street Productions (online facilities)
Creative Native
Script Developers Gene Quintano and James Silke; Vivalda Vigorelli (supervisor)
John Riber [2]; Andrew Whaley; Tsitsi Dangarembga [2]
Tawanda Gunda Mupengo [2];
script consultants: Rumbi Katedza, Jacui Jojo; Leonard Murasa
Blessing Hungwe
Key Cast Richard Chamberlain;
Sharon Stone; Herbert Lom;
John Rhys-Davies; Ken Gampu; 3000 Zimbabwean extras
Nomsa Mlambo; Thulani Sandhla; Walter Mparutsa;
Elijah Madzikatire; Chunky Phiri; Killness Nyati
Kudakwashe Maradzika;
Emmanuel Mbirimi; Agnes Mupikala; Arnold Chirisa; Tendai Musoni
Getrude Munhamo; Tapiwa Mavindidze; Albert Charichafa;
Sarah Mpofu; Eunice Taba; Chipo Bizure
Camera department Alex Phillips (D.O.P); Avi Karpik (focus puller); Clive Lawrie (Camera assistant);
Tony Baggott (camera assistant); Dave Dunn Yarker (aerial photography); Hans Khule Jnr. (2nd unit)
Patrick Lindsell (director of photography); Karl Schodt (focus puller)
Herbert Mhlanga; James Jemwa (assistant)
O’Brian Mudyiwenyama [2](director of photography)
Equipment suppliers
Lighting: Southern Lighting;
Cameras & anamorphic lenses: Joe Dunton studios
Camera: Production Services (MOI)26;
Grip equipment: MOI Zambia;
Lighting: unspecified ‘local’
company (Riber, 2015)
Anonymous Camera: Rooftop Promotions
Editors Larry Richardson (assistant editor); Robert Green (2nd assistant editor); Dubbing editors: Peter Best, Bryan Tilling; Graham Harris;
Dubbing assistants: Bob Mullen, Richard Fettes &
Michelle Atkins; Kenneth Hall (music editor)
Louise Riber [2];
Andrew Melhuish (sound editor); Lawrence Mutasa (first assistant editor); Garikayi Chawasarira [2] (second assistant editor)
Offline: Mussa Ally & Dorothy Meck [2]; Online: Tongai Furusa
Joe Mawuru
Sound engineers Eli Yarkoni (sound mixer);
Yossi Yarkoni (boom operator)
Bob Hay; Themba Nyamweda (boom operator);
Temba Nyamweda; Enock Chinyenze; Mike Hundu (boom)
Musa Ally
26 MOI refers to Ministry of Information, Zimbabwe under which the Production Services is housed.
Set designers Nello Giorgetti; David Varod (dresser); Property masters:
Batia Grafka; Cesar Alava
David Guwaza (art director);
Rachel Bednar (assistant);
Steady Chidyausiku (props manager)
Wilfred Chidyausiku (prop master)
Josh Changa (art director)
Make-up artists Walter Cossu; Gino Zampriolo; Betty Church;
Vincenzo Cardella (hair stylist)
Mara Gedergren Evelyn Gambe Lusca Muchenje; Jean Shora
(assistant)
Wardrobe/Costume designers
Tony Pueo; Robyn Smith; Sue Lightman
Beaula Guwaza; Elector Garara (assistant)
Paxcedes Gambe Sabina Musvati
Special effects technicians
Germano Natali; Fred Unger;
Franco Scarano; Fabio Traversari
Juliet Lewis (foley artist) None None
Stunts Peter Diamond; Reo Ruitters;
Andy Bradford; Karmen Barbnik; Allan Olberholzer;
Angel Castignani; Isaac Mavimbela; Abe Thembe;
Graham Press; Keith
Anderson (Aerial
coordinator); Scully Levine
None None None
Supplemental film occupations
King Solomon’s Mines Everyone’s Child Tanyaradzwa Sinners
Music Jerry Goldsmith; Arthur
Morton (orchestrations)
Keith Farquharson; Chiwoniso Maraire
Thamsanga Bimha (scoring);
Chiwoniso Maraire; Double
Roki; Pauline Gundiza
Trouble; Afrika Revenge;
Kudakwashe Maradzike; Kelly Rusike; Sahara Band; Camelita Gumbo; James Mujuru
Locations Harare; Victoria Falls;
Domboshava
Location manager: Avner Pelled; unit locations: Rory Kilalea
Harare CBD; Domboshava Ruwa; Harare Harare CBD; University of
Zimbabwe
