Viva Zapatero! (2005) Movie Script
When l saw them at the theatre,
l never imaged l'd be one of them.
Then it just happened.
l am a buffoon.
My last television appearance
caused a terrible uproar.
Demonstrations, insults, protests.
This can be a source of honour
to someone in my field.
But the applause
wasn't only for me.
lt was also for Silvio Berlusconi
and mostly to the people
who allowed him to go so far.
Before being elected he swore
he would never take advantage of his
overwhelming power over the media.
But less than a year later,
he delivered his ''Sofia Edict''...
The use that Biagi...
..the other guy ?
Santoro... okay, but the other one ?
..and Luttazzi
have made of public television,
paid for with public money,
is criminal.
You work for a public service !
Control yourself, Santoro !
Right, l work
for a public service,
not for you, Berlusconi.
l've been inviting Berlusconi
on the show for two months,
but he won't come.
l've even written letters
but he won't reply.
lt's a pity, because my first question
would be about his past.
l'd ask him: ''Berlusconi,
where did you get your money ?''
Because no one knows.
But luckily,
this book has just come out:
it's called ''The Scent of Money''
and sheds light on this mystery.
Tonight's guest is the author,
Marco Travaglio.
l think the new administration
has the duty of
preventing this from happening again.
After the Travaglio interview,
four lawsuits were filed:
one by Silvio Berlusconi
for 20 billion,
one by his party,
Forza ltalia, for 1 1 ,
and his two corporations, Fininvest,
for 5 and Mediaset, also for 5.
A total of 41 billion.
l've been trying to go back
to work for over two years.
l've done everything
humanly possible.
l've been through every court in ltaly
and even been proved right.
A magistrate has requested
that l be reinstated in my job.
l haven't heard from anyone since.
Mr. Sacc sent the letter
that terminated my contract
with advice of delivery,
which is the thing
l find most offensive.
l was fired
by advice of delivery !
So l wouldn't be able to say
no one told me !
To make sure
l really knew l was fired.
- l, on behalf of my electors...
- You're only one person !
Yes, our coalition,
Casa delle Libert !
We believe it's a matter of freedom
to not have to hear
someone compare us to the Mafia,
or Berlusconi to Mussolini,
on public TV.
Biagi did a show
in which l was present,
so l can tell you
l heard him compare
Berlusconi to Mussolini.
That cannot happen,
it's a matter of freedom.
Why can't it happen ?
Why can't someone compare
Berlusconi to Mussolini ?
Why can't someone compare...
at 8:30 p.m. or 12:30 p.m.,
or 6:30 p.m. or midnight...
Berlusconi to Mussolini ?
Santoro had been a successful
talk show host for 15 years
and was replaced by
a Berlusconi employee.
Enzo Biagi, the most
popular journalist in ltaly,
a RAl employee
for more than 40 years,
the one who announced
the end of fascism and Nazism,
was replaced by someone
from Berlusconi's press office.
The only questions
allowed now are like this...
ls Kerry's defeat and Bush's victory
a lesson for the Left ?
God willing...
Current affairs shows
are full of recipes.
ln ltaly, the production of
olive oil is very important,
even in Lazio.
Oven-baked pasta,
a classic ltalian family recipe.
From starter to dessert:
foie gras.
And a certain Bruno Vespa
has been entrusted
with 90% of
the in-depth analysis of the news.
The Virgin Mary crying blood
is quite shocking as it is.
When did your daughter
first see the Virgin Mary ?
- The 2nd of February.
- The day the statue of Mary cried ?
You mean the tears ?
No,
the statue crying is one thing,
the vision of
the Holy Virgin is another.
lsn't this whole thing surprising ?
No, because...
..it goes along with
the other things that are happening.
ls it serious ? What does it mean ?
lt means that...
..there's no real opposition...
l don't mean
regarding the basic ideals,
l mean daily life,
the protection of our citizens,
the freedom of the people.
So why didn't the previous
centre-left government
pass a law to protect its citizens
from Berlusconi's overwhelming power
over the media ?
And when asked
for an explanation,
why did they always seem annoyed ?
This has been said
at least 100 times now.
As in all of human behaviour,
mistakes happen.
A law like that
would have looked like
He'd just lost
the 1996 election
and his coalition was saying
that Berlusconi was washed up
and they wanted
to bet on another horse.
At that stage,
to attack him
with a law on conflict of interest,
would have been a risk...
not worth running.
lt was a mistake.
The effects of that mistake
were devastating to our country.
One of them is that the parliament
is constantly bogged down
with Silvio Berlusconi's dilemmas.
People protest but
the opposition is never behind
the organization of those protests.
They actually react hostile
to mass mobilization.
One law Berlusconi made for himself
is the notorious Gasparri law.
lt guarantees Berlusconi's right
to keep his monopoly of ltalian TV,
removes the requirement
he give up one of his three channels
and enlarges his possibilities
of future gain and expansion.
So when Paolo Ruffini,
the general manager of RAl 3,
chosen by the opposition among
a list the majority felt cozy with,
asked me
to do a new satire show,
l decided to dedicate the first
episode to the Gasparri law.
And to make it known l wouldn't
go along with the current trend,
l called it ''RAlot''.
Four days before it was to air,
a press conference took place.
Ruffini expressed
his satisfaction of ''RAlot''.
l'm especially pleased
with this show.
lt explores satire with intelligence
and innovation.
The writing skill
is really exceptional here.
But the same person,
a few hours before transmission,
called and said he'd decided
to cancel the show.
We went into this little room
and he asked me
if l wanted to sit down !
And then he said:
''They've cancelled the show.''
l thought it was a joke.
He said that the political climate...
probably wasn't appropriate...
it wasn't right, it was too risky...
l was extremely perplexed.
My collaborators and l
scheduled a press conference
to protest this injustice.
Ruffini changed his mind again
and the first episode was aired.
Ladies and gentlemen, good evening !
l chose to appear with a sword
as to say if it's my turn
to kick the bucket, l'm ready.
You know that ltaly
is ranked 53rd worldwide
for freedom of information.
Has anyone mentioned that on TV ?
Was it on the news ?
No.
lf it had been,
we wouldn't be in 53rd position.
Minister Gasparri,
many say your law
legitimises the existing monopolies
instead of solving problems.
lt's beneficial
to Berlusconi's corporation, Mediaset.
That's paranoia.
There was always someone at school
who got straight F's
and said
the teacher had it in for him.
People always find controversy.
l must not have explained myself...
Many people criticize your ''SlC'',
integrated communication system.
Let's use Coca-Cola as an example.
Coca-Cola has a dominant position
among carbonated drinks.
So does orange soda.
Orange soda
isn't in a dominant position.
To stop Coca-Cola
from being dominant,
l extend the definition ''drink''
to all liquids
like whiskey, river water,
sea water and ocean water.
Then l say:
''Look at all the water in the world !''
Coca-Cola is no longer
the dominant liquid.
But that's a trick.
But it's also a shame.
l like Coca-Cola as it is.
l don't want river
or sea or ocean water in it.
Coke is good as it is.
Why add other things to it ?
A message to all channels.
While travelling and meeting
many other important people
throughout the global world,
l've been told that in ltaly,
mass media
is in the hands of a single person.
l want you to know,
we're looking and we will find him.
The public was enthusiastic,
viewing figures skyrocketed.
None of the following episodes
was ever aired.
RaiOT SHUT DOWN, lT'S WAR
SABlNA HAS BEEN CANCELLED
How can satire be outlawed
in the year 2000 ?
lt goes against Article 21
of our constitution,
against international law
and the Universal Declaration
of Human Rights.
How can something be censored
despite the people's protests ?
Here's a practical example
of conflict of interest.
RAl needs an excuse
to cancel the programme.
Mediaset, Berlusconi's corporation,
gives them one
announcing
a million euro lawsuit.
RAl's government-appointed managers
suspend the show
even before reading the lawsuit,
claiming to protect the station
from damages.
The 2003 RAl Board of Directors
is made up of
an executive officer, Cattaneo,
with ties to a post-fascist party
and also a friend of
the Berlusconi family,
four advisors chosen by
Berlusconi's administration
and a president chosen
by the opposition
among a list of names
the majority felt cozy with...
Every member of the Board,
including the president, Annunziata,
signed the motion suspending
''RAlot'' forever.
Why didn't you say you can't cancel
the show ? This is a democracy.
But we also had to find a way...
You would have been cancelled...
- Why ?
- Because it was four against one.
But there's no legal basis !
You made me look cross-eyed,
speak dialect and count for fuck-all.
Your opinion of me
isn't going to change !
So, l haven't made myself clear !
As president of RAl
it's my duty to say:
no more satire
unless it's rigorously fenced in.
l'm president and l was chosen
by both the Left and the Right.
l don't count for anything
but l see fences clearly.
We need fences,
they must be established intuitively.
l studied a long time in America and
there's a professional who establishes
fences, the Double Watcher.
Sadly, in ltaly,
we have to get by using intuition.
But we can do it.
