Considerations on the map of Fazio and Saviano
At the third episode of Come away with me, came to Cato Maior time to make a speech on the program.
It must be getting a little 'break-in (who does it and the viewer) to better understand the deep meaning (if any) of a television broadcast in several episodes.
There are at least three different points of view from which to analyze it.
The first is that the transmission through the mouth of its own creators, wanted to be. Statements of intent should be compared with results.
The second point of view concerning the merits of the charges, prior and subsequent, that have been made.
The third one is used in a specific language of television, since on its own 'news' pointing authors and supporters. (more. ..)
1) The transmission in Italy wanted to tell a different way, discussing the reasons why love and good reasons to abandon it (hence the title 'come away with me').
aspired to a new kind of narrative: This is achieved by proposing new themes, or at least unusual.
From this point of view, the intentions have not been met. Italy 'different' actually turned out to be just so many years that Italy would like many intellectuals, journalists, television, political parties: a country steeped in progressive values, environmentalists, Irene, ecumenical, secular, sindacalistici in a word - Absite iniuria verbis - veltroniani, or better yet vendoliani.
The only novelty is that, perhaps, 'Come with me' is the first transmission to be totally organic to this design, a kind of summa of television 'left', no fancy shots unsettling than this guideline granite. The very choice of the guests appeared in a certain feeling claustrophobic in its orthodoxy. Even Laura Morante there has been spared. Gianfranco Fini did not represent the progressive universe, but his call is easily explained by the image evoked strong antiberlusconiana which is now thinking of the Speaker of the House. Only the presence
yesterday, Roberto Maroni, it has seemed in some ways a bolt from the blue, a gash in the fabric of transmission, but we all know that this is a lightning suffered neck ob wrong (although, with unintentional humor, The presenter has said that, if the Minister in the study had been immediately appreciated by the Minister, unless the ironic thing, before and after).
This background makes the atmosphere of camaraderie transmission similar to a basement full of French resistance in occupied France of Vichy: every guest is looked with shining eyes by Fazio, who dismiss him in kisses and embraces almost moved, shakes with under his arm, as if waiting for him behind the scenes a firing squad rather than a few interviews. E 'was even embarrassing phrase that Fazio has whispered to open microphones to Saviano, the end of his monologue, "do not thank you enough!"
Nihil novi sub alone, then?
Maybe not. With 'Come with me', for the first time a broadcast anything but a niche (although the niche is defined only ex post, ie after considering the plays) to keep its center of staging the story and the reporting of social and political phenomenon of the Mafia, was not as yet been made on television. Of course, the language used was quite homogeneous with the vision we have mentioned, with the paradoxical result that the only party mentioned by Saviano, to describe the collusion between gangsters and institution, was the Northern League.
2) The criticism, in part to the transmission show evidence of the previous point. In fact they had a good game all those who do not identify with those values, to observe that 'Come with me has not produced anything that could not first be imagined.
Someone mischievously suggested that it would be easy for anyone to write to table the lineup of the transmission, without a flower Copyright: think of a few representative political, social, cultural, of a certain world.
In fact, for the next episode could be envisaged, Dario For, an old ex-partisan, Gustavo Zagrebelsky, Umberto Eco, a Chilean miner, Luigi De Magistris, what remains of the family Guzzanti, Gianni Vattimo, the father of Carlo Giuliani, and a global justice beaten by police in the Diaz school. List is not real, but entirely plausible. This
for criticism from the right.
Left (Done at the Cricket), the leitmotiv of the critics is Saviano has been criticized for not denouncing and partners enough, it did not have courage, in short - again - has not really brought anything new or shocking. Antiberlusconiano than enough.
3) The language. Far from finding an unusual way to tell the reality, the story seemed entirely classical. Saviano himself has quickly adapted to the small screen by cunning: televised speaking, would be such a big news that he had conceded too much, you were wrong to accuse the League of interacting with the Mafia. A tribune kissed by consensus, saying "Excuse me, but I have not expressed well, I was wrong", that we would not have yet seen. Instead he preferred to be ironic, with the complacency of an adoring audience, on the offending word, "speak", denying that its passage would describe an attitude ran the league with the Mafia. Denying that is, the evidence.
