How African Governments Are Using Film Tourism to Rebuild Post-Conflict Destination Images

27

A country can silence its guns and reopen its airports, yet remain trapped in the images that foreign audiences remember. For destinations recovering from war, civil unrest or mass violence, film tourism offers a way to challenge those images. It can also preserve them. 

Film tourism describes travel motivated by places seen on screen. Governments can encourage it through film commissions, production incentives, location marketing, studio tours and partnerships with filmmakers. Yet a film can influence a country’s reputation without the government commissioning, financing or controlling it. Africa’s experience demonstrates both possibilities.

Film Tourism and the Politics of Rebuilding Destination Images

Conflict damages more than buildings, roads and public institutions. It also shapes how potential visitors imagine a country. International news coverage may repeatedly link a destination to violence, instability, displacement, and humanitarian emergencies. Those images can persist long after conditions change.

Research by Eli Avraham and Eran Ketter (2017), Destination Image Repair While Combatting Crises: Tourism Marketing in Africa, examined how sub-Saharan African destinations used media relations, counter-messaging, familiar brands, and other communication strategies to manage negative perceptions during and after crises. The study establishes a useful starting point: destination recovery depends partly on changing the messages through which outsiders interpret a place.

Film can support that process because it places destinations inside stories that audiences choose to watch. Viewers may remember a landscape, street, historic building or cultural practice more vividly than a conventional tourism advertisement. When a film sparks curiosity, viewers can move from watching a story to researching its locations, booking accommodation, and purchasing local experiences.

But the process is neither automatic nor uniformly positive. A production can portray a country as dangerous, exotic or dependent on foreign intervention. Even a commercially successful film can strengthen the very stereotypes that a destination wants to escape.

The challenge for African governments is therefore not simply to attract cameras. It is to influence the conditions under which film production, historical interpretation and tourism development reinforce one another.

Rwanda: The Difficult Relationship Between Film, Memory and Recovery

Rwanda illustrates cinema’s power to shape international understanding of a country emerging from mass violence. The 1994 Genocide against the Tutsi killed hundreds of thousands of people and left profound social, political and economic consequences. Rebuilding the country’s international image required more than promoting wildlife, landscapes or new visitor facilities. Rwanda also had to confront how the world understood its recent history.

Terry George’s Hotel Rwanda, released in 2004, brought the genocide to a large international audience through a dramatised account centred on the Hôtel des Mille Collines in Kigali. The film received three Academy Award nominations in 2005. It became an influential cultural touchstone for many viewers with limited knowledge of Rwanda.

Nicki Hitchcott’s peer-reviewed study, published online in 2020 and included in Memory Studies in 2021, examined how Hotel Rwanda shaped audiences’ understanding of the genocide. Hitchcott noted that survivor testimonies challenged key aspects of the film’s account, showing that cinematic narratives can overshadow the experiences of the people they depict.

This distinction is crucial for tourism authorities to understand. A film can stimulate interest in a country without accurately representing its history. When governments use screen narratives to attract visitors, they must avoid allowing commercial appeal to replace historical complexity.

Rwanda’s memorial tourism provides a related lesson. Andrew Phillip Young’s 2022 study, Dark Tourism and Rwandan Media Industries: Promoting Nation and the Mythology of Memory, examined tensions between officially curated memorial narratives and sites that hold different meanings for local communities. The study raises questions about how governments frame collective memory and whose experiences receive public recognition.

For Rwanda, the policy implication is clear. Film-related tourism should complement memorial education, survivor testimony and locally produced storytelling. It should not reduce the genocide to a dramatic plot or use suffering as a marketing device.

Governments can support documentaries, locally led film projects, guided heritage routes and educational programmes that connect international attention to Rwandan perspectives. They must also distinguish memorial visits from entertainment-oriented screen tourism. The two can coexist, but they serve different purposes and require different standards of interpretation.

Rwanda’s wider recovery story should not depend on one international film. It should emerge from a broader body of work that presents the country through its people, institutions, creative industries, cultural life, and contemporary development, while leaving room for honest accounts of its past.

Morocco and South Africa: Building a Tourism Product Around the Screen

Morocco offers a different model. Its relationship with international film production shows how governments and tourism organisations can turn production infrastructure and recognisable locations into visitor experiences.

The southern Moroccan city of Ouarzazate has hosted international productions for decades. Atlas Studios and other facilities have supported films including Gladiator, Kundun and Kingdom of Heaven. Morocco’s national tourism promotion agency explicitly markets the country’s connections with cinema, while local destination information promotes studio visits and nearby filming locations.

Morocco’s example is not, in itself, evidence of post-conflict image repair. It demonstrates a commercial mechanism that recovering destinations can adapt: connect film production to identifiable locations, guided experiences, accommodation, transport, restaurants and local cultural products.