One's freedom ends where
the freedom of others starts.
There are about five billion others.
With one fence per person,
that means five billion fences.
lf you can't establish them, it means
you don't have the sensitivity
to work in a public office.
The American language has a lovely
word for fence: ''Guantanamo''.
The debate was
brought to parliament,
to the Watchdog Commission, over
which Berlusconi has a huge majority.
As far as ''RAlot'' is concerned,
there was no censorship
because there was no satire.
What we saw on RAl 3
was a long series of insults
to the prime minister,
to the majority
that supports him in parliament,
and the companies he's set up.
Therefore, it's RAl's duty
to safeguard itself
from the legal consequences
of what it airs.
Guzzanti was wrong
to stage a political rally
and not the satire
for which she was paid.
She's an actress.
Guzzanti should be satisfied
just being a clown, an actress.
lf she wants to change jobs
and join parliament,
there's plenty of room.
And l must say that the average
intelligence of ltalian MPs is such
that she would undoubtedly
be a great success.
Maybe that should be
off the record.
Too late.
Who has the institutional power
to prevent such an abuse of power ?
The president of
the Watchdog Commission.
He could go with his commission
to the ltalian President, Ciampi,
and the leaders of the Chambers
and say ''A law has been broken.
Something must be done.''
But Petruccioli,
chosen by the opposition
among a list of names the majority
felt cozy with, did nothing.
That's not true.
Many things happened with ''RAlot''.
We intervened
and forced the executives
and Board of Directors...
to publicly deal with the problem.
The problem is much more general.
l would call it a misinterpretation
of satire in ltaly.
News isn't meant
to be reported by jokers,
but by reporters.
And if reporters fail to do it
correctly and thoroughly,
we can't just put comedians
on TV to do it.
That's the problem we have to face
if we want to work out this matter.
Petruccioli's opinion
is included in Mediaset's court case
along with opinions of critics
from the major ltalian newspapers.
''Censuring satire
is inconceivable,
but 'RAlot' isn't satire.''
According to Mediaset's attorneys,
satire should make politicians
appear more human,
more appealing and
relieve social tensions.
ln no way whatsoever
is satire given the right
to contribute to public opinion.
This means that ''satire mustn't
and cannot make people think''.
l was told:
''There's a difference between satire
and making fun.
People often get confused
between what satire is
and simply
making fun of someone.
Making fun of someone
is ridiculing their mishaps.
For example, someone tripping,
an old lady falling,
messing up words,
someone eating too much,
someone grabbing a girl's bum,
someone being obnoxious, etc.
What isn't satire, is making fun.''
What's the criteria for saying
something's not satire ?
You can't just say it's insulting.
Well, it has to be funny.
- lt was very funny.
- lf it makes you cry...
- Satire can be bitter too.
- At least make one smile.
lt did.
At least include something humorous !
- lt was !
- Yes, it was !
But what's your point ?
News reporters
must accept the rules of reporting.
Satirists must accept
the rules of satire.
What are these ''rules of satire'' ?
lt's not a matter of rules,
it's the kind of show you did.
Why are you talking about rules ?
Dario Fo says it's satire,
everyone says it's satire,
satirists and professors
who teach it say it is.
Satire without information
doesn't make sense.
You can't have political satire
without presenting facts.
Aristophanes incorporated
political rallies in his comedies.
And they were called ''parabases''.
The best of the chorus
was the ''choryphaeus''
and he'd step away from the chorus,
get in the front row
so everyone could see
and say: ''l now talk to the city''.
He'd say anything he wanted
about war or politics.
Satire must touch the tragic
situations in a person's life.
lt has to be about politics.
All important plays
from Shakespeare to Marlowe
are full of situations
dealing with politics.
Yet l've been prevented from doing it
so many times.
l was told to act
like an artist, an actor...
Don't bother meddling in...
''Let politicians do politics,
you stick to making us laugh !''
l started doing TV sketches
on a popular French TV show
called ''Nul Par Ailleurs''.
l did political sketches,
not journalism.
Seven or eight years later,
l got tired of just sketches.
Since it was pure entertainment,
the public didn't get the reasons
behind my sketches,
the real meaning of my work.
So l talked to the programmers
at Canal+
and suggested a news programme
that would provide the news
through reporting as well as sketches.
ln one of these sketches,
we killed President Chirac.
lt was a parody
of Tarantino's film ''Pulp Fiction''.
We called it ''Peuple Fiction'',
People Fiction.
The people wanted to know
what happened to Chirac's promises.
See ? lt went off by itself.
Why have you screwed with us ?
Why have you fucked over your people ?
Look...
Have you read the ''Bible'' ?
''l will fight social injustice
so our nation shall prosper.
lf l fail, the sovereign people...
..shall inflict their punishment !''
Yes, l said that.
''France For All'', Page 3, Line 14.
The skill lies
in accepting excess.
lf you say: ''You can go this far,
but no further'',
that's negotiating
but then it's not satire anymore.
Satire might upset you
it might be controversial,
but it relies on the maturity
and the intellectual capacity
of its intended public.
The most popular shows
in France right now
are the satirical ones
and that's the case throughout Europe.
Politics are looked down on so much
that satire works great.
There's one show
that makes fun of Chirac
in a very harsh way.
His character is ridiculous
and an impulsive liar.
A populist,
a very non-serious person.
This goes on in France
every evening.
When democracy is afraid
of caricature,
fears criticism
and fears being laughed at,
it is that democracy
that has problems.
A democracy that's strong
and self-confident,
fair and honest,
isn't afraid of being laughed at.
lt says: ''You're right, l messed up.''
About 300 people work
at the guignol laboratory.
Organizers, dubbers, puppeteers,
make-up artists and writers.
lt is a satirist's paradise.
There's a caricature of everyone,
with no boundaries whatsoever.
Even Berlusconi is here.
They know about him
and listen to our story
very attentively.
One man has
power, media and business.
ls that right ?
Can you talk about it or not ?
Not according to Berlusconi.
According to the Left, you can,
but comedians can't.
So who's going to talk about it ?
No one.
All that matters is
Berlusconi's opinion.
People mock power in France,
no matter who it is.
But that's non-existent in ltaly.
ln ltaly the main trend
of the press
and political commentators
is to fear the powerful,
and to show reverence
no matter who they are,
left or right-winged,
Berlusconi or D'Alema.
You said no more satire
against the royal family.
l said satire is okay
because freedom of opinion is allowed.
As long as it's performed with taste.
When the Dutch Prime Minister
dared make a comment
about a satirical programme because
he said it offended the queen,
he was ridiculed
by every newspaper.
lt only led to
yet another sketch being inspired.
Every week we enjoy watching
yours as well as other
satirical programmes.
There's only one problem.
lt's too polite, not harsh enough
and too politically correct.
But how did the ltalian press
react to our situation ?
They dedicated
a lot of space to it,
hundreds of articles were printed.
Mostly saying
the problem wasn't censorship,
it was the programme.
l expected Santoro, Biagi, Luttazzi
and Guzzanti's getting fired
would result in a revolt
of RAl journalists.
lnterventions,
television strikes...
But none of that happened.
Maybe since at first...
no ''phone calls'' are being made,
it looks like everyone...
is against censorship.
But the people up high
have the ability...
to make a few phone calls
as long as it's all done
in 24-36 hours.
lt's always that way...
a few calls come in
and then
the diversionary tactics start.
The diversionary tactic this time was:
''lt was obscene, smut...''
LET'S NOT SAY CENSORSHlP
TO SOMETHlNG OF BAD TASTE
''lt's not humour, it's journalism.''
Then controversy grows
and the facts get altered.
lt's easier to see now
as you look back at the series
of events that occurred.
We should have considered
the event as a whole
instead of focussing on one aspect
or another of the programme.
When the press feels that
a certain thing
isn't worth the fight for politicians
they end up letting it go,
even when...
they react positively at first,
like in this case.
A defamatory campaign
was started
in order to change the way
censorship was seen by the public.
DELUSlONS OF GRANDEUR
lDEOLOGlCAL KlLLlNG
PUBLlC LlTTERER
TAKE YOUR PAYCHECK
AND SHUT UP
MADWOMAN
MARTYR JACK-OFF SESSlONS
Even the ''Riformista''
took part in the defamatory campaign
and it's supposed to be
a left-winged paper.
They said: ''A hysterical soliloquy
against the PM.''
''Good thing it was cancelled,
public TV isn't Hyde Park Corner
where anyone can
voice their opinion.''
''lt was political propaganda
just dying to get censored.''
CRAP
The point is this...
l'm against mixing news and satire,
actually l'm against...
substituting one for the other
due to the particular abnormality
of ltalian media.
You can't say that
since ltalian TV news is ridiculous,
comedians can broadcast the news.
l'm not saying that the problem
with news on TV is ''RAlot''
or Sabina Guzzanti,
l'm not saying that.
l'm saying that RAlot
is not the solution to the problem.
But they cancelled it anyway.
You said it wasn't censorship
so they had a right to cancel it ?
That's what amazes me.