Some apologist 'Come with me', but to find a new transmission, has mentioned the famous lists, as a means of expression not seen yet.
But it is not.
The culture of the lists was not invented by Fazio and Saviano is just the updating of those 'ironic humor and apodictic that we find, for example, in songs like "someone was a communist" Giorgio Gaber "Those that ... "by Whittaker. It is no coincidence that "Those who ... football" was one of the transmissions that have launched Fazio empyrean television.
Finally, there remains some final point to make.
If there are substantial innovations in 'Come with me', if it seems to attend a Mass (laicissima) sung by the usual company around, because we talk about it?
Well, first because he had a great success. It is always worth reflecting on consensus.
We also think that the nine million people are basically just part of the electoral potential of the left.
But in so doing we persist in denying evidence, that there may be good programs on television, even when they express values \u200b\u200bthat do not share.
And watching you come away with me can reward or not, but compared to the level we're used to, in RAI and Mediaset, is mouth-watering.
He then reflect a culture of character as opposed to the liberal - and least of equal dignity - both historically unable to find a similar outlet. This shows that, contrary to what we think, the left has values \u200b\u200beasier, more popular, more immediate communication from the belly of the country. A reflection
Finally, on public television.
Beyond quality of a transmission, it is right that the fee to fund programs so openly sided? It 's a ground fact slimy, slippery, that the definition of quality of a program, leading to judgments of all questionable. In fact, lately the left has given up this canon certain programs justify the second, throwing the audience figures continually rewarding. Was
for Santoro, goes with Fazio. But is it really? O ends up legitimizing any transmission kissed by success, even the grim reality?
In my opinion, the only possible answer, trenchant, is that in a country like Italy there should be a public television.
At the third episode of Come away with me, came to Cato Maior time to make a speech on the program.
It must be getting a little 'break-in (who does it and the viewer) to better understand the deep meaning (if any) of a television broadcast in several episodes.
There are at least three different points of view from which to analyze it.
The first is that the transmission through the mouth of its own creators, wanted to be. Statements of intent should be compared with results.
The second point of view concerning the merits of the charges, prior and subsequent, that have been made.
The third one is used in a specific language of television, since on its own 'news' pointing authors and supporters. (more. ..)
1) The transmission in Italy wanted to tell a different way, discussing the reasons why love and good reasons to abandon it (hence the title 'come away with me').
aspired to a new kind of narrative: This is achieved by proposing new themes, or at least unusual.
From this point of view, the intentions have not been met. Italy 'different' actually turned out to be just so many years that Italy would like many intellectuals, journalists, television, political parties: a country steeped in progressive values, environmentalists, Irene, ecumenical, secular, sindacalistici in a word - Absite iniuria verbis - veltroniani, or better yet vendoliani.
The only novelty is that, perhaps, 'Come with me' is the first transmission to be totally organic to this design, a kind of summa of television 'left', no fancy shots unsettling than this guideline granite. The very choice of the guests appeared in a certain feeling claustrophobic in its orthodoxy. Even Laura Morante there has been spared. Gianfranco Fini did not represent the progressive universe, but his call is easily explained by the image evoked strong antiberlusconiana which is now thinking of the Speaker of the House. Only the presence
yesterday, Roberto Maroni, it has seemed in some ways a bolt from the blue, a gash in the fabric of transmission, but we all know that this is a lightning suffered neck ob wrong (although, with unintentional humor, The presenter has said that, if the Minister in the study had been immediately appreciated by the Minister, unless the ironic thing, before and after).
