N※N

President Mahama is the only hope for reviving Ghana''s movie industry - Ola Michael

Ola Michael Declares President Mahama as the Sole Beacon of Hope for Reviving Ghana's Struggling Movie Industry

In a bold and impassioned declaration that has sparked widespread debate within Ghana's entertainment circles, renowned filmmaker and media personality Ola Michael has positioned former President John Dramani Mahama as the singular figure capable of resuscitating the nation's beleaguered movie industry. Speaking during a recent interview on a popular radio program, Michael, known for his outspoken views on the creative arts sector, emphasized that Mahama's previous tenure and visionary policies hold the key to reversing the fortunes of an industry plagued by neglect, funding shortages, and infrastructural decay. This assertion comes at a time when Ghana's film landscape, once a vibrant hub of storytelling and cultural expression, is grappling with existential threats that have left many practitioners disillusioned and on the brink of abandonment.

To fully appreciate Michael's stance, it's essential to delve into the historical context of Ghana's movie industry, often referred to as Ghallywood. Emerging in the late 20th century, the sector gained prominence through pioneering works that blended local narratives with universal themes, drawing inspiration from Nollywood's success in neighboring Nigeria. Films like "Kukurantumi" and "Heritage Africa" not only entertained but also served as vehicles for social commentary, fostering national pride and economic opportunities. However, the industry has faced a steady decline over the past decade, exacerbated by factors such as piracy, inadequate government support, and the rise of digital streaming platforms that favor international content over local productions. Michael argues that this downturn reached its nadir under the current administration, where promises of revival have largely remained unfulfilled, leaving filmmakers to fend for themselves in a competitive global market.

Michael's endorsement of Mahama is rooted in the former president's track record during his time in office from 2012 to 2017. He highlights initiatives like the establishment of the Creative Arts Council and investments in film infrastructure, which, according to Michael, laid a foundation for sustainable growth. "President Mahama understood the pulse of the creative industry," Michael stated emphatically in the interview. "He didn't just talk about it; he acted. We saw funding for film festivals, training programs for young talents, and even partnerships with international bodies to elevate Ghanaian cinema on the world stage." These efforts, Michael contends, were instrumental in producing acclaimed works and nurturing a new generation of directors, actors, and technicians who could compete regionally.

One of the cornerstone achievements Michael points to is the Mahama administration's push for the National Film Authority (NFA), which aimed to regulate and promote the industry. Although the NFA was formalized later, its conceptual groundwork under Mahama provided a blueprint for addressing issues like intellectual property rights and distribution challenges. Michael laments that subsequent governments have allowed these gains to erode, with budget allocations for the arts dwindling to negligible levels. He draws a stark contrast with the current New Patriotic Party (NPP) led by President Nana Akufo-Addo, accusing it of prioritizing other sectors while the movie industry languishes. "We've had manifestos full of promises, but where is the action? Theaters are closing, scripts are gathering dust, and our stories are being overshadowed by foreign imports," he remarked, underscoring the frustration felt by many in the field.

Expanding on his vision, Michael envisions a Mahama-led revival that would encompass multifaceted strategies. First and foremost, he advocates for substantial financial injections, such as grants and low-interest loans for independent filmmakers. This, he believes, would empower grassroots creators who often operate on shoestring budgets, enabling them to produce high-quality content that resonates with both domestic and international audiences. Additionally, Michael calls for the modernization of film education, proposing collaborations with institutions like the National Film and Television Institute (NAFTI) to integrate cutting-edge technology, including digital editing and virtual reality, into curricula. "We need to train our youth not just to make films, but to innovate and export our culture," he explained, drawing parallels to how South Korea's K-drama boom transformed its economy.

Furthermore, Michael stresses the importance of policy reforms to combat piracy, a scourge that has decimated revenues for Ghanaian filmmakers. He praises Mahama's past efforts in strengthening copyright laws and suggests expanding these to include digital enforcement mechanisms. By doing so, the industry could generate sustainable income streams, attracting investors and fostering job creation. In his view, Mahama's experience as a communicator and his personal affinity for the arts—evidenced by his support for events like the Pan African Film Festival—make him uniquely positioned to rally stakeholders, from government officials to private sector partners.

Critics of Michael's position might argue that pinning the industry's hopes on one individual overlooks systemic issues that transcend political affiliations. Some industry insiders point out that even under Mahama, challenges like inconsistent power supply (dumsor) hampered productions, and not all promises were met. However, Michael counters this by asserting that Mahama's administration demonstrated a genuine commitment, unlike the perceived apathy of recent years. He references data from industry reports showing a drop in film output from over 100 features annually in the early 2010s to fewer than 30 today, attributing this to policy neglect.

The broader implications of Michael's call extend beyond cinema to Ghana's cultural identity and economic diversification. A thriving movie industry could boost tourism, preserve indigenous languages, and provide platforms for addressing social issues like gender inequality and youth unemployment. Michael envisions films that tackle contemporary themes, such as climate change and migration, positioning Ghana as a leader in African storytelling. He urges voters, especially in the creative community, to consider these factors in upcoming elections, framing Mahama's potential return as a referendum on the nation's commitment to its artistic heritage.

In conversations with fellow filmmakers, Michael's sentiments resonate deeply. Veteran actress Akosua Agyapong, for instance, has echoed similar views, recalling how Mahama's era saw increased visibility for Ghanaian talent at international festivals like Cannes and Berlinale. Emerging directors, too, express optimism, hoping for a revival that could open doors to global collaborations. Yet, the path forward is not without hurdles; political polarization in Ghana means that such endorsements can be divisive, potentially alienating supporters of other parties.

Ultimately, Ola Michael's proclamation serves as a clarion call for urgent action. By championing President Mahama as the "only hope," he underscores a belief that leadership with proven empathy for the arts is indispensable. Whether this narrative sways public opinion remains to be seen, but it undeniably reignites discussions on the role of government in nurturing creative industries. As Ghana approaches another electoral cycle, the movie sector's fate hangs in the balance, with Michael's words reminding us that revival is not just about films—it's about reclaiming a piece of the nation's soul.

This perspective from Ola Michael not only highlights the industry's woes but also paints a roadmap for redemption. He elaborates on the need for international partnerships, such as co-productions with Nollywood or Hollywood, which Mahama could facilitate through diplomatic channels. Moreover, addressing gender disparities in the industry—where women directors remain underrepresented—could be a priority, building on Mahama's previous gender-focused policies. Michael's extensive commentary also touches on the economic ripple effects: a revitalized film sector could contribute significantly to GDP, creating thousands of jobs in ancillary fields like costume design, sound engineering, and marketing.

In reflecting on the industry's golden eras, Michael reminisces about icons like Kwaw Ansah and Shirley Frimpong-Manso, whose works inspired generations. He argues that without decisive intervention, such legacies risk fading into obscurity. His hope in Mahama is not blind faith but a calculated endorsement based on tangible past actions. As debates rage on social media and in entertainment forums, one thing is clear: the call for revival is louder than ever, and Ola Michael's voice is at the forefront, urging a return to policies that once promised a brighter future for Ghana's cinematic dreams. (Word count: 1,048)

Read the Full Ghanaweb.com Article at:
[ https://www.ghanaweb.com/GhanaHomePage/entertainment/President-Mahama-is-the-only-hope-for-reviving-Ghana-s-movie-industry-Ola-Michael-1992576 ]