Not the right to cancel it,
just not air it.
l remember l was upset right then
but then l started a tour.
And during rehearsals
some good news came in.
lt wasn't going to take years
to find out who won.
The judge filed the case
on grounds that
Berlusconi's lawsuit was unfounded.
''There was no defamation because
it was a satirical programme
and therefore
can make use of sarcasm.
ln addition, everything
that was said was basically true.''
The problem is that
according to our constitution,
monopolies cannot exist.
No one is allowed to control
such a large amount of mass media
or advertising resources.
Then how did Berlusconi
manage to do that ?
His political connections and
especially his friendship with Craxi.
Because of
these political connections,
Berlusconi enjoyed
unlimited credit from banks
and the market went crazy.
He bought ''Thorn Birds''
for an unbelievable amount of money
and no one said a word.
And his membership
in the Masonic lodge P2
was a great advantage to Berlusconi
because a lot of men in key positions
at major ltalian banks,
belonged
to the Masonic lodge run-amok, P2.
Even Tax Police generals
belonged to P2,
the ones who were supposed
to do tax inspections.
Not all of them, obviously,
but many of them.
This brief introduction
may help answer the question:
''How could Silvio Berlusconi
be so good at his business matters
but be so untalented
when dealing with our issues ?''
The answer is that
he isn't really a self-made man.
lt has little to do
with his business capacities...
So...
if the things
that were said are true ?
lf what was said were true ?
lmplicitly... what...
can we deduce from that ?
That our parliament
is full of previous offenders ?
What can we deduce from this ?
That our prime minister
uses his position
for personal wealth ?
lf these horrible things
were true,
then our leaders who allow
and have allowed him to do that...
what kind of leaders are they ?
Leaders who
we should kick out immediately !
And if their intentions were good,
why then after the case was dropped,
why didn't the ''censors''
let us back on ?
Good morning, can we interview you ?
lf you'd asked me 5 minutes ago...
- 3 minutes ?
- 5 minutes ago l'd have said yes.
Good morning,
can we interview you please ?
We're conducting an inquiry
about ''RAlot''.
- We wanted your opinion.
- No opinion.
So you can't say
l'm not giving you a chance...
- ..to justify your actions.
- l'm busy.
Excuse me, can we ask you
a few questions about ''RAlot'' ?
Seeing as the show was cancelled
because of legal problems
and that the case was dismissed,
do you think
l could go back on air ?
Do you realise that you've violated
article 21 of the Constitution
that says everyone has
the right to free expression,
and that you made up an excuse
to cancel the show ?
Your position is very interesting.
l'm not sure whether
l agree on everything you say
but there must be something.
lf it got cancelled,
there must be a reason.
What ?
l think it was just an excuse.
- The Mediaset lawsuit...
- You think they were excuses !
The executives and Board
evaluated the situation
and found the show damaging
to the station's interests.
- That's why it was closed.
- But the lawsuit was unfounded.
People should evaluate
the grounds of their case first.
Or l could just sue any programme
and you'd shut it down, but you can't.
There were even some papers,
not right-winged ones,
that emphasized:
''RAl must defend itself
if they're sued.
They wanted billions,
RAl can't take such a big risk.''
''Let's wait and let
the courts make a decision first.''
- l read that.
- lt's insane, isn't it ?
lt's outrageous
because you should
make decisions based on facts,
not probabilities.
Otherwise
the risk of blackmail
would halt all forms of expression.
lf you make comments on things
you got from papers,
but they don't want you
to talk about it,
they sue you for billions.
Therefore you can never
mention it again
and you're dragged into a long case
involving, time, money, etc...
One can conclude then
that currently in ltaly
they're admitting that corporations
have gagged mass media.
- Have you been sued ?
- Yes.
lt was just to scare me or...
they would have sued the paper too.
But it doesn't explain
why one person was picked on
out of a larger context.
Usually the case is made
against the paper who published it
but they only sued me
so l assume it was just a threat
which l can deal with in my work.
- You're used to it ?
- Yes.
Agnes wanted 10 million euros...
- 29.
- 29 million euros ?
Yes, because of the pay number issue.
And Telecom wanted billions.
This time
we're talking about 500,000 euros.
Cut it down just a little
and l'll pay...
gladly...
since l can afford to do it
a couple times a year.
At least l write about
the things you should.
- So it's our fault ?
- A little.
You're avoiding the responsibility.
So we have to join Alex Zanotelli,
Luigi Ciotti and a few rock singers
because they're the only ones
who talk about facts anymore.
There's no point in writing for
the Corriere, they won't publish it.
lt's happened at least 10 times,
l get angry on your behalf.
They send you out on a job,
you wait in lines...
You take notes and they only publish
a few words of what you wrote.
- Maybe.
- You should get angry !
Who said l don't ? But...
You should rebel !
lf what l said was true,
why did audiences
learn about them
on a satire show ?
Maybe RAlot was the proof
that ltalian news is a farce.
The surprise.
Good evening.
Can we hear a duet
between Apicella and Berlusconi ?
Let's do a world premiere,
something never done before
like ''Jealousy''.
Did you write the lyrics ?
This song
is dedicated to my wife.
Let's put the mike here,
or the sound will be distorted.
Move the mike away,
l have to teach you everything !
l just can't describe
Bruno Vespa's ''Porta a Porta''.
My paper asked me
to do a piece
on TV programmes
and freedom of the press.
l just can't describe
''Porta a Porta''
to the French public.
There's no equivalent.
There is no single figure
who manages so much of the media,
so much real power...
not virtual power !
That doesn't exist so l've never
been able to write about it.
For me, TV journalism doesn't mean
talking about cheese
or giving the microphone
to whoever's in power at the moment.
Journalism is independent,
it means asking questions.
And, above all,
following up on them.
A politician from the Left
or the Right can talk rubbish
but the second question is crucial
because it exposes him.
lt exposes him !
ltalian journalists today
have a huge responsibility
but they often
end up being cowards.
lt's sad to say,
but this way of keeping a low profile,
of not getting to the bottom of things
and not making a decision...
makes journalism in ltaly
as despicable a profession
as politics is.
Hello, Minister.
Can we talk for a minute ?
lt's the one year anniversary
since ''RAlot'' was axed.
The judge threw the case out
and what we said was true,
so why can't we go back on the air ?
The show being suspended
didn't depend on me.
l think you said questionable things
but there was no
face-to-face discussion.
lt was satire, that isn't required.
This is a serious matter.
Satire is one thing,
debate is another.
And that was satire.
- lt's like that in every country.
- No, it isn't.
You mentioned this law without
letting anyone stick up for it.
That was your choice,
so it's a matter of being fair.
A law the President did not sign !
lt was approved by parliament
then signed by him.
The law l mentioned
was found unconstitutional...
- ..and wasn't signed.
- Not because of the reasons you gave.
Turn off the cameras...
Okay, it's true.
l didn't write or even read my law.
l just can't !
l start reading it at night
and fall asleep !
- You pass out.
- Yes !
lt's crazy !
- Can you do me a favour ?
- Of course.
Could you write a summary,
or Cliff Notes of my law ?
Just like twenty pages
so l know what it says.
And while you're at it...
since some of your questions
put me on the spot,
write down some hard questions
and the answers too, okay ?
Like: ''People say someone
from Mediaset wrote the law'' ?
Exactly...
l wouldn't know what to say !
- lt would put you on the spot ?
- Like totally !
l'd have to say:
''Mediaset... like what's that ?''
People don't want to hear
insults and gratuitous spite.
But viewing figures were high,
people liked it.
People don't want to hear...
The camera's not on me anymore, so...
- Here it is.
- l was waiting for it to come back.
The public doesn't want to hear...
But people do,
there's no doubt.
Satire can't be insulting.
People want that, you can't deny it.
lt's you lot who don't.
The public liked it.
No, l don't think people want to see
vulgar and coarse satire.
Have you asked the public ?
Because people protested.
Thousands of people.
Look, l'm a colleague
of your father's
and he's from the Centre-Right.
You asked to cancel it,
not the public.
l discussed it with your father,
who's a Centre-Right senator.
l'm an adult,
l don't ask my father's permission.
No, but since he's a senator...
one might want to consult him too.
- What's your point ?
- My point is...
we all represent our electorate.
The electorate didn't elect you
to cancel TV shows you don't like
and to monopolize the media.
- They wouldn't have voted for you.
- Of course !
But that's what you've done.
Santoro, Biagi, Luttazzi,
me, Tagliafico...
anyone who has a different opinion
than you !
Those who can't express themselves
in TV, like me,
are in parliament or somewhere else
saying what
there's no point in saying on TV.
Why is there no point ? Who says
you can't express yourself on TV ?
Lilli Gruber, Santoro
and the others you've mentioned,
all use TV as a means
of breaking into politics.
l was politically active
outside parliament for 20 years
so you can do the same.
But l'm not active in a party,
l'm fighting for people to know
what laws our parliament passes.
l'm fighting so people
can exercise their right to criticise.
l want to exercise
my right to criticize on TV.