This background makes the atmosphere of camaraderie transmission similar to a basement full of French resistance in occupied France of Vichy: every guest is looked with shining eyes by Fazio, who dismiss him in kisses and embraces almost moved, shakes with under his arm, as if waiting for him behind the scenes a firing squad rather than a few interviews. E 'was even embarrassing phrase that Fazio has whispered to open microphones to Saviano, the end of his monologue, "do not thank you enough!"
Nihil novi sub alone, then?
Maybe not. With 'Come with me', for the first time a broadcast anything but a niche (although the niche is defined only ex post, ie after considering the plays) to keep its center of staging the story and the reporting of social and political phenomenon of the Mafia, was not as yet been made on television. Of course, the language used was quite homogeneous with the vision we have mentioned, with the paradoxical result that the only party mentioned by Saviano, to describe the collusion between gangsters and institution, was the Northern League.
2) The criticism, in part to the transmission show evidence of the previous point. In fact they had a good game all those who do not identify with those values, to observe that 'Come with me has not produced anything that could not first be imagined.
Someone mischievously suggested that it would be easy for anyone to write to table the lineup of the transmission, without a flower Copyright: think of a few representative political, social, cultural, of a certain world.
In fact, for the next episode could be envisaged, Dario For, an old ex-partisan, Gustavo Zagrebelsky, Umberto Eco, a Chilean miner, Luigi De Magistris, what remains of the family Guzzanti, Gianni Vattimo, the father of Carlo Giuliani, and a global justice beaten by police in the Diaz school. List is not real, but entirely plausible. This
for criticism from the right.
Left (Done at the Cricket), the leitmotiv of the critics is Saviano has been criticized for not denouncing and partners enough, it did not have courage, in short - again - has not really brought anything new or shocking. Antiberlusconiano than enough.
3) The language. Far from finding an unusual way to tell the reality, the story seemed entirely classical. Saviano himself has quickly adapted to the small screen by cunning: televised speaking, would be such a big news that he had conceded too much, you were wrong to accuse the League of interacting with the Mafia. A tribune kissed by consensus, saying "Excuse me, but I have not expressed well, I was wrong", that we would not have yet seen. Instead he preferred to be ironic, with the complacency of an adoring audience, on the offending word, "speak", denying that its passage would describe an attitude ran the league with the Mafia. Denying that is, the evidence.
Some apologist 'Come with me', but to find a new transmission, has mentioned the famous lists, as a means of expression not seen yet.
But it is not.
The culture of the lists was not invented by Fazio and Saviano is just the updating of those 'ironic humor and apodictic that we find, for example, in songs like "someone was a communist" Giorgio Gaber "Those that ... "by Whittaker. It is no coincidence that "Those who ... football" was one of the transmissions that have launched Fazio empyrean television.
Finally, there remains some final point to make.
If there are substantial innovations in 'Come with me', if it seems to attend a Mass (laicissima) sung by the usual company around, because we talk about it?
Well, first because he had a great success. It is always worth reflecting on consensus.
We also think that the nine million people are basically just part of the electoral potential of the left.
But in so doing we persist in denying evidence, that there may be good programs on television, even when they express values \u200b\u200bthat do not share.
And watching you come away with me can reward or not, but compared to the level we're used to, in RAI and Mediaset, is mouth-watering.
He then reflect a culture of character as opposed to the liberal - and least of equal dignity - both historically unable to find a similar outlet. This shows that, contrary to what we think, the left has values \u200b\u200beasier, more popular, more immediate communication from the belly of the country. A reflection
Finally, on public television.
Beyond quality of a transmission, it is right that the fee to fund programs so openly sided? It 's a ground fact slimy, slippery, that the definition of quality of a program, leading to judgments of all questionable. In fact, lately the left has given up this canon certain programs justify the second, throwing the audience figures continually rewarding. Was
for Santoro, goes with Fazio. But is it really? O ends up legitimizing any transmission kissed by success, even the grim reality?
In my opinion, the only possible answer, trenchant, is that in a country like Italy there should be a public television.
0 comments:
Post a Comment