CHIEF DADDY WATCHED BY A MARXIST

 23BE033016

MCM221 ASSIGNMENT 3

Nigerian cinema, often known as Nollywood, has increasingly become a mirror for society, reflecting its issues, critiquing them, or sometimes even portraying an idealized version of reality. The 2018 film Chief Daddy, produced by EbonyLife Films and directed by Niyi Akinmolayan, blends comedy and drama, focusing on the aftermath of a wealthy patriarch's death and the ensuing chaos over his estate. On the surface, it seems like a light-hearted movie, but when viewed through a Marxist perspective, it offers a nuanced insight into class dynamics, elite privilege, and economic disparity in contemporary Nigeria.

At the core of Marxist theory is the idea that the economic base—the relationships and means of production—shapes the superstructure, which includes culture, law, politics, and ideology. Films are part of this cultural landscape and can either challenge or reinforce the prevailing ideologies, usually those of the bourgeoisie. In this context, Chief Daddy operates within a capitalist framework that tends to reaffirm rather than critique existing social hierarchies.

The narrative follows the death of Chief Beecroft, a wealthy businessman with ties across various social classes, from corporate elites to domestic workers and secret lovers. His passing sparks fierce competition among his heirs, employees, and mistresses, revealing how family ties have been commodified and exposing the glorification of wealth and the mystification of labor. Central to Chief Daddy’s plot is the theme of inheritance, which raises significant Marxist questions about the reproduction of capitalist class structures. Chief Beecroft amassed great wealth, as seen in his grand mansion and luxurious lifestyle, yet the origins of this fortune remain unexamined. Viewers are left to assume that his success stems from hard work or entrepreneurial spirit—a common aspect of the capitalist narrative that glosses over the exploitative nature of wealth accumulation. From a Marxist perspective, inheritance serves as a primary tool through which the bourgeoisie maintains its power. In the film, the real struggle isn't about whether someone earned their wealth but rather who is "entitled" to it based on familial, romantic, or legal connections. It reinforces the idea that economic status is dictated not by effort but by proximity to wealth, directly opposing the notion of meritocracy and supporting Marxist views on inherited privilege.

Notably, the domestic workers who served Chief Beecroft—like drivers, housekeepers, and helpers—receive little to nothing in his will. Their essential contributions to his empire are disregarded during the redistribution of wealth. This scenario echoes Marx's concept of surplus value, where the working class generates value that the capitalist class extracts and retains. In Chief Daddy, these domestic staff members embody the proletariat, stripped of even symbolic inheritance after years of loyalty.

The film depicts family and romantic relationships as commoditized—a key theme in Marxist cultural critique. Almost every character's sorrow is intertwined with concerns about inheritance, entitlement, and social status following Chief Beecroft's death.

Characters like Tinu and Teni, his children, are shown as privileged and disconnected from actual work. Their worries revolve around appearances and luxury rather than genuine grief. Mistresses and secret children don’t emerge from familial bonds but rather as contenders for the deceased’s wealth. These dynamics exemplify what Marx referred to as commodity fetishism, where social relationships are defined through economic exchanges. Even the family lawyer becomes a gatekeeper of wealth, strategically controlling information to uphold the status quo. The characters’ fixation on money and status, rather than authentic mourning, indicates that capitalist reasoning has seeped into personal connections, reducing relationships to mere transactions. Labor, especially domestic and emotional labor, takes a backseat in Chief Daddy. The domestic staff—like cooks, drivers, and housekeepers—have dedicated their lives to the Beecroft household, yet they are marginalized. Their perspectives are sidelined, and their financial futures are uncertain after Chief Beecroft’s passing.

Marxist theory highlights how, under capitalism, labor becomes alienated; workers are separated from the fruits of their labor, the production process, and ultimately, their own humanity. This alienation is glaring in Chief Daddy. The staff, who arguably know the patriarch best, are ignored and treated as outsiders. Their marginalization is both economic and symbolic, as they’re excluded from the family narrative when the elite scramble for wealth. The film thus reflects the real-life class divide in Nigeria, where a small elite holds significant wealth while the working class remains trapped in marginality. By overlooking the needs and stories of workers, Chief Daddy highlights how capitalist societies devalue the labor that sustains them.

Class mobility—the idea that individuals can rise through effort—is a central tenet of capitalist belief. Yet in Chief Daddy, true upward movement is seldom tied to hard work. Characters looking to elevate their status often do so through inheritance, marriage, or deceit, revealing the façade of class mobility that Marxist critics argue is perpetuated to stabilize the system. For example, some secret children and estranged relatives aim to climb the social ladder through biological ties or marital claims, not through labor or merit. The film uses humor to portray these aspirations as either ridiculous or pitiful, but beneath the comedy lies a sobering truth: in societies where wealth is passed down, class mobility is frequently constrained.

Rare moments where characters attempt to "earn" their place, like managing family affairs or hosting elite events, come off as superficial rather than impactful. No real value is created; status is preserved through consumption and association. This mirrors Marx’s idea of false consciousness, where individuals fail to recognize their actual position in the class system and buy into myths like meritocracy or social cohesion among classes. While Chief Daddy allows for moments of satire and jest, it ultimately fails to question elite privilege. Instead, it tends to glorify the wealth and lifestyle of the Nigerian elite. The lavishness of the Beecroft mansion, the designer wardrobes, the extravagant travel, and high-society events are all showcased with admiration.

The film concludes with a return to stability—not through redistributing wealth but by reinforcing the characters’ elite standing. The resolution comes from the acceptance of their new roles within the upper class, without any significant structural changes, critiques of the unjust class system, or justice for the workers who contributed to the empire's creation. In Marxist terms, the film reinforces the capitalist structure, normalizing elite dominance as something natural and even desirable. By doing so, Chief Daddy functions ideologically to support the existing class system. It offers a spectacle of wealth to the working and middle class while deliberately ignoring the underlying exploitation. By prioritizing intra-class conflicts (among the rich) over inter-class struggles (between the wealthy and the impoverished), the film diverts attention from real economic disparities.

Nigeria stands as one of the most economically unequal nations globally, with striking contrasts between the affluent and the impoverished. However, Chief Daddy does little to address this larger issue. Poverty is virtually erased from the narrative. The focus remains on the opulence of the elite, and when characters from lower classes show up, they're often relegated to roles of comic relief or subservience, lacking depth as human beings. There’s no systemic critique of wealth inequality, no exploration of the economic forces that fueled Chief Beecroft’s fortune, and no hint that the current system should be reconsidered. This absence isn’t by chance—it demonstrates how capitalist media often sanitizes inequality to uphold social order.

Viewing Chief Daddy through a Marxist lens reveals it as a film that not only reflects but also perpetuates Nigeria's rigid class structures. Wealth is portrayed as something inherited and unquestioned, while labor fades into the background, and relationships become transactional. It flirts with satire but ultimately celebrates elite privilege without offering any substantial critique of economic inequality. In Marxist terms, it serves to sustain the capitalist order, providing entertainment that distracts from the exploitation and alienation fundamental to real-life class dynamics. In a society grappling with issues of inequality, narratives like these risk normalizing unfair systems and reducing systemic concerns to mere family dramas. Instead of being a critique of capitalism, Chief Daddy acts as its cinematic counterpart.