Rise of Yoruba Epic Films: From “Bashorun Ga’a” to “House of Ga’a”

Yoruba epic cinema holds a prestigious place in Nigerian film history, acting as both a preserver of rich oral traditions and a  storytelling medium. These films, deeply intertwined with myths, legends, and folklore, have done more than keep cultural stories alive; they’ve evolved to mirror broader societal changes.

The evolution of Yoruba epic cinema, exemplified by “Bashorun Gaa” and “House of Gaa”, showcases more than just shifts in filmmaking techniques. It reflects a broader transformation in Nigerian cultural expression—from preservation to reinvention.

Adebayo Faleti’s “Bashorun Gaa” (2004) and Bolanle Austen-Peters’ “House of Gaa” (2024) both center around the legendary Bashorun Gaa, a powerful and ruthless figure from Yoruba history. Yet, each film approaches the character and narrative differently, shaped by the era in which they were produced.

Historically, Yoruba epic cinema has its roots in oral tradition, where stories were passed down through generations. Filmmakers like Tunde Kelani played pivotal roles in transferring these stories from literary sources to the cinematic medium. Kelani’s Saworoide (1999) and Agogo Eewo (2002) are prime examples of early Yoruba epics that sought to preserve cultural narratives while addressing contemporary themes like governance and power. These films used simple cinematography, compelling dialogue, and traditional costumes to embody Yoruba culture—just as Faleti’s Bashorun Gaa did in 2004.

Released at a time when Nigeria was still adjusting to democracy, Faleti’s “Bashorun Gaa” served not only as a work of art but as a cultural reminder. It kept audiences grounded in their roots during a period of rapid change.

“Bashorun Gaa”: The Rise of Yoruba Mythology on Screen

At its heart, “Bashorun Gaa” remains faithful to historical narratives. Adebayo Faleti, a respected Yoruba historian and playwright, crafted the film with  attention to detail, ensuring the story mirrored both oral and recorded accounts of Gaa’s tyranny and eventual demise. The film portrays Gaa as a despotic figure who held an iron grip over the Oyo Empire, embodying the storytelling techniques of Yoruba epics with a focus on moral lessons.

Faleti’s portrayal of Gaa shows the consequences of unchecked power, using the character as a symbol of tyranny and justice’s eventual triumph. The film’s dialogue, delivered in classical Yoruba, enhances its authenticity and dedication to cultural preservation. Through Faleti’s lens, “Bashorun Gaa” becomes more than just a film for solely entertainment—it transforms into an educational medium, offering moral lessons drawn from Yoruba history.

As Nigerian film scholar Onookome Okome observed in his 2007 paper “Nollywood: Spectatorship, Audience and the Sites of Consumption”, early 2000s Yoruba cinema was “as much about cultural pedagogy as it was about entertainment.” This insight captures the essence of Faleti’s approach in “Bashorun Gaa”.

The contrast in storytelling techniques between “Bashorun Gaa” and “House of Gaa” is evident from the outset. Faleti’s film opens with a deliberate, dialogue-driven scene. For nearly five minutes, Gaa (played by David Ojedokun) addresses the people of Oyo, justifying his actions, including the dethronement and murder of the fourth Alaafin of Oyo, Majeogbe (played by Fatai Muraina). This sets the tone for a film that emphasizes verbal exposition and moral debate over visual spectacle.

A Modern Take on Yoruba History: “House of Gaa”

In sharp contrast, “House of Gaa” begins with an intense war scene between the Nupe and the Yoruba kingdom. Gaa and his sons lead the Yoruba to victory, earning him the prestigious title of Bashorun of Oyo. While this battle is not part of documented history, it captivates viewers from the start, immediately presenting Gaa as a powerful warrior and leader.

