VIDEOS IN MOTION - fasopo

transnational circulation of videos assumed a new role, and diasporic markets became particularlyinfluential on the video economy. While Nigerian videos have traveled all over the world since theearly days of the video industry, today a section of Nollywood has made the global cinema arena itsmain target. As with the Indian film industry, the role played by diasporic groups in the production,circulation and consumption of Nigerian videos has become progressively more influential. In their2005 edited collection, Raminder Kaur and Ajay Sinha suggest that Bollywood has now to beconsidered a transnational industry – a “Bollyworld” as they name it – in which local andtransnational aesthetics and narratives, formal and informal modes of production and distributionfind original interceptions. When looking at the Nigerian industry today, a similar process can beobserved, even if it is probably still in its early stages. This chapter intends to investigate thisdynamic through the analysis of the different strategies that an influential even if still numericallylimited number of Nigerian producers and directors have adopted over the past few years. As I willunderline throughout this chapter, while the introduction of these transformations is still theexpression of a small group of entrepreneurs within the industry’s environment, the consequencesof their action might become particularly relevant in defining the future of the video phenomenonand its relation with local and transnational audiences.Regulating videos’ mobility: Institutional interventionsAs I have discussed in the previous chapter, the local and transnational circulation of videos hasbeen characterized, since the early days of the video industry, by a high level of informality. Withinthis context no centrally-directed system to monitor media circulation was in place. The absence ofa structured distribution scheme affected inevitably the economy of the industry in many ways. Firstof all, it made it impossible for the authorities to pursue pirates, because in the industry’s informalsystem no distributor was officially licensed and no figure of the official copies released waspublished. 61 VCDs were not encoded, thus they did not have digital protection, and could easily beduplicated and pirated. No video shop or video club was licensed either, and anyone could decide tostart to sell videos without authorization. Furthermore, the lack of an organized structure had madeit impossible to produce official statistics about the industry’s economy. Marketers, producers anddirectors usually tended to deliver figures that followed their personal interests: directors used tomention larger numbers to promote, and sometimes create, their popular success, while marketers61 As Emeka Mba, DG of the Nigerian Censors Board, says “we don't know who is distributing for you […] so you can'tcome and say they've pirated my movie. Who do I chase?” (Ajeluorou 2009).68