Introduction
According to the Cambridge Dictionary (2024), a biopic is “a film about the life of a real person”. Abreu (2024) points out that “The most obvious way a biopic differentiates itself is in how accurate it is to the subject’s history” (StudioBinder). However, to know how truthful a biopic is to history is to discuss its historical representation concerning the history of its subject and the period in which the subject lived or is living.
An analysis of the historical representation in Lisabi: The Uprisingexamines how the film, as a biopic, accurately depicts the history of Lisabi, who liberated the Egba in Egba Forest between 1775 and 1780 from the hegemony of the Oyo when Alaafin Abiodun was the Oloyo ruling over the Old Oyo Empire. This analysis scrutinizes the historical accuracy and creative liberties taken in the film. Recognizing that historical films often prioritize drama over strict fidelity, this discussion probes the narrative motivations behind these artistic choices.
Aspects of Historical Authenticity in the Film
Eric Johnson (2023) asserts that “Historical film accuracy plays a pivotal role in preserving cultural heritage, educating audiences, and enhancing the overall viewing experience of movies based on true stories” (The Film Fund Blog). Lisabi: The Uprising also preserves Yoruba cultural heritage, educates the audience, and enhances the viewing experience through the authentic portrayal of history.
The Preservation of Cultural Heritage
According to Eric Johnson (2023), “By accurately portraying historical events, clothing, customs, and traditions, these films [historical films] become a valuable resource for preserving cultural heritage” (The Film Fund). The film portrays a palace garden, akodi, of Yoruba kings in ancient times. Although the impluvium in the akodi is not for bathing, the presentation of the akodi is one of the ways of preserving the royal custom of having royal impluviums in Oba’s palaces. According to Cosmicyoruba, the impluviums among the Yoruba in the past were used to collect and store rainwater (Cosmicyoruba).
Historical Education
Lisabi: The Uprising is a biopic that educates its audience through its authentic cinematic portrayal of home décor among the Yoruba in connection with the palace door of the Oloyo/Alaafin in the film. From the historical angle, Clapperton (1826) notes that in Oyo, “…they have a great deal of carving on their doors and the posts supporting the verandahs…” (Academia). The accurate depiction of the palace door on the silver screen, Lisabi: The Uprising, breathes life into the pages of history books, providing a unique educational experience for its audience.
Elevating the Cinematic Experience
Eric Johnson (2023) argues that attention to historical details creates an immersive experience, enhancing the cinematic experience emotionally and entertainment-wise (The Film Fund). The Ilaris' distinctive hairstyle in the film is historically accurate; it gives the audience a pleasing experience in connection with the hairstyle of the Yoruba in ancient times. The hairstyle is accurate historically, according to the description by Johnson (1956), they shaved their heads, except for a circular patch at the occiput, where hair was grown long, braided, and occasionally dyed black with indigo (History of the Yorubas).
Inaccurate Portrayal of History in the Movie
It is now germane to focus on the historical wrongness in the film. Chiara Torrisi (2023) notes that “It would be great if every work of fiction set in the past had impeccable historical reconstruction, without the slightest hint of errors or inaccuracies. However, this is impossible” (Storia tra le Pagine). However, most of the historical errors in Lisabi: The Uprising are anachronisms; Cambridge Dictionary (2024) defines it as “a person, thing, or idea that exists out of its time in history, especially one that happened or existed later than the period being shown, discussed” (Cambridge Dictionary). The focus will now be on a few of the identified anachronisms.
Feminist Diegetic Anachronism
Samuel Johnson (1956), in the History of the Yorubas,explains that the councilors of the Alaafin, the Oyo Mesi, were seven noblemen. In the film, a woman is seated among the Oyo Mesi in the palace of the Oloyo when the Olodan (Femi Adebayo) is before the Oloyo/Alaafin (Odunlade Adekola). This is a feminist anachronism; it is used intentionally in the film to distort historical facts, as the film challenges traditional gender norms, presenting women as equal participants in political decision-making.
Topographic Anachronisms
The film's opening topographic map aesthetically sets the stage but historically missteps by incorporating Ijaye and Sodeke townships anachronistically. Oba Nofiu Otun-bade (2021) points out that the Ijaye people became part of the Egba in Abeokuta after 1830. (Global News Nigeria). According to Irehoaitonow (2024), Iporo was the name of the Egba township where Sodeke was born in Egba Forest, not Sodeke or Iporo Sodeke (Iband Magazine). This historical anachronism may be due to excessive reliance on AI-assisted historical research.