This difference in opening sequences is quite glaring. Austen-Peters’ decision to start with a battle scene isn’t solely for entertainment; it’s intentional. In 2024, Nigeria’s global cultural influence is on the rise, with Afrobeats dominating international charts and Nollywood emerging as a force in the film industries. “House of Gaa” isn’t merely telling a story—it’s demonstrating Nigeria’s artistic evolution, showcasing action sequences that rival those of global productions.

Faleti’s “Bashorun Gaa” also delves into the supernatural elements of Gaa’s reign. Gaa is depicted as more than a physical threat—he is a mystical force, aligning with historical accounts of his near-supernatural authority. His downfall is memorably portrayed when he is skinned alive by villagers, and his flesh is thrown into the fire to prevent reincarnation—a chilling yet historically faithful representation of his demise.

However, Faleti’s film takes a more restrained approach, focusing on Gaa’s actions from the reign of the fourth Alaafin, Majeogbe, omitting the full extent of his tyranny, including the murders of the three preceding kings. By concentrating on later events, “Bashorun Gaa” adopts a “tell, not show” technique, in stark contrast to Austen-Peters’ adaptation. In “House of Gaa”, Gaa’s tyranny is vividly portrayed across all five kings, with the film amplifying both his physical dominance and his command of dark powers. Here, Gaa is depicted as both a fearsome figure and a master of sorcery, while Faleti’s version leans more into his mystical prowess.

“House of Gaa” also introduces creative liberties, such as the romantic relationship between Agbonyin and Gaa’s son. Historically, Agbonyin was forcibly married to Gaa himself, a fact subtly referenced in Faleti’s version. However, Austen-Peters reimagines her as Gaa’s son’s lover. While Faleti’s “Bashorun Gaa” offers multiple interpretations of Agbonyin’s death, “House of Gaa” takes a more melodramatic approach, heightening emotional tension and straying from historical accuracy.

Comparing the Cinematic Styles: Tradition vs. Modernity

Two decades after Faleti’s film, Austen-Peters’ “House of Gaa” not only retells the story of Bashorun Gaa but also highlights the evolution of Yoruba epic cinema. Released in July 2024, the film embraces modern cinematic techniques, enhancing both visual and emotional engagement. It aligns with contemporary trends, blending elements of psychological drama and political intrigue.

Cinematically, “Bashorun Gaa” is minimalist, with long takes allowing the story to unfold naturally, reflective of early Nigerian cinema.

In contrast, “House of Gaa” showcases the advancements of modern filmmaking, using dynamic cinematography with sweeping aerial shots and close-ups that heighten emotional intensity. The use of modern techniques—such as dynamic camera angles, sharp editing, and a more vibrant color palette—gives the film a fresh, contemporary feel.

The narrative in “House of Gaa” takes on a more complex tone, offering a deeper psychological exploration of Bashorun Gaa as a character. Bolanle Austen-Peters reimagines Gaa not merely as a one-dimensional villain but as a multifaceted individual shaped by his environment and the power struggles surrounding him. He is no longer just the feared tyrant; instead, his motivations, ambitions, and internal conflicts are brought to the forefront, offering a more nuanced perspective on his actions. This evolution from a straightforward antagonist to a morally ambiguous character gives the audience deeper insight into Gaa’s choices, drawing attention to the gray areas of leadership and power.

A significant contrast between “Bashorun Gaa” and “House of Gaa” lies in the portrayal of the fourth Alaafin, Majeogbe. In Faleti’s “Bashorun Gaa”, Gaa is seen justifying his actions to the people of Oyo, explaining why he had no choice but to dethrone and kill Majeogbe. The emphasis here is on Gaa’s rationalization of his actions as necessary for the greater good. In Austen-Peters’ “House of Gaa”, however, Majeogbe is depicted as a formidable opponent. The king is fortified with charms designed to counter Gaa’s influence, and before Gaa ultimately defeats him, Majeogbe poisons his, temporarily crippling him. This added complexity, where both figures engage in a battle of wits and mysticism, offers a richer, more detailed version of their conflict, making the power struggle more dynamic than in Faleti’s version.( This actually goes in line with history)

A Deeper Look at Power and Morality

The difference in how power is portrayed in these films is also significant. “Bashorun Gaa” presents power as a destructive, all-consuming force that leads to an inevitable downfall. Gaa’s rise and fall follow a linear trajectory, with the narrative suggesting that unchecked ambition results in ruin. The film’s pacing and minimalist visual style showcases  this tragic inevitability, reflecting the gravity of Gaa’s moral and ethical transgressions.

