After Love in Every Word, a tweet circulated criticising the portrayal of Igbo males and accused Uzor Arukwe of fostering negative stereotypes.

An internet user argued that Uzor Arukwe’s roles depict Igbo men as “obnoxious, crass, and borderline stupid money-miss-roads” with exaggerated accents, suggesting that this representation has long-term consequences on perceptions of Igbo masculinity.

This raises an important question: Are actors responsible for the stereotypes they portray on screen? Is this criticism fair? Is Uzor Arukwe really to blame for a long-standing Nollywood trope, or is he just an actor doing his job?

First, let’s acknowledge the reality: Nollywood has long leaned on certain stereotypes, especially when portraying different ethnic groups. Uzor’s rise in Nollywood was not overnight.

He has put in years of hard work, often playing similar roles until he became a recognisable face in the industry. And this is where the bigger issue lies: Nollywood’s tendency to typecast actors.

An actor becomes the preferred choice for a part if they have established a reputation for portraying that kind of character. Actors like Pete Edochie, who has devoted a large portion of his career to portraying the sage, commanding Igbo elder, have demonstrated this. For many years, Patience Ozokwor was the standard “wicked mother-in-law.”

It’s also critical to discern between the storytelling decisions made by the industry and an actor’s performance. Does Uzor’s outstanding performance imply that he is to blame for the stereotype if the screenplay calls for an Igbo character with a strong accent and a gregarious demeanour?

Films are dramatised, fictitious stories with an emphasis on entertainment; they are not documentaries.

Indeed, they have the power to influence opinions, but ultimately, it is the duty of authors, filmmakers, and producers to create complex, well-rounded narratives. Simply said, actors make those tales come to life.

In addition, Nollywood’s cultural diversity is growing. Igbo men are being portrayed in a wider range of ways these days, from quiet thinkers to heroes who struggle with morality. Uzor himself has portrayed characters who don’t fit the “money-miss-road” cliché.

He is more than simply a one-note performer, as evidenced by his varied performances in films like Momiwa and Thin Line.

Demanding greater narrative is a better way to combat Nollywood clichés than criticising performers like Uzor Arukwe. Targeting a single actor for doing a job he was contracted to play will not accomplish as much as more complex scripts, improved character development, and a willingness to depart from trite clichés.

ALSO READ: “I’m Coming for You Clowns”: Omoni Oboli Blast Ghanaian TVs for Showing Her Movies Without Licensing

Ultimately, Uzor is just an actor performing his job, and he’s doing it well. It might be time to hold Nollywood’s decision-makers responsible for the stories they decide to tell, rather than blaming him for the industry’s dependence on particular clichés.

After all, actors don’t write screenplays or provide funding for films. Interpreting and bringing to life what has already been conceptualised is their responsibility.

If Nollywood consistently produces stories that portray Igbo men in a specific way, then the problem is structural rather than limited to a single actor.