Image Credit: Wikipedia
When the movie was starting, I was interested in just watching the reaction and gaze from Osuofia in Europe. I was expecting a sort of anti-colonial, anti-European sentiment. While those tendencies were there, such as Osuofia getting slapped and other occasions, I was really taken with the narrative and the sort of ideology that it presented. It wasn’t as clear cut as I had thought it would be, and the ending of the movie really struck me. Instead of a sort of purist anti-colonial set-up where Osuofia triumphs over his brother’s fiance and the multinational African character; all of them are seen lying and cheating to get Osuofia brother’s money.
So near the end of the film, we see how the fiance and the executor of the will were planning on tricking Osuofia out of his money, and the fight they have in order to get it. Samantha gets him to sign the paper and the executor of the will then double crosses her. What I found really interesting was how, in Africa and Europe, Osuofia is not really a hero or victim as much as I anticipated. He makes many lewd comments towards Samantha and expects sex out of him signing the paper, thereby cheating on his wife. When she promises to go to Africa he makes sure to tell him that the old woman and children that say he is their father and husband, that they are just lying.
All of the characters in this film are very morally relative in this sense, and not just the European ones. It makes me wonder where the film positions the blame. We know that Osuofia is very poor, very much in debt and unable to provide for his family. What the film doesn’t clarify as much is who is to blame for that. Does he waste his money, or does he have a problem with the Union not spending the money properly? And does his greed get worse after being in Europe, or was that always there? Such as how he makes himself, and his daughters, weep after realizing his inheritance is real.
- Where does the film place the blame for this moral relativity? If it does at all?
- Do you think that the film suggests that greed and moral relativity is itself transnational and makes no suggestion that the blame is anywhere but in the characters?
- How does the abrupt ending and loose ends of the film contribute to that understanding?