In contrast, “House of Gaa” explores power from a more psychological angle. Austen-Peters delves into how power not only corrupts but is also shaped by the societal structures in which it exists. Gaa is depicted as both a tyrant and a victim of a corrupt system, where power serves as both a tool of oppression and a means of survival. The faster pacing and more dynamic cinematography reflect this constant tension, creating an immersive experience where power struggles are fluid and ever-changing, rather than predestined.

Directorial choices further highlight the contrast between the two films. Faleti’s approach in “Bashorun Gaa” is restrained, relying on long, static shots and simple editing techniques that allow the story to unfold at a deliberate pace. This choice places emphasis on the actors’ performances and the moral lessons within the narrative. Austen-Peters, on the other hand, employs quick cuts, dramatic lighting, and detailed set designs to keep the audience engaged. This cinematic approach in “House of Gaa” mirrors the broader evolution of Yoruba epic cinema, which has shifted from focusing solely on cultural preservation to incorporating elements of modern filmmaking that appeal to a global audience.

Moreover, “House of Gaa” extends its thematic focus beyond the binaries of power and justice to explore deeper issues like ambition, internal conflict, and redemption. These themes resonate with contemporary audiences, drawing parallels between Gaa’s historical narrative and present-day Nigerian politics. By expanding the film’s thematic scope, Austen-Peters creates a story that transcends its historical context, making it accessible to both local and international audiences.

This thematic evolution in “House of Gaa” is reflective of broader trends in recent Yoruba epic films. For instance, “Jagun Jagun” explores power through the lens of military might and personal sacrifice, while “Anikulapo” addresses the consequences of unchecked ambition. “King of Thieves” blends Yoruba folklore with modern fantasy, appealing to both traditional and international viewers through its rich cultural storytelling and visual spectacle. These films, much like “House of Gaa”, avoid the simplistic good-versus-evil narratives that characterized earlier Yoruba epics, opting instead for more complex portrayals of human nature and societal dynamics.

The Role of Women in Yoruba Epic Films

Finally, a notable difference between the two films is their treatment of gender. In “Bashorun Gaa”, women are largely relegated to the background, with male characters dominating the narrative. This reflects the traditional roles assigned to women in both the historical period and the film itself. In “House of Gaa”, however, female characters are given much more prominence. They are active participants in the political and social dynamics, reflecting a broader shift in Nigerian cinema toward more complex portrayals of women. Rather than being passive figures, the women in “House of Gaa” wield power and influence, becoming key players in the narrative. This shift is in line with contemporary film theory, where female characters are moving from objects of the gaze to agents of change, contributing to the richness and complexity of the story.This  also mirrors what film theorist Laura Mulvey might call a move from ”to-be-looked-at-ness” to agency. The women in ‘House of Gaa’ aren’t just decorative – they’re movers and shakers in their own right.

Technological advancements have played a crucial role in the evolution of Yoruba epic cinema, with “House of Gaa” exemplifying how far Nigerian cinema has come in terms of visual effects, sound design, and overall cinematic experience. While “Bashorun Gaa” relied heavily on dialogue and cultural context to convey its story, “House of Gaa” uses every tool at its disposal—from elaborate set designs to cutting-edge visual effects—to create a more immersive viewing experience. This shift reflects a broader trend in Nollywood, where filmmakers are pushing the boundaries of what’s possible, both technically and creatively, without losing sight of their cultural roots.