Writers Henry Rider Haggard Shimmer Chinodya Tawanda Gunda Mupengo Partick Chasaya (stage play)
Transport Paul Fisher Ashley Joseph (transport and location manager); Charity Maruta (assistant)
Rockshade Car rentals & Tours;
Matambanadzo Rentals
Anonymous
Financiers Cannon Group Inc. British Overseas Development Administration; Plan International
Dorothy Meck [3] Daves Guzha [2]
Accommodation Holiday Inn (main cast and crew)
Not specified Not specified Not specified
Caterers Not specified Carlette Godley Big Mug Shellzy catering
Electricians Benny Offer Farai Chimombe (first spark);
Trynos Ruzani (second spark)
Jeffrey Japanje (spark) Not specified
Security Zimbabwe Republic Police (ZRP)
Time Security; Knightwatch;
ZRP
Not specified Not specified
Construction Benito Leonardi; Arieh Ben- Ishai; Ian Mulder
Albert Tapera (construction manager); Tapiwa Kapesi &
Dudzai Mawonera (assistants)
Not specified Not specified
Table 5.1: Film services and film industry occupations in King Solomon’s Mines, Everyone’s Child, Tanyaradzwa and Sinners? (Source:
Film credits and field notes).
It is apparent that the composition of crews and talent that were involved in the particular productions differed respectively. For example, while King Solomon’s Mines features a heavy load of visual effects, they are very minimal in the other productions (see a detailed discussion below). The films were, obviously not made in the same way (because they are products of their contexts) which is why, as already discussed in Chapter Two, it is difficult to blanket-classify films as national or continental. Each production differs from the other in many ways. There is a connection that can be made between the film crew, period of production, aesthetic norms and the filmic content. What follows below is a critical reflection on the (in)formal techniques employed in creating the films, as well as the resultant themes/content/aesthetic norms.
King Solomon’s Mines and the special effects boon
King Solomon’s Mines (1985) is a 100 minute-long action adventure feature film directed by British born John Lee Thompson. Israeli cousins Yoram Globus and Menahem Golan produced it. Globus and Golan realised significant success in Hollywood between the 1980s and 1990s because of their unique ability to produce films with small budgets and efficiently distributing them for profitable returns. Among the popular films they produced were Bloodsport (Arnold, 1988) and Cyborg (Pyun, 1989) featuring action super hero Jean-Claude van Damme. They also produced the American Ninja sequels, Behind Enemy Lines (Amir, 1986), Braddock: Missing in Action (Norris, 1988) and The Delta Force (Golan, 1986) featuring Chuck Norris as well as Cobra (Cosmatos, 1986) starring Sylvester Stallone;
meaning that they worked with some of the most popular actors of the time. The Cannon Group produced several films featuring Michael Dudikoff, Charles Bronson, Van Damme, Norris and Stallone, the super action heroes of the 1980s and 1990s.
Figure 5.1: King Solomon's Mines poster (Source:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipe dia/en/c/c5/King_Solomon's_Mines_
1985.jpg
Golan and Globus had also developed a distinctive system of having several low-budget films in production at the same time, a factor that might have contributed to the demise of the Cannon Group in 1994. Their unique model was to presell films before they were made, and for this, they are credited for inventing the way most independent film companies work today.
