Title: Class on Display: A Marxist Critique of Chief Daddy

 

23BE033067

Title: Class on Display: A Marxist Critique of Chief Daddy

 

EbonyLife’s Chief Daddy is a film that’s hard to ignore. It’s flashy, chaotic, and filled with stars. On the surface, it looks like just another Nollywood comedy family drama, inheritance drama, plenty of laughs. But underneath the laughter is a clear message ,wealth ,rules and everything. When I watched it through a Marxist lens, I began to see that Chief Daddy is more than just a family feud. It’s a celebration of capitalist values and elite privilege, wrapped in humor and glamour. This essay argues that instead of challenging class inequality, Chief Daddy actually reinforces it by glorifying the rich, ignoring the poor, and turning class struggle into a show.

Marxist theory, at its core, is about power. It focuses on the relationship between the bourgeoisie (those who own the means of production) and the proletariat (the working class). Karl Marx argued that all of history is shaped by class conflict, and that capitalism survives by keeping the working class dependent and distracted. In media, Marxist critics look for how films reflect or distort class realities who is represented, who is missing, and whose interests are being served. With this in mind, Chief Daddy is a perfect case study. The film centers around the sudden death of Chief Beecroft, a wealthy Lagos businessman who leaves behind a mansion full of secrets. As his wives, children (legitimate and otherwise), and business partners gather for the reading of his will, chaos erupts. Everyone is after a piece of the pie. From the very beginning, wealth is the driving force of the plot. But what’s most interesting is how this wealth is portrayed not as something gained through exploitation, but as a birthright or blessing. We never really saw how Chief Daddy made his money. His empire just “exists.” There’s no discussion of labor, struggle, or ethical business practices. That’s a red flag. According to Marxist theory, hiding the source of wealth is a way of naturalizing inequality making it seem like some people are just “meant” to be rich. The Beecroft family is shown enjoying luxury  designer clothes, foreign accents, private schools, and lavish homes. But none of this is questioned. The audience is expected to laugh at their entitlement, not critique it.

 

One clear example is the way the family members fight over inheritance. Nobody wants to work. They all want “what they deserve.” But deserve based on what? Their bloodline? Their relationship to the patriarch? This mindset reveals a deeply capitalist ideology where access to resources depends on proximity to power, not on merit or effort. And this mirrors real life in Nigeria, where many people survive not through hard work, but through connection. The film doesn’t just reflect this system it normalizes it.

 

Marx also warned about the role of ideology in media. Films can serve as tools of the ruling class, subtly teaching audiences to accept the status goal. In Chief Daddy, comedy is the perfect disguise. By making the characters ridiculous vain, dramatic, selfish the film allows viewers to laugh at them without ever seriously questioning the world they live in. It becomes entertainment, not a call for change. But beneath the laughter is a clear lesson money brings power, and power brings respect. Even the “outsiders” in the film like Chief Daddy’s secret daughter from London are only accepted when they’re seen as legitimate heirs What’s missing from the film is just as important as what’s shown. We never see the workers who actually maintain the Beecroft empire. Where are the domestic staff, the drivers, the laborers, the accountants, the people doing the behind-the-scenes work? They are mostly invisible. And that’s a classic capitalist trick to the proletariat so the audience focuses only on the bourgeoisie. In Marxist terms, this is false consciousness a distraction from real class struggle. Even when the film does show people with less wealth like some of the more humble family members the solution is never political or collective. It’s always personal marry rich, fight for inheritance, or win favor. There’s no suggestion that the system itself is broken. No one talks about fairness, redistribution, or justice. This is how Chief Daddy avoids any real critique. It reduces class to family drama and turns inequality into a show.

Another key Marxist idea is commodity fetishism where material goods are worshipped not for their use, but for their symbolic power. This is everywhere in Chief Daddy. Characters brag about brands, cars, and vacations. Wealth becomes a performance, not a necessity. And just like in capitalist society, the value of a person is tied to what they can show off. The film is full of objects that signify success, but empty of any discussion about how those objects were produced. Who made the designer dress? Who built the mansion? Who cooked the food? We never ask. To be fair, some might argue that Chief Daddy is just satire that it’s mocking the rich, not glorifying them. And yes, the film does make fun of the characters. But satire only works if it leads to reflection. In this case, the humor actually helps the audience enjoy the fantasy of wealth without confronting its dark side. We laugh with the characters, not at the system. In the end, the message is clear: money brings drama, but it also brings happiness. And that’s not a revolutionary idea it’s a capitalist one.

In conclusion, Chief Daddy is a fun film, but it’s also a political one whether it admits it or not. Through a Marxist lens, we see how it reflects and reinforces the capitalist values that dominate Nigerian society. By focusing only on the rich, erasing the working class, and turning wealth into comedy, it distracts from the real issues of inequality, exploitation, and class struggle. As students and consumers of media, we have to ask  what are we being taught to admire? Who benefits from the stories we celebrate? And what happens when laughter becomes a mask for injustice?