People have a right to express
other opinions on TV, don't they ?
And l want to exercise
my right to criticize saying...
You don't criticize,
you cancel shows.
..that l don't agree with
your idea of what satire is.
That isn't satire,
it's gratuitous vulgarity.
- Name one vulgar thing.
- Forget it.
l won't forget it.
''Vulgar'' is not an appropriate term.
Can you guarantee that everything
l say will go on the programme ?
lf you say something interesting.
Go ahead.
We haven't finished.
Tell me something.
Haven't you found anything
worth including ?
Goodbye and good luck.
Good luck to all us ltalians
under the fascist regime.
See you when you get your show back
and l can criticize it again.
How will l get it back
when you've thrown us all out ?
As soon as possible,
because l like criticizing it.
But you cancelled my show,
you didn't criticize it.
You cancelled the show.
lt didn't work out for you !
lt wasn't a coming into office,
it was a seizing of power.
l always wrote in my editorials
that in this sense,
their concept is revolutionary.
Technically.
Revolutionary in the ''Thatcherist''
or ''Reaganist'' meaning of the word.
Or even more...
the beginning of a new era.
This man is the prime minister
of ltaly.
lt's all mine:
ltalian TV, newspapers...
l pass the laws l want, everything...
Of course l am a fascist.
So what ? Fascism is good !
Fuck everyone !
Such a catastrophe
could even happen here in France.
We had the habit in our house
to bind the newspapers
according to year.
When l was little
l'd climb my father's bookshelf
and get these big books
of newspapers down.
l used to wonder
why they didn't understand.
At first there were so many people
who later became anti-fascist
and even joined the Resistance,
who took part...
They'd say very weak things like:
''Despite everything,
ltaly is still democratic'', etc...
And that is how l realized
how fascism came to be.
Going through all the pages
of these newspapers,
l saw the rise of fascism
as a comic strip.
Each volume
got more and more fascist.
And so on.
And at the final issue of that year,
it was full-blown fascism.
lL DUCE FOUNDS AN EMPlRE
Back then, persuasion meant
intimidating, physically scaring.
Now persuasion is intimidating
and psychologically scaring
until you realize
your career is on the line,
along with your future,
the jobs you might have.
You see people who get rewarded
while you're left behind
so you decide
to jump on the bandwagon.
Then the European Parliament and
the lnternational Press Federation
and even the UN in 2005
expressed great concern
for the diminishing freedom
of expression in ltaly.
''Freedom House'',
an important international observer,
ranked ltaly at 77th place
in the world
for freedom of expression,
after several South American
and African countries.
Up until 2002
ltaly was considered a free country
but became
a partly free country in 2004.
A regime wins points
when the opposition keeps quiet.
They think that by keeping quiet
and putting up with
minor violations of a democracy...
l don't mean deportations
or assassinations,
but instances of censorship
and aggression towards individuals.
Believing that being the opposition
means complaining too much...
''Lowering your tone'', etc.
This strengthens the regime
and its power of impunity.
That is historical experience.
Can we list some cases of censorship
you included in your book ?
We all know the personal cases.
They chose a few
to teach everyone a lesson.
Like Biagi, Santoro,
Luttazzi, Freccero,
Sabina Guzzanti and Paolo Rossi.
- More money !
- Money ! Money !
More and more money !
l took this farce of Molire's
and adapted it to our situation.
l'm one of you,
so don't forget it.
Someone who used to be
where you are now
and who's now
where you'll never be !
l'm here, but especially...
We had 1 .2 million viewers
at 1 a.m. on the first night.
The next day
the ltalian Associated Press called
asking why it was interrupted
after the first act.
l called RAl
but no one seemed to know why.
ln the first press release,
they said it was blasphemous
and in the second,
that my words were too harsh.
We believe in freedom
in all its multiple and vital forms.
Even taking away freedoms
is a form of freedom.
For the first time,
l decided to break the cycle
of censor censuring
and the censured complaining
and refuse to let the thing die.
So l decided to file a lawsuit.
Ferruccio De Bortoli is a perfect
example in the world of press.
They established a precedent.
They can fire
the editor-in-chief of a newspaper,
even if they don't own it.
l gave up the editorship
of ''Corriere della Sera'' a year ago.
lt was a completely
personal decision.
lt's no secret that l had problems
with the prime minister
and it's no secret
that his lawyers are persisting
with various lawsuits.
l must say that l find this
to be rather significant
of a pathology in the system.
Unfortunately in ltaly,
the phenomenon exists
of ''who doesn't agree with me,
is the enemy,
therefore allied with
those who are against me.''
You can't have professionals
who are allowed to perform
their job fairly, sometimes bravely.
We've lost the ''Corriere''
and ltalian democracy
has lost its most
important newspaper.
The newspaper is lost.
The new editor-in-chief
is honest and respectable,
but he is not like
my friend, ex-editor De Bortoli.
lt's a scandal
that they fired Biagi...
..and Santoro.
Excuse me.
lf they're capable
of firing Biagi and Santoro,
they could easily fire us,
we're less important !
And no one could do anything,
not even raise an eyebrow
because Berlusconi is ruthless !
Then we got involved with
the daily cases of censorship
at TG1 , radio news reports...
Often editors say
to their reporters:
''l got a 'phone call'.
We can't talk about this anymore''.
lt happens all the time,
it's a matter of numbers.
- This seriously ?
- Never so violently.
Entire stories
were not allowed to be mentioned.
Even page formats !
News stories aren't prioritised
according to journalistic standards.
lt's a completely different matter,
it's political.
And there are cases
of structural censorship
like what happened with Channel 7,
it was ''preventive''.
''Since Channel 7
is an independent station,
let's kill it from the start,
so it can't be independent.
We'll have someone
who we can control buy it,
we'll do favours for him,
and he'll do some for us.
We'll make sure he doesn't call
the people we kick off other channels
otherwise it's pointless.''
ls the prime minister happy about
the new independent channel ?
- Are you happy ?
- What the hell !
- What the hell are you saying ?
- But it's a for-profit TV station.
- lt's a disgrace !
- Why ?
ls the profit for me
or someone else ?
- Someone else.
- Well, then !
- l see...
- That's a conflict of interest !
- How ?
- lt is, all right !
But, Mr Prime Minister...
You either have democracy,
or censorship.
The two things
cannot coexist.
lf what happened to people
like Santoro, Biagi, Luttazzi,
Tagliafico, Rossi, etc, etc,
was censorship,
all our members of parliament...
would have nailed themselves
to their seats.
They would have gone
on hunger strike !
Yet our members of parliament
still hesitate to
use the word censorship !
Let's say right now...
RAl...
is noticing...
some restriction on pluralism
that l'll have to explain better...
The opposition is somehow
going along with
the rules of the game
because they accepted them.
Because they're playing the game.
Because from that point of view,
l think...
one side decided
to stop attacking for real.
To stop pressing the question
as long as they could keep
the little they had.
l don't think the opposition
has any idea what's going on.
lf tomorrow all the present
party leaders came back,
they'd still make 90% of the same
mistakes they made in 1996
and would still be trying
to get their men back in.
The opposition has to realize
they need a new concept,
a revolution of the ltalian
television and radio system.
They need to give up
control of television.
Zapatero was elected
and immediately started
abolishing the law
that let the prime minister
appoint public TV executives.
l hope that is irreversible
and that people in ltaly want it too
once the regime has fallen,
if it ever does.
Because it's not tolerable
that political parties
appoint public television.
The problem goes beyond Berlusconi
because politicians took
possession of RAl
long before Berlusconi
ever got into politics.
He got involved and took advantage
of a situation
other people had created.
That's why Centre-Left parties
don't say a word
about this kind of logic,
they see nothing strange about it.
ln 2003 a Left party leader made
shocking declarations to the House.
Very few ltalians
were ever aware of it.
Berlusconi knows that in 1994
he was guaranteed that
his corporation wouldn't be touched
if the government changed.
He knows and
and so does Honourable Letta.
But you called us
a ''regime'' back then
even though we didn't pass
a law against conflict of interest,
we allowed Berlusconi to run
for office despite his media license
and Mediaset's sales jumped
while we had the majority...
On behalf of which of your voters
were these decisions made ?
And in the interest of whom ?
Some of the laws
most detrimental to the Centre-Left
and most favourable
to Berlusconi and his cronies
were made
when the Centre-Left had majority.
l'm talking about
white-collar crime laws,
laws regarding public television
that saved Mediaset's Channel 4,
the shelving of
the Anti-Corruption Commission,
the laws on conflict of interest.
Why did Berlusconi cause the
two-Chamber commission to fail after
the Centre-Left made laws
that were not in
the interest of the general public,
but were laws that Berlusconi
and his cronies asked for ?
ln February 2005, Furio Colombo,
after a long struggle
with left-wing leaders,
was forced to resign from
the leftist paper Unit
since it questioned
Berlusconi's legitimacy
more than any other newspaper.