A visitor who arrives to see a film set may stay longer if operators offer a wider itinerary. The economic opportunity lies in extending the journey beyond the studio gate to surrounding communities, historic sites, markets and locally run businesses.

South Africa provides another useful comparison. A University of Pretoria study commissioned to assess the creative industry’s potential for destination development examined how film tourism could support the country’s visitor economy. Its March 2017 report, The Potential of the Creative Industry for Destination Development in South Africa – Film Tourism as a Case Study, considered the country’s production capacity and how screen exposure could be converted into tourism products.

The report discusses District 9, which used locations in Johannesburg and Soweto. Its production also involved local residents and drew on the built environment of the neighbourhood where filming took place.

South Africa’s history of apartheid and its subsequent political transition make it relevant to discussions of destination image, although District 9 is not a straightforward example of a government-led post-conflict tourism campaign. The film’s use of urban space and its themes of exclusion demonstrate how screen narratives can invite visitors to consider the relationship between place, history and social inequality.

The broader lesson is that film tourism requires more than a famous title. Destinations need location maps, trained guides, reliable transport, accommodation, interpretation and clear visitor information. They also need to decide how to present the relationship between fictional narratives and real communities.

Sierra Leone and the Risk of Becoming Trapped in a Conflict Narrative

Sierra Leone presents a sharper warning about the limits of screen exposure. Edward Zwick’s Blood Diamond, released in 2006, dramatised the relationship between diamonds, armed conflict and exploitation during the country’s civil war.

The film drew international attention to Sierra Leone’s history, but its emphasis on violence and illicit diamond trading also risked reinforcing a narrow image of the country. Uchenna Onuzulike’s 2015 article in African Identities critically examined the film’s representation of Sierra Leone and the wider international forces implicated in the conflict-diamond economy.

The film’s international reach did not automatically translate into a structured tourism product for Sierra Leone. Nor does a film about a country prove that its government deliberately used it to rebuild destination perceptions.

That distinction exposes a weakness in the way African film tourism is sometimes discussed. Analysts can mistake global exposure for a coordinated national strategy. They can also overlook whether visitors can safely reach filming locations, whether communities receive revenue, or whether the country has a coherent programme that turns interest into actual bookings.

For post-conflict destinations, the response should not be to suppress difficult stories. It should be to broaden the range of stories available. Governments can support films about contemporary entrepreneurs, music, food, conservation, architecture, education, and community rebuilding, helping audiences understand the country beyond its period of violence.

Sierra Leone’s challenge, as with other recovering destinations, is to ensure international audiences move from a conflict-centred film to a fuller understanding of the people and places beyond the screen.

The Economic Model Needs More Than Publicity

Film tourism can generate several kinds of economic activity. Productions may employ local crews, rent equipment, pay location fees and use accommodation, catering and transport. Once a film attracts attention, visitors may spend on guided tours, hotels, restaurants, souvenirs and other experiences.

Yet governments often focus on the most visible outcome: publicity. A film appears internationally, a destination receives media coverage, and officials claim a branding victory. Without evidence of visitor conversion, local spending and sustained employment, the economic case remains incomplete.

The problem worsens when public money supports productions primarily because officials expect them to advertise the country. A production subsidy may help attract a project, but the government should assess what it purchases in return. Does the production employ local professionals? Does it train new talent? Does it use local suppliers? Does it create a visitor experience that will remain available after filming ends?

African governments should establish transparent incentive schemes that reward measurable domestic benefits, not celebrity alone. Film commissions and tourism agencies should publish clear information about public support, production spending, local employment and the visitor products developed from completed projects.

They should also avoid treating all exposure as beneficial. A film that depicts a destination inaccurately or exploits a traumatised community can impose reputational and social costs that outweigh any short-term publicity.

ALSO READ:

• • The Mau Mau Uprising and Kenya’s New Heritage Tourism Conversation
  • Walking the Slave Route in Benin: West  Africa’s Most Important Heritage Walk
  • Sierra Leone and Liberia: The Next West  African Coastlines Investors Are Watching

Who Owns the Story, and Who Receives the Money?

The central weakness of a publicity-led model is how it distributes power. International production companies may control a film’s intellectual property, distribution rights, and future commercial value. Local communities may provide locations, labour and cultural knowledge without retaining a meaningful share of the returns.

A destination can therefore become globally recognisable while local residents receive only temporary wages or limited business opportunities. Tourism operators may also face seasonal demand that disappears when the film loses popularity.

Governments should negotiate for stronger local participation wherever legally and commercially feasible. Measures could include training and apprenticeship requirements, local supplier directories, transparent location fees, community consultation and partnerships between production companies and domestic creative businesses.

Tourism authorities should work with local councils and community organisations to design filming-location tours, protect private property and establish rules for visitor behaviour. When films depict traumatic events, survivors and affected communities should have a meaningful voice in how they are interpreted and used commercially.