A comprehensive documentary titled Electric Boogaloo: The Wild Untold Story of Cannon Films (Hartley, 2014) has been made about the company. Robert Foster, an actor featured in the documentary describes the Cannon Group model as follows: “They create a poster about a movie they intend to make, they sell it to foreign buyers; they take their money; they make the picture and deliver it the following season”. Cannon Group had a reputation of making at least 20 and up to 80 films a year, when most studios could only manage eight. The production of King Solomon’s Mines therefore, was immediately succeeded, and in some cases, simultaneous with that of its sequel Allan Quartermein and the Lost City of Gold (1987). Both films were shot in Zimbabwe, specifically in Harare, Domboshava and Victoria Falls. Golan and Globus’ exceptional low budget production model is epitomised by King Solomon’s Mines, which was produced with a relatively small budget of about US$11 million, although it largely flopped on the market. The budget for the film was so low that Richard Chamberlain, the main actor, has jokingly remarked that out of the original budget of US$50 million “I think they ended up spending three dollars seventy five cents on it”
(Hartley, 2014). This was possible due to the shrewdness, fierceness, robustness and passion of the two Israeli cousins at the helm of the company. As a result, they are said to have run the company “like a factory, a no frills operation where long hours and no pay are the norm, where every penny ends up on the screen” (Hartley, 2014). King Solomon’s Mines would have worked perfectly for the Cannon model because it featured hundreds of inexperienced locals exploited as cheap labour. This aspect has been criticised for contributing to stereotypical representations of Africa and indigenous black people. The opening montage of King Solomon’s Mines rolls long cuts of the majestic Zimbabwean landmark Victoria Falls edited to an opera score. As the opening credits of the main characters appear, the outstanding omission is that the list of actors features no Zimbabwean name. Some of the local cast is credited at the end of the movie though, under the magnanimous title ‘silent ones’. That title alone is symbolic of the ‘silence’ of the film on the significance of black people featuring in a Hollywood narrative. It is a silence also evident in the symbolic misrepresentation of Africa consistent throughout the film. According to George Charamba, the permanent secretary in the Ministry of Information, Media and Broadcasting Services, this stereotypical
representation was one of the dents on government’s early initiative to put Zimbabwe on the map as a filming location:
Now the trouble is, you then had a case of films which infact objectified the native getting filmed in Zimbabwe simply because we wanted Zimbabwe put on the map.
Or you had films that had absolutely no bearing on the politics or culture of this country finding place in our country using our people as simply a mass horde that provides the hooting that is needed in a film and not really as actors in which case there was no development (Charamba, 2016).
In pronouncing the above, Charamba argues that Zimbabwe should move away from being a setting for films to being a producer of films so that it contributes to global discourses on film by generating its own tradition.
The filmic fact issues aside, King Solomon’s Mines can be seen as a ‘runaway production’
(Goldsmith et al, 2010) conceived, designed and financed in the USA but drawing on the talent and skill of a Zimbabwean human resource base. An analysis of the film services employed in King Solomon’s Mines shows that it was a ‘one-off, fly-in production’ which
“requires a range of ancillary services from the region in which the shoot is located, including hotels and transport, and it will often require casual short term manual labour and sometimes local extras” (Goldsmith and O’Regan, 2005:3). Archival material on the production of the film (kept by 3rd assistant director Stephen Chigorimbo) shows that international actors and crews flown into the country resided at Holiday Inn in Harare, while thousands of extras were recruited from the high density suburb of Dzivarasekwa and Domboshava to act as the savage blacks. Harare-based individuals (including numerous drivers from the high density suburbs of Kambuzuma, Highfield, Glen View and Glen Norah) supplied transport and medical services, while catering services were also provided by Holiday Inn.
The film became a viable project due to the ‘push’ by the Cannon Group for international, film friendly locations and Zimbabwe’s ‘pull’, characterised by governmental and corporate attention as well as liaison networks. In Goldsmith and O’Regan’s (2005) theorisation of location and design interests, local agents are a critical component of this ‘pull’ factor to a location. They previsualise film work and identify available infrastructure, including built and natural environments. Film services are identified prior to filming, making the pre-production preparation an important aspect of the production context. For King Solomon’s Mines, four to six weeks were dedicated to preparation before the commencement of production. During this period, Chigorimbo says he played an active role in the identification of locations and the execution of several critical logistical functions, including coordinating the setting up of