Why were so many of them persuaded
that it's wrong and damaging
to so passionately deal with
the man that is so determined
to ruin the country,
freedom and the constitution
and regurgitate fascism,
moral, psychological
and political poverty
as well as pre-Nazi thought
like that of the Northern League ?
Why must one want
to communicate
with someone
we don't want to listen to
because he has nothing to tell us ?
This is the mystery
l leave you with.
''Freedom means saying 2 + 2 = 4.
lf that is granted, all else follows''
said Orwell.
What is obvious, ridiculous and true
must be defended.
lt's obvious that if our freedom
of expression is restricted,
whoever governs
can do whatever he wants.
Think about me,
who by law cannot run for office
or even become a representative, is
now prime minister of the country !
That is so exhilarating !
This should give
every citizen lots of hope !
Just relax.
Using money nobody knows
where it came from !
And even though everyone knew it,
no one stopped me !
The opposition was elected
so they'd pass a law
against conflict of interest
and they didn't even do it !
They see all my china
and drop to their knees !
So l generously tell them:
''Help yourselves''.
Yes.
When they axed ''RAlot'',
we performed it live
and fellow artists, jokesters
and musicians all came.
For the first time,
more than 100 small stations
tuned in by satellite
so it was seen all over ltaly
on TV and the lnternet.
ln many towns, public viewings
were organized in theatres.
We raised hell !
l want to be free to talk and listen.
Since RAl
won't let us watch it,
we had to go somewhere
where we could.
We're here to protect
what freedom we have left.
The funny thing is that we didn't
come to laugh but we're having fun.
l've gone up and down
this corridor ten times.
You can't imagine
what's going on out there.
A message for the people
outside the auditorium.
Please do not push
and ruin this celebration.
Thank you.
- Tell them there's no more room.
- But there's a giant screen.
They can see it there.
- Do you see it ?
- That's outside ?
Hello and thanks for coming.
l'd like to tell
all the people outside the gate
that you alone are 15,000 people.
They go all the way to the bus stop.
Revolution is possible
here in the corridor.
ln this white light.
lt's not a coincidence
that we're like a spaceship.
The Centre-Left
has to get a move on.
They should run
a freedom of information campaign.
lf they don't,
it's their problem, not the Right's.
When the Left was in power,
they didn't do anything.
For future memory,
the freedom we have now
we fought for ourselves.
And freedom isn't the chance
to vote against ourselves.
For future memory,
so many people came
it looked like a miracle.
So many people came there was
no reason to worry anymore.
l am a buffoon
and l did my job so
seeing the people was the reward.
And l wasn't
the only one to see.
There were many witnesses,
including you.
lt wasn't funny at all !
l never imaged l'd be one of them.
Then it just happened.
l am a buffoon.
My last television appearance
caused a terrible uproar.
Demonstrations, insults, protests.
This can be a source of honour
to someone in my field.
But the applause
wasn't only for me.
lt was also for Silvio Berlusconi
and mostly to the people
who allowed him to go so far.
Before being elected he swore
he would never take advantage of his
overwhelming power over the media.
But less than a year later,
he delivered his ''Sofia Edict''...
The use that Biagi...
..the other guy ?
Santoro... okay, but the other one ?
..and Luttazzi
have made of public television,
paid for with public money,
is criminal.
You work for a public service !
Control yourself, Santoro !
Right, l work
for a public service,
not for you, Berlusconi.
l've been inviting Berlusconi
on the show for two months,
but he won't come.
l've even written letters
but he won't reply.
lt's a pity, because my first question
would be about his past.
l'd ask him: ''Berlusconi,
where did you get your money ?''
Because no one knows.
But luckily,
this book has just come out:
it's called ''The Scent of Money''
and sheds light on this mystery.
Tonight's guest is the author,
Marco Travaglio.
l think the new administration
has the duty of
preventing this from happening again.
After the Travaglio interview,
four lawsuits were filed:
one by Silvio Berlusconi
for 20 billion,
one by his party,
Forza ltalia, for 1 1 ,
and his two corporations, Fininvest,
for 5 and Mediaset, also for 5.
A total of 41 billion.
l've been trying to go back
to work for over two years.
l've done everything
humanly possible.
l've been through every court in ltaly
and even been proved right.
A magistrate has requested
that l be reinstated in my job.
l haven't heard from anyone since.
Mr. Sacc sent the letter
that terminated my contract
with advice of delivery,
which is the thing
l find most offensive.
l was fired
by advice of delivery !
So l wouldn't be able to say
no one told me !
To make sure
l really knew l was fired.
- l, on behalf of my electors...
- You're only one person !
Yes, our coalition,
Casa delle Libert !
We believe it's a matter of freedom
to not have to hear
someone compare us to the Mafia,
or Berlusconi to Mussolini,
on public TV.
Biagi did a show
in which l was present,
so l can tell you
l heard him compare
Berlusconi to Mussolini.
That cannot happen,
it's a matter of freedom.
Why can't it happen ?
Why can't someone compare
Berlusconi to Mussolini ?
Why can't someone compare...
at 8:30 p.m. or 12:30 p.m.,
or 6:30 p.m. or midnight...
Berlusconi to Mussolini ?
Santoro had been a successful
talk show host for 15 years
and was replaced by
a Berlusconi employee.
Enzo Biagi, the most
popular journalist in ltaly,
a RAl employee
for more than 40 years,
the one who announced
the end of fascism and Nazism,
was replaced by someone
from Berlusconi's press office.
The only questions
allowed now are like this...
ls Kerry's defeat and Bush's victory
a lesson for the Left ?
God willing...
Current affairs shows
are full of recipes.
ln ltaly, the production of
olive oil is very important,
even in Lazio.
Oven-baked pasta,
a classic ltalian family recipe.
From starter to dessert:
foie gras.
And a certain Bruno Vespa
has been entrusted
with 90% of
the in-depth analysis of the news.
The Virgin Mary crying blood
is quite shocking as it is.
When did your daughter
first see the Virgin Mary ?
- The 2nd of February.
- The day the statue of Mary cried ?
You mean the tears ?
No,
the statue crying is one thing,
the vision of
the Holy Virgin is another.
lsn't this whole thing surprising ?
No, because...
..it goes along with
the other things that are happening.
ls it serious ? What does it mean ?
lt means that...
..there's no real opposition...
l don't mean
regarding the basic ideals,
l mean daily life,
the protection of our citizens,
the freedom of the people.
So why didn't the previous
centre-left government
pass a law to protect its citizens
from Berlusconi's overwhelming power
over the media ?
And when asked
for an explanation,
why did they always seem annoyed ?
This has been said
at least 100 times now.
As in all of human behaviour,
mistakes happen.
A law like that
would have looked like
He'd just lost
the 1996 election
and his coalition was saying
that Berlusconi was washed up
and they wanted
to bet on another horse.
At that stage,
to attack him
with a law on conflict of interest,
would have been a risk...
not worth running.
lt was a mistake.
The effects of that mistake
were devastating to our country.
One of them is that the parliament
is constantly bogged down
with Silvio Berlusconi's dilemmas.
People protest but
the opposition is never behind
the organization of those protests.
They actually react hostile
to mass mobilization.
One law Berlusconi made for himself
is the notorious Gasparri law.
lt guarantees Berlusconi's right
to keep his monopoly of ltalian TV,
removes the requirement
he give up one of his three channels
and enlarges his possibilities
of future gain and expansion.
So when Paolo Ruffini,
the general manager of RAl 3,
chosen by the opposition among
a list the majority felt cozy with,
asked me
to do a new satire show,
l decided to dedicate the first
episode to the Gasparri law.
And to make it known l wouldn't
go along with the current trend,
l called it ''RAlot''.
Four days before it was to air,
a press conference took place.
Ruffini expressed
his satisfaction of ''RAlot''.
l'm especially pleased
with this show.
lt explores satire with intelligence
and innovation.
The writing skill
is really exceptional here.
But the same person,
a few hours before transmission,
called and said he'd decided
to cancel the show.
We went into this little room
and he asked me
if l wanted to sit down !
And then he said:
''They've cancelled the show.''
l thought it was a joke.
He said that the political climate...
probably wasn't appropriate...
it wasn't right, it was too risky...
l was extremely perplexed.
My collaborators and l
scheduled a press conference
to protest this injustice.
Ruffini changed his mind again
and the first episode was aired.
Ladies and gentlemen, good evening !
l chose to appear with a sword
as to say if it's my turn
to kick the bucket, l'm ready.
You know that ltaly
is ranked 53rd worldwide
for freedom of information.
Has anyone mentioned that on TV ?
Was it on the news ?
No.
lf it had been,
we wouldn't be in 53rd position.
Minister Gasparri,
many say your law
legitimises the existing monopolies
instead of solving problems.
lt's beneficial
to Berlusconi's corporation, Mediaset.
That's paranoia.
There was always someone at school
who got straight F's
and said
the teacher had it in for him.
People always find controversy.
l must not have explained myself...
Many people criticize your ''SlC'',
integrated communication system.
Let's use Coca-Cola as an example.