Challenges in Portraying Yoruba History: Inaccuracies and Artistic License

However, despite its grander scale and more detailed portrayal of Gaa, “House of Gaa” introduces some historical inaccuracies. One example is the suggestion that the Fulanis were already influencing Ilorin during Gaa’s reign, which is a distortion of historical fact. In reality, Ilorin remained a Yoruba province of Oyo during Gaa’s time, and the Fulani influence didn’t emerge until much later, during the era of Afonja. This creative liberty raises questions about the balance between historical accuracy and artistic interpretation in the evolving genre of Yoruba epic cinema.

The evolution of Yoruba epic cinema, as seen in the comparison between “Bashorun Gaa” and “House of Gaa”, mirrors the broader development of Nollywood over the past two decades. From a relatively niche industry, Nigerian filmmaking has grown into a global cultural force, with directors embracing new technologies and storytelling techniques while still remaining connected to their heritage. Both films serve as important milestones in this journey, each offering distinct perspectives on Yoruba history and the enigmatic figure of Bashorun Gaa.

Yet, the production of epic films in Nigeria remains challenging, as highlighted by Lyndsey Efejuku, director of Trino Motion’s “Kilometer 17”. “Technically, the genre has become much stronger. We’ve evolved a lot, especially in the technical aspects,” Efejuku notes, echoing the progress visible in “House of Gaa”. However, she also points out, “Nollywood is still a young industry compared to Hollywood, which has had hundreds of years to develop. We’re still finding our feet, but the epic genre has definitely grown.”

Efejuku explained specific challenges in the genre, particularly world-building. “For epic films, the challenges are mainly with location, props, and costumes,” she explains. “In dramas, you can just go to the market and buy everyday clothes for the actors, but with epics, you’re creating an entire world, which is a huge task.” This observation aligns with the visible differences between “Bashorun Gaa” and “House of Gaa”, where the latter’s higher production values reflect an increased focus on world-building and visual authenticity.

Bolanle Austen-Peters herself echoed these sentiments, discussing the financial constraints faced by Nigerian filmmakers. “I don’t hold back when directing. Whatever resources I have available, I use them all and add more if needed,” she explained after the release of “House of Gaa”. “We are miles apart in terms of available funds compared to other countries and projects, but to think that with the little we have, we are creating this much? Just imagine if we had Hollywood’s budget.” This candid admission shows the significant strides Nollywood has made in producing visually compelling films despite limited resources.

Efejuku also touches on the tension between historical accuracy and creative interpretation, a key issue in both “Bashorun Gaa” and “House of Gaa”. “Unfortunately, as a country, we don’t have a lot of historical references available, so filmmakers have to rely heavily on their imagination,” she notes. This sheds light on some of the creative liberties taken in “House of Gaa”, such as the portrayal of Gaa’s death and the premature involvement of the Fulanis in Ilorin’s history. While these elements make for compelling storytelling, they raise questions about how far filmmakers should go in altering historical narratives for dramatic effect; Should epic films remain historically accurate, or is it acceptable to take creative liberties for the sake of entertainment?

Though “House of Gaa” has undoubtedly advanced the genre visually and emotionally, these historical inaccuracies and the occasional struggles with CGI in certain scenes, particularly the transformation sequences reveal some of the industry’s ongoing challenges. ( Interestingly, both versions of the story depiction of Gaa’s transformation into an elephant was quite laughable and unconvincing).

Nonetheless, both films remain significant in tracing the evolution of Yoruba epic cinema, each contributing uniquely to the preservation and adaptation of this rich cultural heritage.

As Nigeria continues to expand its influence on the global cinematic stage, the future of Yoruba epic cinema holds exciting possibilities. What new forms will the age-old stories of Yorubaland take in the decades to come? Will future filmmakers find a way to blend the moral gravitas of Faleti’s approach with the visual spectacle of Austen-Peters? Or will Yoruba epic cinema evolve into something entirely different, beyond what we can currently imagine? One thing is certain—the story of this genre is far from over.