Part of review forum on “Ẹlẹ́ṣin Ọba: The King’s Horseman.”

The news of the death of Biyi Bandele, the director of the film adaptation of Wole Soyinka’s Death and the King’s Horseman (1975), sent shockwaves through the ranks of his admirers and followers. This tragic event was a profound loss not only for his family but also for the film industry and aficionados who had been captivated by his remarkable career as a novelist, theater director, and filmmaker. Bandele’s meticulous approach to filmmaking was evident in his previous works, including Half of a Yellow Sun (2015), Fifty (2015) and more recently, the collaborative effort Blood Sisters with Ken Gyang (2022). It seemed almost fated that he would be the one to bring this adaptation to life. Cinema critics had long pondered why this enriching play, which has garnered sustained interest in university drama, theater, and English programs worldwide, had not been adapted prior to Bandele’s ambitious undertaking.

Bringing Soyinka’s most ambitious and ritualistic dramatic work to the screen posed considerable challenges; nonetheless, the film adaptation was rendered with remarkable lucidity and compelling narrative force. When adapting Soyinka’s works for the screen, one must confront the challenge of navigating his distinctive and dense linguistic style, which is a hallmark of his writing. How does one effectively translate the complexity and richness of his language into a visual medium without losing its essence? What filmic idiom or narrative approach would be most suitable for capturing the essence of Soyinka’s dramatic ritual, ensuring that the outcome is both lucid and captivating? How can a filmmaker ensure that the musical elements, including the structure, texture, and precise rendering of evocative songs, are handled with care, preserving their meaning, subtext, and aesthetic value? Furthermore, how does the film adaptation safeguard the rich African cultural heritage that the play has sustained since its inception in 1975, particularly when performed in diverse cultural contexts, whether in Africa or the West? What measures can be taken to ensure that the cultural nuances and traditions embedded in the play are respectfully and accurately represented on screen? Providing a comprehensive analysis of the film within the confines of this brief editorial piece poses considerable challenge. However, it can be argued that successfully tackling the complexities of Wole Soyinka’s work requires a filmmaker with a deep understanding of Yoruba culture, as well as an intimate and intense familiarity with Soyinka’s oeuvre. Undoubtedly, Biyi Bandele embodied these qualities. His untimely passing after the film’s premiere can be likened to Ogun, the Yoruba deity who bridges the chthonic and mortal realms, connecting the gap between African cinema enthusiasts and the adaptation of Soyinka’s seminal work (see “The Fourth Stage,” the Appendix in Wole Soyinka’s Myth, Literature and the African World [Cambridge University Press, 1976]).

Through four short reviews on the film this forum provides an interpretive dialogue on Ẹlẹ́ṣin Ọba. The film is set in colonial Nigeria, specifically in the Yoruba kingdom of Oyo during the 1940s. Ẹlẹ́ṣin Ọba (the king’s horseman), is tasked with ritually committing suicide to accompany the deceased king in the afterlife. However, the British colonial authorities, led by the District Officer, Simon Pilkings, intervene and arrest Elesin, preventing him from fulfilling his ritual duty. The narrative delves into the personal costs of Elesin’s failure to fulfill his duty, as well as the consequences for his family and community. Ẹlẹ́ṣin Ọba’s failure to fulfill his ritual duty is seen as a betrayal of tradition. However, his son Olunde takes it upon himself to restore honor by embracing the traditional role, ultimately sacrificing himself. Upon learning of his son’s death, Ẹlẹ́ṣin Ọba then takes his own life, symbolizing the enduring weight of tradition and cultural expectations.

Ultimately, like its literary source, the film is a powerful exploration of the tensions between tradition, culture, and colonialism, and the human costs of cultural disruption. The film explores the ritual power of a tradition, and its significance to a worldview that is quintessentially strong. Through the characters’ struggles, Bandele highlights Soyinka’s meaning of complexities of cultural traditions and the impact of colonialism on African societies. In this forum, the four reviews explore how through this adaptation, Bandele’s vision brings to life the rich cultural heritage and philosophical themes that underpin Soyinka’s work, inviting readers to engage with the profound questions and emotions that drive the narrative. They also dialogue on the essence of art, cinematography, and design of the auteur, bringing to the fore an enriching interpretive dialogue on this film.

In “Examining Folk Music in Ẹlẹ́ṣin Ọba: The King’s Horseman,” Ezinne Ezepue foregrounds music as a narrative device, embodying Agordoh’s notion of sub-Saharan African music as “earthy and physical.” She explores how the film’s use of Yoruba musical instruments and chants subverts Western musical dominance, asserting Yoruba cultural supremacy, and argues that music reflects Elesin’s psychological state and the communal uncertainty posed by colonialism, highlighting the tension between tradition and external influences. Through music, the film achieves a “threnodic essence,” eliciting a mournful tone that underscores the disruption of cultural practices. The seamless integration of music, color, and camera movement creates an intricate commentary on Yoruba worldview and cultural safeguarding. Floribert Endong, in his review titled “History on Screen: Reading Biyi Bandele’s Ẹlẹ́ṣin Ọba: The King’s Horseman,” engages with “history as meaning,” in relation to events from 1946. He examines the film’s narrative grounded in the real-life incident of a British District Officer’s intervention in a ritual suicide, highlighting the tension between cultural practices and Western values. This exemplifies the broader colonial project of suppressing perceived “barbaric” cultures. Endong further examines the film’s attention to historical detail and cultural context, which provides a rich historical narrative. By exploring the impact of colonialism, Endong’s review shows how Ẹlẹ́ṣin Ọba contributes to our understanding of Nigeria’s complex history.

Adegbite Tobalase, in his review titled “Ẹlẹ́ṣin Ọba: A Visual Celebration of Yoruba Culture” offers a meticulous interpretation of the film’s representation of Yoruba material culture, architecture, and ritual practices during the colonial era. The film’s production design effectively illustrates the social hierarchy and cultural identity of the Yoruba kingdom. The use of traditional music and performance enhances the narrative’s cultural authenticity. Tobalase stresses that the visual dichotomy between Yoruba traditions and British colonial influence serves as a commentary on cultural erosion. By celebrating Yoruba visual and material cultures, Bandele’s Ẹlẹ́ṣin Ọba provides a nuanced exploration of cultural safeguarding and identity that is cinematically illustrated with filmic apparatuses. In the final review, titled “In Praise of Death: Ritual, Liturgy, and the Afterlife in Biyi Bandele’s Ẹlẹ́ṣin Ọba,” Olusegun Soetan shows how Biyi Bandele’s Ẹlẹ́ṣin Ọba represents Yoruba metaphysics, emphasizing the interconnection of personhood, communal continuity, and cosmic balance. Soetan argues that the narrative illustrates the ontological transgression resulting from Elesin’s hesitation, which permits colonial disruption of sacred rituals. Indeed, for Soetan, Yoruba cosmology is foregrounded, highlighting the significance of ritual suicide in maintaining spiritual continuity. The film critiques colonialism’s impact on indigenous thought systems, while Olunde’s actions symbolize resistance and cultural safeguarding. The cinematography effectively conveys the esoteric language of death and continuity in Yoruba culture.

Indeed, all four reviews share a common thread, examining both the artistic and cultural aspects of Ẹlẹ́ṣin Ọba. They skillfully explore how these elements intersect, providing multilayered insights into the film’s cultural aesthetics and structures. Through distinct approaches, the reviews collectively highlight the film’s significance as cinematic achievement and its metaphysical depth in technique, structure, and theme. This intersection of art and culture is a hallmark of the film’s significance and its ability to convey complex ideas and emotions.