Echendu Sonia 23BE032990 Question 3 Assignment

 

The Invisible Hand of Capital: Chief Daddy as Middle Class Symbol

Chief Beecroft, the titular patriarch, never seen alive in the film. However, his presence dominates the story through the wealth he has stored and shared before his death. According to Karl Marx, the middle class are those who own the means of production and control societal power because their economic dominance. His unseen empire in oil and gas represents not just capitalist wealth but also the exploitative history of postcolonial Nigeria.

What is crucial and revealing is the absence of depiction of labour. We never see the workers in Chief Daddy’s company, but they rewarded of their labour and are showcased in the luxury of his family.

Inheritance and Fetish Wealth

Following Chief Daddy’s death, the film centers around his will. In Marxist terms, this document becomes the instrument through which private property is redistributed among idle middle class. The family members do not contest labour rights they aim for personal allowances, cars, houses, and brand identities.

Marx’s concept of commodity fetishism that is where commodities are seen to have value independent of the labour that produced them. Characters like Tinu and Teni, fashion designers with aspirations in branding, reduce connection to transactions. The fetishization of cars, jewellery, and social status serves to normalize capitalist as both desirable and aspirational.

Labor and Its Absence:

A stunning absence in Chief Daddy is the working class. Domestic workers appear only in the background, and their emotional responses are never explored. The housemaids, drivers, and office staff who likely kept the Beecroft empire running are visually present but narratively irrelevant. In Marxist analysis, this is a deliberate structural exclusion. By sidelining the proletariat, the film shows the illusion that wealth exists in a vacuum and that the middle-class way of lifestyle is understandable

Even when characters like Famzy, Chief Daddy’s irresponsible son is shown to be unemployed, he still enjoys the abundance of wealth. However, characters with no claim to the will remain excluded. Thus, Chief Daddy is a class hierarchy where labour is irrelevant, and capital alone defines one’s status

Elite Privilege:

The film's genre which is a comedy plays an important role in neutralizing critique. The absurdity of the characters’ title, rivalries, and social pretence is meant to entertain. However, this laughter functions are based on ideologically. As Marxist theorist Louis Althusser argues, ideology works best when it shows natural. The comedy Chief Daddy calms the class inequality, making lavish lifestyle and privilege compassionate.

For example, Remi, which is one of the widows, is seen as shallow and materialistic but also funny and charming. Her greed is not punished but normalized. Even the moral center of the film, Nike which is the Chief Daddy’s “illegitimate” daughter, conforms to the capitalist logic by accepting her portion of the inheritance and investing it in business, rather than rejecting the system that initially excluded her.

The film frames elite privilege not as a problem to be put away, but as a system that needs minor reforms within itself. There is no suggestion that the capitalist inheritance, family dynasties, and the system itself should be systematic.

Commodification of Identity and Class Mobility as ignored:

A key Marxist concern is how capitalism commodifies even identity. In Chief Daddy, family roles are reduced to economic labels that determine one’s access to wealth. Ties of love are secondary to financial entitlements. This commodification is most evident in the conflict between the legitimate and illegitimate families. Rather than questioning Chief Daddy’s ethics that created parallel families, the story aims on their competition for resources.

The promise of class mobility is twisted but remains a fantasy. Characters like Nike, who appears hardworking and virtuous, only gains access to wealth because of family not because of labour. The film suggests that upward mobility is possible, but only through elite connection, not through systemic change. This aligns with Marxist critiques of capitalism’s false promises which means that the system pretends to reward merit, but rewards proximity to capital.

The Role of Religion and Culture in Maintaining Social Inequality

Another subtle element in the film is the use of religion and tradition to maintain class power. The dead scenes are elaborate, invoking Yoruba customs and Christian piety, but these rituals fully show wealth. They become performances of status. In Marxist thought, religion often functions as an ideological tool to cover or hide exploitation which is the opium of the citizen. In Chief Daddy, religious and culture distract from the social inequality they coexist with.

Rather than challenge power, religious leaders in the film either align with or are paid off by the elite. Traditional rites become part of the object of wealth, overshadowing the line between faith and capital. Thus, the film critiques not just individuals but institutions as well cause of capital hierarchy.

Conclusion:

Chief Daddy offers a glittering but troubling portrait of Nigeria’s middle class. From a Marxist perspective, the film fails to challenge the economic and social systems that start inequality. Instead, it is seen through inheritance-based wealth transfer, the erasure of labour, and the show of elite lifestyles.

While the film succeeds as entertainment, it also functions as an idea, promoting a world where access to luxury is the ultimately the aim, and where family and social relationships are shaped by capital. The characters do not question the system; they fight to stay within it.

In this way, Chief Daddy becomes more than a family drama. It is a cinematic experience of Nigeria’s class contradictions, revealing how capitalism objectify identity, exploits labour, and disguises inequality behind humour. To laugh at Chief Daddy is easy.