Coca-Cola has a dominant position
among carbonated drinks.
So does orange soda.
Orange soda
isn't in a dominant position.
To stop Coca-Cola
from being dominant,
l extend the definition ''drink''
to all liquids
like whiskey, river water,
sea water and ocean water.
Then l say:
''Look at all the water in the world !''
Coca-Cola is no longer
the dominant liquid.
But that's a trick.
But it's also a shame.
l like Coca-Cola as it is.
l don't want river
or sea or ocean water in it.
Coke is good as it is.
Why add other things to it ?
A message to all channels.
While travelling and meeting
many other important people
throughout the global world,
l've been told that in ltaly,
mass media
is in the hands of a single person.
l want you to know,
we're looking and we will find him.
The public was enthusiastic,
viewing figures skyrocketed.
None of the following episodes
was ever aired.
RaiOT SHUT DOWN, lT'S WAR
SABlNA HAS BEEN CANCELLED
How can satire be outlawed
in the year 2000 ?
lt goes against Article 21
of our constitution,
against international law
and the Universal Declaration
of Human Rights.
How can something be censored
despite the people's protests ?
Here's a practical example
of conflict of interest.
RAl needs an excuse
to cancel the programme.
Mediaset, Berlusconi's corporation,
gives them one
announcing
a million euro lawsuit.
RAl's government-appointed managers
suspend the show
even before reading the lawsuit,
claiming to protect the station
from damages.
The 2003 RAl Board of Directors
is made up of
an executive officer, Cattaneo,
with ties to a post-fascist party
and also a friend of
the Berlusconi family,
four advisors chosen by
Berlusconi's administration
and a president chosen
by the opposition
among a list of names
the majority felt cozy with...
Every member of the Board,
including the president, Annunziata,
signed the motion suspending
''RAlot'' forever.
Why didn't you say you can't cancel
the show ? This is a democracy.
But we also had to find a way...
You would have been cancelled...
- Why ?
- Because it was four against one.
But there's no legal basis !
You made me look cross-eyed,
speak dialect and count for fuck-all.
Your opinion of me
isn't going to change !
So, l haven't made myself clear !
As president of RAl
it's my duty to say:
no more satire
unless it's rigorously fenced in.
l'm president and l was chosen
by both the Left and the Right.
l don't count for anything
but l see fences clearly.
We need fences,
they must be established intuitively.
l studied a long time in America and
there's a professional who establishes
fences, the Double Watcher.
Sadly, in ltaly,
we have to get by using intuition.
But we can do it.
One's freedom ends where
the freedom of others starts.
There are about five billion others.
With one fence per person,
that means five billion fences.
lf you can't establish them, it means
you don't have the sensitivity
to work in a public office.
The American language has a lovely
word for fence: ''Guantanamo''.
The debate was
brought to parliament,
to the Watchdog Commission, over
which Berlusconi has a huge majority.
As far as ''RAlot'' is concerned,
there was no censorship
because there was no satire.
What we saw on RAl 3
was a long series of insults
to the prime minister,
to the majority
that supports him in parliament,
and the companies he's set up.
Therefore, it's RAl's duty
to safeguard itself
from the legal consequences
of what it airs.
Guzzanti was wrong
to stage a political rally
and not the satire
for which she was paid.
She's an actress.
Guzzanti should be satisfied
just being a clown, an actress.
lf she wants to change jobs
and join parliament,
there's plenty of room.
And l must say that the average
intelligence of ltalian MPs is such
that she would undoubtedly
be a great success.
Maybe that should be
off the record.
Too late.
Who has the institutional power
to prevent such an abuse of power ?
The president of
the Watchdog Commission.
He could go with his commission
to the ltalian President, Ciampi,
and the leaders of the Chambers
and say ''A law has been broken.
Something must be done.''
But Petruccioli,
chosen by the opposition
among a list of names the majority
felt cozy with, did nothing.
That's not true.
Many things happened with ''RAlot''.
We intervened
and forced the executives
and Board of Directors...
to publicly deal with the problem.
The problem is much more general.
l would call it a misinterpretation
of satire in ltaly.
News isn't meant
to be reported by jokers,
but by reporters.
And if reporters fail to do it
correctly and thoroughly,
we can't just put comedians
on TV to do it.
That's the problem we have to face
if we want to work out this matter.
Petruccioli's opinion
is included in Mediaset's court case
along with opinions of critics
from the major ltalian newspapers.
''Censuring satire
is inconceivable,
but 'RAlot' isn't satire.''
According to Mediaset's attorneys,
satire should make politicians
appear more human,
more appealing and
relieve social tensions.
ln no way whatsoever
is satire given the right
to contribute to public opinion.
This means that ''satire mustn't
and cannot make people think''.
l was told:
''There's a difference between satire
and making fun.
People often get confused
between what satire is
and simply
making fun of someone.
Making fun of someone
is ridiculing their mishaps.
For example, someone tripping,
an old lady falling,
messing up words,
someone eating too much,
someone grabbing a girl's bum,
someone being obnoxious, etc.
What isn't satire, is making fun.''
What's the criteria for saying
something's not satire ?
You can't just say it's insulting.
Well, it has to be funny.
- lt was very funny.
- lf it makes you cry...
- Satire can be bitter too.
- At least make one smile.
lt did.
At least include something humorous !
- lt was !
- Yes, it was !
But what's your point ?
News reporters
must accept the rules of reporting.
Satirists must accept
the rules of satire.
What are these ''rules of satire'' ?
lt's not a matter of rules,
it's the kind of show you did.
Why are you talking about rules ?
Dario Fo says it's satire,
everyone says it's satire,
satirists and professors
who teach it say it is.
Satire without information
doesn't make sense.
You can't have political satire
without presenting facts.
Aristophanes incorporated
political rallies in his comedies.
And they were called ''parabases''.
The best of the chorus
was the ''choryphaeus''
and he'd step away from the chorus,
get in the front row
so everyone could see
and say: ''l now talk to the city''.
He'd say anything he wanted
about war or politics.
Satire must touch the tragic
situations in a person's life.
lt has to be about politics.
All important plays
from Shakespeare to Marlowe
are full of situations
dealing with politics.
Yet l've been prevented from doing it
so many times.
l was told to act
like an artist, an actor...
Don't bother meddling in...
''Let politicians do politics,
you stick to making us laugh !''
l started doing TV sketches
on a popular French TV show
called ''Nul Par Ailleurs''.
l did political sketches,
not journalism.
Seven or eight years later,
l got tired of just sketches.
Since it was pure entertainment,
the public didn't get the reasons
behind my sketches,
the real meaning of my work.
So l talked to the programmers
at Canal+
and suggested a news programme
that would provide the news
through reporting as well as sketches.
ln one of these sketches,
we killed President Chirac.
lt was a parody
of Tarantino's film ''Pulp Fiction''.
We called it ''Peuple Fiction'',
People Fiction.
The people wanted to know
what happened to Chirac's promises.
See ? lt went off by itself.
Why have you screwed with us ?
Why have you fucked over your people ?
Look...
Have you read the ''Bible'' ?
''l will fight social injustice
so our nation shall prosper.
lf l fail, the sovereign people...
..shall inflict their punishment !''
Yes, l said that.
''France For All'', Page 3, Line 14.
The skill lies
in accepting excess.
lf you say: ''You can go this far,
but no further'',
that's negotiating
but then it's not satire anymore.
Satire might upset you
it might be controversial,
but it relies on the maturity
and the intellectual capacity
of its intended public.
The most popular shows
in France right now
are the satirical ones
and that's the case throughout Europe.
Politics are looked down on so much
that satire works great.
There's one show
that makes fun of Chirac
in a very harsh way.
His character is ridiculous
and an impulsive liar.
A populist,
a very non-serious person.
This goes on in France
every evening.
When democracy is afraid
of caricature,
fears criticism
and fears being laughed at,
it is that democracy
that has problems.
A democracy that's strong
and self-confident,
fair and honest,
isn't afraid of being laughed at.
lt says: ''You're right, l messed up.''
About 300 people work
at the guignol laboratory.
Organizers, dubbers, puppeteers,
make-up artists and writers.
lt is a satirist's paradise.
There's a caricature of everyone,
with no boundaries whatsoever.
Even Berlusconi is here.
They know about him
and listen to our story
very attentively.
One man has
power, media and business.
ls that right ?
Can you talk about it or not ?
Not according to Berlusconi.
According to the Left, you can,
but comedians can't.
So who's going to talk about it ?
No one.
All that matters is
Berlusconi's opinion.
People mock power in France,
no matter who it is.
But that's non-existent in ltaly.
ln ltaly the main trend
of the press
and political commentators
is to fear the powerful,
and to show reverence
no matter who they are,
left or right-winged,
Berlusconi or D'Alema.
You said no more satire
against the royal family.
l said satire is okay
because freedom of opinion is allowed.
As long as it's performed with taste.
When the Dutch Prime Minister
dared make a comment
about a satirical programme because
he said it offended the queen,
he was ridiculed
by every newspaper.
lt only led to
yet another sketch being inspired.