Normalized Anachronisms
According to Tom Cole (Wikipedia, 2024), repeated historical inaccuracies can become deeply ingrained in popular culture (Wikipedia). The film's depiction of Oyo's gate without shrines exemplifies this phenomenon, contradicting Hugh Clapperton's account (1826) describing fetish houses outside and inside the gate (Academia).
Fashion Anachronism
The film's historical authenticity is compromised by fashion anachronisms in warrior costuming. Oluwadara Fakunle (2022) describes the pants of a Yoruba warrior in the past, the kafo, as “…tight-legged pants that reach the ankle” (Ihafa: A Journal of African Studies 13: 1 June 2022, 132-156) Many of the warriors in the film do not wear the kafo; this inaccuracy may stem from production cost constraints or artistic license.
Anachronistic Revisionism
Wikipedia (2024) defines historical revisionism as reinterpreting past events, questioning traditional scholarly views, and offering fresh insights through revised analyses (Wikipedia). One of the fresh insights into the history of Lisabi in the film is that the Alake (Muyiwa Ademola) prohibits Lisabi and his friends from practicing Egbe Aro (Traditional Mutual Aid Society). This creative choice deviates from established historical accounts, distorting Egba's collective memory and raising questions about historical accuracy.
Out-of-Era Royal Bathing Ceremony
The Oloyo/Alaafin's (Odunlade) bath in an impluvium is historically inaccurate. They did not use impluviums for bathing but for collecting rainwater among the Yoruba in ancient times (Cosmicyoruba). The cinematic representation misrepresents Yoruba ancient customs; it presents the impluvium in an akodi as a Roman bathing pool. This scene compromises historical authenticity, favoring visual appeal over accuracy.
Slang/ Language Anachronism
The use of Asake's slang, "Wọn ti ge Aṣakẹ l'eti lọ" (They have cut off Asake’s ear) is a deliberate, humorous anachronism. Unfortunately, the film's overall language accuracy suffers due to casting mistakes, resulting in actors speaking a corrupted, modern Egba dialect. The corrupt Egba dialect distracts the native speakers and also misrepresents Egba culture.
Song Anachronism
By incorporating the 1922 Egba Anthem, the filmmakers strategically blend the historical narrative with modern cultural resonance, leveraging the anthem's familiarity and emotional significance to engage contemporary viewers. The film also uses a modern instrument, probably a piano, to play a dirge, "Agbe tori omo re daro, Aluko tori omo re kosun" (Agbe mourns its child, Aluko mourns its child), after the death of Osokenu (Adebowale Adedayo) is a deliberate anachronism. This creative choice prioritizes modern audience engagement over historical authenticity, substituting traditional Egba igbala dirge with a more relatable and familiar sound.
War Anachronism
The film's depiction of how Sangodeyi (Ibrahim Chatta) died by sickle is anachronistic, as sickles were not typical war weapons among the Yoruba, specifically the Egba. However, using a locally forged Egba sickle rather than a European-manufactured one would have maintained historical authenticity.
The use of the sickle in killing the head of the Ilaris holds profound symbolic significance. Drawing from Hesiod's Theogony, as interpreted by Margaret Wack (2024), the sickle represents a “…violent succession of power, as well as a link to the natural world and the cycles of life, death, and regeneration” (Check LitCharts).
Cultural Anachronism
The film's depiction of Lisabi as a modern Egba man without tribal marks inaccurately represents Yoruba tradition in the past. Oyeronke Afolabi(2022) notes that “This ancient tradition bears immense cultural significance, serving multifaceted purposes encompassing identification, healing, and beautification” (ResearchGate). If one puts the tribal marks into consideration, Lisabi in the film is not an Egba man. Additionally, the presentation of the Alake as an informal, "under-the-tree" oba contradicts historical records. Tolu Ogunlesi (2019) points out that in 1903, the Oni of Ife recognized the Alaafin and Alake among 21 Yoruba kings eligible to wear beaded crowns (X). Production costs may have driven the film's decision to exclude the Alake's palace, inadvertently diminishing his historical status and majesty.
Conclusion
Lisabi: The Uprising is not an outlier in altering history; Nathan Sharp notes that even iconic films like Titanic contain inaccuracies (WatchMojo). While some creative liberties are unavoidable in biopics, filmmakers can draw lessons from Lisabi: The Uprising. Recognizing the impact of historical distortions on cultural identity and collective memory, filmmakers should balance artistic expression with historical authenticity. By doing so, they can enrich, rather than erase, cultural legacies.
** Yinka Kareem, dramatist and historian, writes from Abeokuta, Ogun State, Nigeria.
