By Agbo Favour Amarachi
‘HIJACK 93’ attempts to rehash the true account of the 1993 Nigeria Airways hijacking, reinventing the story through the characters of Kayode (Adam Garba), Omar (Nnamdi Agbo), Dayo (Akinsola Oluwaseyi), and Ben (Allison Emmanuel), who risked everything to challenge the then military government’s draconian regime.
It was written by Musa Jeffrey David.
Now, when a film is inspired by true events, there is always a certain level of expectations, especially from those conversant with the real story. However, ‘Hijack ‘93’ attempts to temper such expectations with an early disclaimer that “this film is a fictionalized interpretation of actual events,” though it seems as if the filmmaker took this as an opportunity to rewrite history.
The film is set in 1993, against the backdrop of a military government. However, historical accuracy ends there. From there on, it goes ahead to make a ridicule of the actual event. As the film starts, we see a group of men listening in solemn silence to a pep rally speech from their supposed leader, Mallam Jerry (Sam Dede). With talk of the need for change and sacrifice for their cause, it’s clear they oppose the country’s government. At the end of his speech, Mallam Jerry randomly selects four men for an unspecified covert mission. This raises interest, especially as we observe the eagerness of the chosen men to carry out their assignment, along with the quiet fear hidden behind their enthusiasm.
We were introduced to hot-blooded Ben (Alison Emmanuel) who enters the toilet and retrieves a gun hidden there. There’s also the artistic and soft-spoken Kayode (Adam Garba) who is smitten by a young female passenger from the moment they wait to board. By some mischievous coincidence or plan, she ends up as his seat partner.
Hijack ‘93 manages to hold its suspense up at the point when the hijackers announce their intentions; after that, it quickly fizzles out along with the screams of the frightened passengers. The film struggles with stakes and coherence, with scenes feeling disconnected. In real life, the hijackers held the plane for three days, but here, we only learn about the timeline through a passing comment from one of the hijackers. The story lacks the sense of urgency typical of hostage films— no gripping tension for what might happen next. While the actions of these young men are weighty, Hijack ‘93 fails to convey the full gravity of their decisions. Why would four young men, at the peak of their lives, risk everything to hijack a plane in defiance of the military government?
The few real actions of the hijackers feel devoid of real danger or heart, and the accidental gunshot that goes off seems to be added purely for shock value. Given the filmmakers’ creative liberties, it’s unclear whether any fatalities occurred in the true event.
I agree that a film doesn’t need to be entirely faithful to the real-life event, but it ought to adhere to a consistency that represents the tone and characters of the event it’s trying to recreate. We get none of that.
The writing itself is banal with thinly sketched characters acting out the foggiest motivations. Nothing about the acting in this film is exciting. At some point, you’re bored of them to care about them anymore. Despite their well-meaning intention to hijack the plane to send home their demand for a democratic government, we do not root for those boys. And neither do the passengers, even though some of them share in their crusade. This film fails woefully to gather any empathy to reflect on the courage of the four men in the real story to hijack a plane at a time when the military government could have had them publicly executed.
Despite the hijackers’ “best” efforts to assert control and instill fear, the hostage situation unfolds with a puzzling lack of intensity, leaving the audience without a genuine sense of danger or consequence.
It’s a pity that the content of the film is not as expected, if excluding the hostage rescue scene at the end of the film, the film hardly leaves much of an impression on me, especially when the film contains many unreasonable details and does not stick to reality. – my first observation was that the real-life plane is an Airbus A310, not a Boeing 747. It can be said that the film crew could not find a working A310, but if the film crew borrowed an Airbus A320 (an aircraft with the same characteristics as the A310) to make the film, it would at least be closer to history and less expensive.
In 1993, the plane had a camera looking from the cockpit to the passenger compartment? How could the pilot hear the screams from the passenger compartment without the flight attendant connecting a phone signal? In 1993, there were already black desktop computers (while everyone knew that desktop computers at that time were white).
Then some details are changed from reality, reducing the authenticity of the film. -The sound mixing—a crucial aspect of any film—is surprisingly poor. Jarring audio transitions disrupt the viewing experience, while poorly balanced sound levels render dialogue unclear, forcing viewers to strain to understand conversations.
The military equipment looks too modern compared to that time; it creates a feeling that is not like that time.
Also, there is a lack of attention to props and costumes, as many do not match what was typical in 1993 Nigeria. For instance, the Nigerian Army didn’t use Toyota Hilux vehicles at the time but trucks. They wore steel helmets, not ballistic helmets, and pouch collars rather than flak/frag jackets.
The plot twist shows that a flight attendant helped the hijackers, but this twist is not impressive. -As a result of the incoherent plot, the acting performances suffer, with the cast struggling to add depth to their underdeveloped roles.
Through a flashback, we see that Ben’s father abuses him until Mallam Jerry (Sam Dede) takes him under his wing, but how does that lead to him being at the center of a hijacking? What would motivate an air hostess to conspire with the hijackers? These are just a few of the many questions raised by the underdeveloped plot.
Furthermore, plot is boring, lacking climax, drama, even showing signs of imitating other films(for example, the scene where one of the four hijackers gives up his belief in God after he unsuccessfully prays for his mother to recover from her illness, this scene imitates a short film about the debate between an atheist lecturer and an American Christian student that was quite viral on YouTube). The only good rating is the new acts on board.
Sometimes too, the tone shifts into a sentiment that isn’t earned at all because why is an armed hijacker weeping inside a toilet? There’s an ongoing hijack operation and some of the passengers are busy engaging in a tribal discourse and arguments that result in name-calling which seem like the filmmakers’ unimaginative way to defuse tension. It’s sad to see glimpses of potential here and there in the film, wishing it had been fully utilized to at least reach the status of an average Nollywood film.
The biggest flaw of Hijack ‘93 is its failure to depict the grand event of the aircraft hijack. All we get to see of it are a couple of screams and heated arguments.