Every week we enjoy watching
yours as well as other
satirical programmes.
There's only one problem.
lt's too polite, not harsh enough
and too politically correct.
But how did the ltalian press
react to our situation ?
They dedicated
a lot of space to it,
hundreds of articles were printed.
Mostly saying
the problem wasn't censorship,
it was the programme.
l expected Santoro, Biagi, Luttazzi
and Guzzanti's getting fired
would result in a revolt
of RAl journalists.
lnterventions,
television strikes...
But none of that happened.
Maybe since at first...
no ''phone calls'' are being made,
it looks like everyone...
is against censorship.
But the people up high
have the ability...
to make a few phone calls
as long as it's all done
in 24-36 hours.
lt's always that way...
a few calls come in
and then
the diversionary tactics start.
The diversionary tactic this time was:
''lt was obscene, smut...''
LET'S NOT SAY CENSORSHlP
TO SOMETHlNG OF BAD TASTE
''lt's not humour, it's journalism.''
Then controversy grows
and the facts get altered.
lt's easier to see now
as you look back at the series
of events that occurred.
We should have considered
the event as a whole
instead of focussing on one aspect
or another of the programme.
When the press feels that
a certain thing
isn't worth the fight for politicians
they end up letting it go,
even when...
they react positively at first,
like in this case.
A defamatory campaign
was started
in order to change the way
censorship was seen by the public.
DELUSlONS OF GRANDEUR
lDEOLOGlCAL KlLLlNG
PUBLlC LlTTERER
TAKE YOUR PAYCHECK
AND SHUT UP
MADWOMAN
MARTYR JACK-OFF SESSlONS
Even the ''Riformista''
took part in the defamatory campaign
and it's supposed to be
a left-winged paper.
They said: ''A hysterical soliloquy
against the PM.''
''Good thing it was cancelled,
public TV isn't Hyde Park Corner
where anyone can
voice their opinion.''
''lt was political propaganda
just dying to get censored.''
CRAP
The point is this...
l'm against mixing news and satire,
actually l'm against...
substituting one for the other
due to the particular abnormality
of ltalian media.
You can't say that
since ltalian TV news is ridiculous,
comedians can broadcast the news.
l'm not saying that the problem
with news on TV is ''RAlot''
or Sabina Guzzanti,
l'm not saying that.
l'm saying that RAlot
is not the solution to the problem.
But they cancelled it anyway.
You said it wasn't censorship
so they had a right to cancel it ?
That's what amazes me.
Not the right to cancel it,
just not air it.
l remember l was upset right then
but then l started a tour.
And during rehearsals
some good news came in.
lt wasn't going to take years
to find out who won.
The judge filed the case
on grounds that
Berlusconi's lawsuit was unfounded.
''There was no defamation because
it was a satirical programme
and therefore
can make use of sarcasm.
ln addition, everything
that was said was basically true.''
The problem is that
according to our constitution,
monopolies cannot exist.
No one is allowed to control
such a large amount of mass media
or advertising resources.
Then how did Berlusconi
manage to do that ?
His political connections and
especially his friendship with Craxi.
Because of
these political connections,
Berlusconi enjoyed
unlimited credit from banks
and the market went crazy.
He bought ''Thorn Birds''
for an unbelievable amount of money
and no one said a word.
And his membership
in the Masonic lodge P2
was a great advantage to Berlusconi
because a lot of men in key positions
at major ltalian banks,
belonged
to the Masonic lodge run-amok, P2.
Even Tax Police generals
belonged to P2,
the ones who were supposed
to do tax inspections.
Not all of them, obviously,
but many of them.
This brief introduction
may help answer the question:
''How could Silvio Berlusconi
be so good at his business matters
but be so untalented
when dealing with our issues ?''
The answer is that
he isn't really a self-made man.
lt has little to do
with his business capacities...
So...
if the things
that were said are true ?
lf what was said were true ?
lmplicitly... what...
can we deduce from that ?
That our parliament
is full of previous offenders ?
What can we deduce from this ?
That our prime minister
uses his position
for personal wealth ?
lf these horrible things
were true,
then our leaders who allow
and have allowed him to do that...
what kind of leaders are they ?
Leaders who
we should kick out immediately !
And if their intentions were good,
why then after the case was dropped,
why didn't the ''censors''
let us back on ?
Good morning, can we interview you ?
lf you'd asked me 5 minutes ago...
- 3 minutes ?
- 5 minutes ago l'd have said yes.
Good morning,
can we interview you please ?
We're conducting an inquiry
about ''RAlot''.
- We wanted your opinion.
- No opinion.
So you can't say
l'm not giving you a chance...
- ..to justify your actions.
- l'm busy.
Excuse me, can we ask you
a few questions about ''RAlot'' ?
Seeing as the show was cancelled
because of legal problems
and that the case was dismissed,
do you think
l could go back on air ?
Do you realise that you've violated
article 21 of the Constitution
that says everyone has
the right to free expression,
and that you made up an excuse
to cancel the show ?
Your position is very interesting.
l'm not sure whether
l agree on everything you say
but there must be something.
lf it got cancelled,
there must be a reason.
What ?
l think it was just an excuse.
- The Mediaset lawsuit...
- You think they were excuses !
The executives and Board
evaluated the situation
and found the show damaging
to the station's interests.
- That's why it was closed.
- But the lawsuit was unfounded.
People should evaluate
the grounds of their case first.
Or l could just sue any programme
and you'd shut it down, but you can't.
There were even some papers,
not right-winged ones,
that emphasized:
''RAl must defend itself
if they're sued.
They wanted billions,
RAl can't take such a big risk.''
''Let's wait and let
the courts make a decision first.''
- l read that.
- lt's insane, isn't it ?
lt's outrageous
because you should
make decisions based on facts,
not probabilities.
Otherwise
the risk of blackmail
would halt all forms of expression.
lf you make comments on things
you got from papers,
but they don't want you
to talk about it,
they sue you for billions.
Therefore you can never
mention it again
and you're dragged into a long case
involving, time, money, etc...
One can conclude then
that currently in ltaly
they're admitting that corporations
have gagged mass media.
- Have you been sued ?
- Yes.
lt was just to scare me or...
they would have sued the paper too.
But it doesn't explain
why one person was picked on
out of a larger context.
Usually the case is made
against the paper who published it
but they only sued me
so l assume it was just a threat
which l can deal with in my work.
- You're used to it ?
- Yes.
Agnes wanted 10 million euros...
- 29.
- 29 million euros ?
Yes, because of the pay number issue.
And Telecom wanted billions.
This time
we're talking about 500,000 euros.
Cut it down just a little
and l'll pay...
gladly...
since l can afford to do it
a couple times a year.
At least l write about
the things you should.
- So it's our fault ?
- A little.
You're avoiding the responsibility.
So we have to join Alex Zanotelli,
Luigi Ciotti and a few rock singers
because they're the only ones
who talk about facts anymore.
There's no point in writing for
the Corriere, they won't publish it.
lt's happened at least 10 times,
l get angry on your behalf.
They send you out on a job,
you wait in lines...
You take notes and they only publish
a few words of what you wrote.
- Maybe.
- You should get angry !
Who said l don't ? But...
You should rebel !
lf what l said was true,
why did audiences
learn about them
on a satire show ?
Maybe RAlot was the proof
that ltalian news is a farce.
The surprise.
Good evening.
Can we hear a duet
between Apicella and Berlusconi ?
Let's do a world premiere,
something never done before
like ''Jealousy''.
Did you write the lyrics ?
This song
is dedicated to my wife.
Let's put the mike here,
or the sound will be distorted.
Move the mike away,
l have to teach you everything !
l just can't describe
Bruno Vespa's ''Porta a Porta''.
My paper asked me
to do a piece
on TV programmes
and freedom of the press.
l just can't describe
''Porta a Porta''
to the French public.
There's no equivalent.
There is no single figure
who manages so much of the media,
so much real power...
not virtual power !
That doesn't exist so l've never
been able to write about it.
For me, TV journalism doesn't mean
talking about cheese
or giving the microphone
to whoever's in power at the moment.
Journalism is independent,
it means asking questions.
And, above all,
following up on them.
A politician from the Left
or the Right can talk rubbish
but the second question is crucial
because it exposes him.
lt exposes him !
ltalian journalists today
have a huge responsibility
but they often
end up being cowards.
lt's sad to say,
but this way of keeping a low profile,
of not getting to the bottom of things
and not making a decision...
makes journalism in ltaly
as despicable a profession
as politics is.
Hello, Minister.
Can we talk for a minute ?
lt's the one year anniversary
since ''RAlot'' was axed.
The judge threw the case out
and what we said was true,
so why can't we go back on the air ?
The show being suspended
didn't depend on me.
l think you said questionable things
but there was no
face-to-face discussion.
lt was satire, that isn't required.
This is a serious matter.
Satire is one thing,
debate is another.
And that was satire.
- lt's like that in every country.
- No, it isn't.
