In December 1947, Colonial Cinema, the quarterly publication of the Colonial Film Unit, outlined the role and objectives of the unit. ‘It is a first principle of Colonial Film Unit production’, it began, ‘that its films shall be made specifically for Colonial audiences, with distribution normally confined to Colonial territories. At no stage, from initial choice of subject to recording of the commentary, is consideration given to any other potential audience’. The editorial noted however that ‘when theme and material are of sufficiently general interest, the question of a re-edited version for other audiences may subsequently arise’ (Colonial Cinema, December 1947).

The editorial referred to two CFU productions that were being re-edited. The first was Weaving in Togoland, now intended for ‘use principally in primary schools’ and the second was Good Business, ‘which will reach wider audiences, and [will be] the first to be given theatrical distribution’. The editorial further explained that ‘generally speaking, the theatrical version will be a “streamlined” edition of the original, with a specifically written commentary. The difference will be in technique rather than approach, so that the film will remain substantially unaltered’ (Colonial Cinema, December 1947).

The Colonial Office’s file for Nigerian Cocoa Farmer confirmed that the film was a re-edited version of Good Business, ‘undertaken on behalf of the Colonial Office as an allied service’. The file outlined the costings for the film. £206 was paid to the Crown Film Unit ‘in respect of final editing and recording of commentary and completion’, while an additional £5 was paid to the commentator Ralph Hurcombe and a sum ‘not exceeding £25’ was paid to cover the fine grain duping of the original film. However, while Colonial Cinema had stated that the re-edited film would be shown in theatres, the Colonial Office’s file explained that Nigerian Cocoa Farmer was intended for non-theatrical distribution at home and overseas (INF 6/30).

There are significant distinctions between Good Business, a film intended for African audiences, and Nigerian Cocoa Farmer, intended for British audiences. These differences are not only in the film text – and specifically the commentary – but also in the intended function of the films. Colonial Cinema argued that ‘for the African peasant for whom the film was made, the message of Good Business needs little elaboration. For audiences elsewhere it should prove an unusually interesting sidelight not only on the economic life of West Africa, but also on an important aspect of African social development’ (Colonial Cinema, December 1947, 88-89). Good Business played in Nigeria as part of Peter Morton-Williams’ experiments with African film audiences, and he explained that the original film was made with the help of members of the Ibadan farmers co-operative to ‘encourage Yoruba cocoa farmers in the development of co-operative marketing societies, and the production of high quality cocoa’ (Morton-Williams, 1952, 20). William Sellers, the head of the CFU, had told an audience at the British Kinematograph Society in 1947 that ‘with appropriate editing and a specially written commentary’, Good Business should show ‘not the dark continent of the picture-postcard travelogue, but a good honest slice of Africa as it really is, throwing light on a little-known aspect of colonial development in which African initiative, self-reliance and self-government play a significant part’ (Colonial Cinema, March 1948, 10). Film historian Rosaleen Smyth elaborated on this ‘dual propaganda purpose’, arguing that what was ‘primarily a promotional film for the co-operative movement’, was now adapted ‘for showing to non-African audiences to demonstrate the achievements of British colonial rule’ (Smyth, 1992, 167).