Chief Daddy (2018), directed by Niyi Akinmolayan and produced by EbonyLife Films, offers a rich tapestry of Nigerian elite culture—lavish parties, flamboyant fashion, and fierce familial entitlement. On its glossy surface, the film appears to be a humorous portrait of a wealthy patriarch’s sudden death and the family chaos that ensues. However, through the lens of Marxist theory, Chief Daddy becomes a compelling exploration of class structures, commodification, and the illusion of social mobility in modern Nigeria. This critique unpacks how the film constructs wealth, labor, and inheritance while subtly upholding elite privilege and glossing over systemic inequalities.
Wealth and the Illusion of Meritocracy
At the heart of Chief Daddy lies the figure of Chief Beecroft—a corporate magnate whose enormous wealth fuels the entire narrative. His character embodies the capitalist ideal: a self-made man who has risen to wealth and power through entrepreneurship. Yet the film does not show his labor or business acumen; instead, it focuses on the opulence he leaves behind. From expensive cars to designer clothes, wealth is portrayed as something to be flaunted, not questioned.
Marxist theory would interrogate the invisible labor that made Chief Beecroft’s empire possible. Who built the fortune he leaves behind? The absence of workers and class struggle in the film creates the illusion that wealth simply exists—that it’s a natural attribute of the bourgeoisie. As a result, the audience sees the elite squabble over inheritance without ever seeing the systems that generated it.
Inheritance and the Legacy of Class Power
The narrative’s central conflict—who gets what after Chief Daddy’s death—highlights inheritance as a tool for maintaining class dominance. The Beecroft family's entitlement to his wealth is not based on merit or contribution but on birthright and proximity to power. Marxism views inheritance as a mechanism through which the ruling class perpetuates itself, bypassing any meritocratic ideals that capitalism claims to promote.
In Chief Daddy, this is most evident in how the various characters—ranging from wives to mistresses to children—react to the reading of the will. Their identities and ambitions are defined not by their work or social contributions but by their relationship to the patriarch. The inheritance, rather than being a reward, becomes a symbol of entrenched class privilege and generational wealth.
Commodification of Identity and Relationships
Commodification—the transformation of relationships, values, and identities into marketable products—is another Marxist concern the film inadvertently illustrates. Many characters treat their social roles as assets. For example, Chief Daddy’s fashion designer son sees the family name as a brand to boost his business. Others use their familial status to access elite spaces and perks, revealing how identity in the bourgeois world is shaped less by personal depth and more by economic utility.
Furthermore, relationships themselves are transactional. Romantic partners, offspring, and friends orbit around wealth and what it can buy. The commodification of love, loyalty, and grief is especially clear during the mourning process, where rituals are grandiose performances rather than sincere expressions of loss.
Glorification of the Elite
While the film includes moments of satire, it largely revels in elite privilege. The lavish lifestyles, designer wardrobes, and cosmopolitan accents serve as aspirational imagery. The underlying message is that wealth confers legitimacy and admiration—despite the chaos it causes.
Rather than challenging the structural inequality represented by the Beecroft dynasty, the film glosses over class tension. Lower-class characters (such as domestic workers and drivers) are pushed to the margins, appearing only as background or comic relief. Their silence is a glaring omission, as Marxist critique insists on centering the proletariat in discussions of power and production.
Class Mobility: A Fantasy Deferred
Characters like Laila and Tinu attempt to break free from their class limitations, but their efforts are framed as either naive or futile. While they dream of upward mobility, the true message of Chief Daddy is that power is inherited, not earned.
Marxism argues that capitalism offers the illusion of mobility to legitimize inequality. This film subtly reinforces that idea: those born outside the inner circle of power may aspire to wealth, but access remains tightly controlled by birthright and social capital. Even the final resolutions of the film—where the family reaches a shaky truce—do not dismantle class structures. They merely reinforce the status quo with a warmer glow.
Economic Inequality as Background Noise
Despite its comedic tone, Chief Daddy exists within a very real Nigeria marked by stark economic inequality. However, the film rarely acknowledges this context. There’s little engagement with poverty, unemployment, or systemic injustice. The elite characters act in a vacuum, as if their world were not fundamentally dependent on a lower class that remains unseen and unheard.
By omitting the voices and realities of the working class, the film perpetuates what Marx called “false consciousness”—a worldview shaped by the ideology of the ruling class, which obscures the material conditions of exploitation and inequality.
Conclusion
Chief Daddy is a mirror held up to Nigeria’s bourgeois elite, reflecting their values, anxieties, and delusions. Through a Marxist lens, it becomes clear that the film doesn’t challenge class privilege so much as reproduce it with flair. Wealth is aestheticized, labor is hidden, and inheritance becomes a sacred right. While the film delights in satire, its humor often masks a deeper ideological function: normalizing a world where class structures are unshakable, and economic inequality is simply part of the background noise. By critically engaging with these themes, viewers can better understand how media shapes and reinforces the social order we live in.
No comments:
Post a Comment