This is not simply a question of distributing revenue. It concerns cultural authority. Communities should not lose control of their histories because a foreign production has made those histories commercially attractive.

THE RCA POSITION

From Screen Exposure to Sustainable Destination Recovery

Governments should build film tourism around a clear sequence: production, audience awareness, travel planning, visitor conversion and local economic benefit. Each stage needs its own investment and performance measures.

First, film commissions and tourism agencies should work together before filming begins. They can identify suitable locations, assess infrastructure needs, consult communities and plan how a production might generate visitor interest. This coordination can prevent the tourism authority from receiving a finished film with no practical strategy for converting exposure into travel.

Second, destinations need reliable visitor infrastructure. Roads, public transport, accommodation, safety information, signage, digital booking systems and trained guides determine whether a screen-inspired visit becomes a satisfactory experience. Marketing cannot compensate for inaccessible locations or poor service.

Third, governments should build film-related itineraries that connect multiple attractions. A tour linked to a production could connect a filming location with a local museum, food business, cultural venue or heritage site. Such packages give visitors more reasons to stay overnight and spread spending across a wider area.

Fourth, evaluation must go beyond media impressions and social media engagement. Authorities should track visitor numbers linked to film locations, average length of stay, local spending, employment, business ownership and the proportion of tourism revenue retained in surrounding communities. They should publish the results and adjust public incentives when programmes fail to deliver.

Finally, film tourism must form part of a wider recovery strategy. It cannot replace peacebuilding, functioning public institutions, credible security arrangements or the repair of transport and hospitality infrastructure. Tourism depends on these foundations; cinematic visibility cannot substitute for them.

What This Means for Nigeria and the Wider African Tourism Market

Nigeria has a particular opportunity because its film industry already produces stories with regional and international audiences. Nollywood can support tourism by weaving recognisable locations, cultural practices, historic districts, festivals, and contemporary urban life into compelling screen narratives.

However, the country should not assume that a large film industry automatically creates a film tourism economy. A deliberate strategy would require cooperation between the Nigerian Film Corporation, the Nigerian Tourism Development Authority, state tourism agencies, production companies, hospitality businesses and community organisations.

The government could start with pilot itineraries linked to productions with demonstrable audience interest. Lagos locations could link screen-related visits to film studios, music venues, food businesses, and cultural districts. Other states could develop products around historic architecture, festivals, landscapes and locally produced films, provided they can support safe, reliable visitor access.

Nigeria should also support films that move beyond familiar depictions of crime, insecurity and urban congestion. Conflict-related narratives may have historical and artistic value, but a broader range of productions can present the country as a place of creativity, cultural debate, entrepreneurship and everyday life.

Across Africa, governments should exchange expertise on film incentives, location management, community participation and destination marketing. They should also avoid competing solely through tax concessions. A sustainable advantage comes from skilled crews, reliable infrastructure, distinctive locations, professional production services and tourism products that remain useful after a film’s release.

Film tourism cannot erase a country’s past, and it should not be expected to. Its real value lies in giving audiences more ways to understand a destination, giving local businesses opportunities to earn from that interest, and allowing communities to participate in shaping the stories told about them.

The test for African governments is not how many cameras arrive or how many people watch a film. It is whether that attention creates a more accurate destination image, a stronger local creative economy and tourism income that reaches the people whose places and histories make the story possible.

Film tourism will deliver lasting economic and reputational gains for African destinations only when governments connect screen exposure to locally owned tourism businesses, responsible historical interpretation, accessible infrastructure and measurable community benefits. A film that attracts global attention is an opportunity, not proof of recovery.

Want more insight into how Africa’s destinations are changing their global image? Read our related stories and analysis on film tourism, ethical destination marketing and community-led recovery across the continent.

 

FAQs

1. What is film tourism?

Film tourism is travel inspired by movies, television programmes or documentaries. Visitors may travel to filming locations, studios, heritage sites or places associated with a screen story.

2. Can film tourism help post-conflict destinations recover their image?

Yes, but screen exposure alone is not enough. It must be supported by accurate storytelling, reliable infrastructure, local businesses, community participation and measurable tourism benefits.

3. Does every film about an African country support tourism?

No. A film may attract attention while reinforcing stereotypes or presenting an incomplete view of a destination. Governments should broaden the stories available and connect screen interest to responsible visitor experiences.

4. How can local communities benefit from film tourism?

Communities can benefit through employment, local supplier contracts, location fees, guided tours, accommodation, food businesses, cultural experiences and participation in decisions about how their histories and places are presented.

5. What should governments measure when investing in film tourism?

They should track visitor numbers linked to filming locations, length of stay, local spending, employment, business ownership, community revenue and the accuracy and quality of destination interpretation, not just media coverage or online engagement.