You mentioned this law without
letting anyone stick up for it.
That was your choice,
so it's a matter of being fair.
A law the President did not sign !
lt was approved by parliament
then signed by him.
The law l mentioned
was found unconstitutional...
- ..and wasn't signed.
- Not because of the reasons you gave.
Turn off the cameras...
Okay, it's true.
l didn't write or even read my law.
l just can't !
l start reading it at night
and fall asleep !
- You pass out.
- Yes !
lt's crazy !
- Can you do me a favour ?
- Of course.
Could you write a summary,
or Cliff Notes of my law ?
Just like twenty pages
so l know what it says.
And while you're at it...
since some of your questions
put me on the spot,
write down some hard questions
and the answers too, okay ?
Like: ''People say someone
from Mediaset wrote the law'' ?
Exactly...
l wouldn't know what to say !
- lt would put you on the spot ?
- Like totally !
l'd have to say:
''Mediaset... like what's that ?''
People don't want to hear
insults and gratuitous spite.
But viewing figures were high,
people liked it.
People don't want to hear...
The camera's not on me anymore, so...
- Here it is.
- l was waiting for it to come back.
The public doesn't want to hear...
But people do,
there's no doubt.
Satire can't be insulting.
People want that, you can't deny it.
lt's you lot who don't.
The public liked it.
No, l don't think people want to see
vulgar and coarse satire.
Have you asked the public ?
Because people protested.
Thousands of people.
Look, l'm a colleague
of your father's
and he's from the Centre-Right.
You asked to cancel it,
not the public.
l discussed it with your father,
who's a Centre-Right senator.
l'm an adult,
l don't ask my father's permission.
No, but since he's a senator...
one might want to consult him too.
- What's your point ?
- My point is...
we all represent our electorate.
The electorate didn't elect you
to cancel TV shows you don't like
and to monopolize the media.
- They wouldn't have voted for you.
- Of course !
But that's what you've done.
Santoro, Biagi, Luttazzi,
me, Tagliafico...
anyone who has a different opinion
than you !
Those who can't express themselves
in TV, like me,
are in parliament or somewhere else
saying what
there's no point in saying on TV.
Why is there no point ? Who says
you can't express yourself on TV ?
Lilli Gruber, Santoro
and the others you've mentioned,
all use TV as a means
of breaking into politics.
l was politically active
outside parliament for 20 years
so you can do the same.
But l'm not active in a party,
l'm fighting for people to know
what laws our parliament passes.
l'm fighting so people
can exercise their right to criticise.
l want to exercise
my right to criticize on TV.
People have a right to express
other opinions on TV, don't they ?
And l want to exercise
my right to criticize saying...
You don't criticize,
you cancel shows.
..that l don't agree with
your idea of what satire is.
That isn't satire,
it's gratuitous vulgarity.
- Name one vulgar thing.
- Forget it.
l won't forget it.
''Vulgar'' is not an appropriate term.
Can you guarantee that everything
l say will go on the programme ?
lf you say something interesting.
Go ahead.
We haven't finished.
Tell me something.
Haven't you found anything
worth including ?
Goodbye and good luck.
Good luck to all us ltalians
under the fascist regime.
See you when you get your show back
and l can criticize it again.
How will l get it back
when you've thrown us all out ?
As soon as possible,
because l like criticizing it.
But you cancelled my show,
you didn't criticize it.
You cancelled the show.
lt didn't work out for you !
lt wasn't a coming into office,
it was a seizing of power.
l always wrote in my editorials
that in this sense,
their concept is revolutionary.
Technically.
Revolutionary in the ''Thatcherist''
or ''Reaganist'' meaning of the word.
Or even more...
the beginning of a new era.
This man is the prime minister
of ltaly.
lt's all mine:
ltalian TV, newspapers...
l pass the laws l want, everything...
Of course l am a fascist.
So what ? Fascism is good !
Fuck everyone !
Such a catastrophe
could even happen here in France.
We had the habit in our house
to bind the newspapers
according to year.
When l was little
l'd climb my father's bookshelf
and get these big books
of newspapers down.
l used to wonder
why they didn't understand.
At first there were so many people
who later became anti-fascist
and even joined the Resistance,
who took part...
They'd say very weak things like:
''Despite everything,
ltaly is still democratic'', etc...
And that is how l realized
how fascism came to be.
Going through all the pages
of these newspapers,
l saw the rise of fascism
as a comic strip.
Each volume
got more and more fascist.
And so on.
And at the final issue of that year,
it was full-blown fascism.
lL DUCE FOUNDS AN EMPlRE
Back then, persuasion meant
intimidating, physically scaring.
Now persuasion is intimidating
and psychologically scaring
until you realize
your career is on the line,
along with your future,
the jobs you might have.
You see people who get rewarded
while you're left behind
so you decide
to jump on the bandwagon.
Then the European Parliament and
the lnternational Press Federation
and even the UN in 2005
expressed great concern
for the diminishing freedom
of expression in ltaly.
''Freedom House'',
an important international observer,
ranked ltaly at 77th place
in the world
for freedom of expression,
after several South American
and African countries.
Up until 2002
ltaly was considered a free country
but became
a partly free country in 2004.
A regime wins points
when the opposition keeps quiet.
They think that by keeping quiet
and putting up with
minor violations of a democracy...
l don't mean deportations
or assassinations,
but instances of censorship
and aggression towards individuals.
Believing that being the opposition
means complaining too much...
''Lowering your tone'', etc.
This strengthens the regime
and its power of impunity.
That is historical experience.
Can we list some cases of censorship
you included in your book ?
We all know the personal cases.
They chose a few
to teach everyone a lesson.
Like Biagi, Santoro,
Luttazzi, Freccero,
Sabina Guzzanti and Paolo Rossi.
- More money !
- Money ! Money !
More and more money !
l took this farce of Molire's
and adapted it to our situation.
l'm one of you,
so don't forget it.
Someone who used to be
where you are now
and who's now
where you'll never be !
l'm here, but especially...
We had 1 .2 million viewers
at 1 a.m. on the first night.
The next day
the ltalian Associated Press called
asking why it was interrupted
after the first act.
l called RAl
but no one seemed to know why.
ln the first press release,
they said it was blasphemous
and in the second,
that my words were too harsh.
We believe in freedom
in all its multiple and vital forms.
Even taking away freedoms
is a form of freedom.
For the first time,
l decided to break the cycle
of censor censuring
and the censured complaining
and refuse to let the thing die.
So l decided to file a lawsuit.
Ferruccio De Bortoli is a perfect
example in the world of press.
They established a precedent.
They can fire
the editor-in-chief of a newspaper,
even if they don't own it.
l gave up the editorship
of ''Corriere della Sera'' a year ago.
lt was a completely
personal decision.
lt's no secret that l had problems
with the prime minister
and it's no secret
that his lawyers are persisting
with various lawsuits.
l must say that l find this
to be rather significant
of a pathology in the system.
Unfortunately in ltaly,
the phenomenon exists
of ''who doesn't agree with me,
is the enemy,
therefore allied with
those who are against me.''
You can't have professionals
who are allowed to perform
their job fairly, sometimes bravely.
We've lost the ''Corriere''
and ltalian democracy
has lost its most
important newspaper.
The newspaper is lost.
The new editor-in-chief
is honest and respectable,
but he is not like
my friend, ex-editor De Bortoli.
lt's a scandal
that they fired Biagi...
..and Santoro.
Excuse me.
lf they're capable
of firing Biagi and Santoro,
they could easily fire us,
we're less important !
And no one could do anything,
not even raise an eyebrow
because Berlusconi is ruthless !
Then we got involved with
the daily cases of censorship
at TG1 , radio news reports...
Often editors say
to their reporters:
''l got a 'phone call'.
We can't talk about this anymore''.
lt happens all the time,
it's a matter of numbers.
- This seriously ?
- Never so violently.
Entire stories
were not allowed to be mentioned.
Even page formats !
News stories aren't prioritised
according to journalistic standards.
lt's a completely different matter,
it's political.
And there are cases
of structural censorship
like what happened with Channel 7,
it was ''preventive''.
''Since Channel 7
is an independent station,
let's kill it from the start,
so it can't be independent.
We'll have someone
who we can control buy it,
we'll do favours for him,
and he'll do some for us.
We'll make sure he doesn't call
the people we kick off other channels
otherwise it's pointless.''
ls the prime minister happy about
the new independent channel ?
- Are you happy ?
- What the hell !
- What the hell are you saying ?
- But it's a for-profit TV station.
- lt's a disgrace !
- Why ?
ls the profit for me
or someone else ?
- Someone else.
- Well, then !
- l see...
- That's a conflict of interest !
- How ?
- lt is, all right !
But, Mr Prime Minister...
You either have democracy,
or censorship.
The two things
cannot coexist.
lf what happened to people
like Santoro, Biagi, Luttazzi,
Tagliafico, Rossi, etc, etc,
was censorship,
all our members of parliament...
would have nailed themselves
to their seats.
They would have gone
on hunger strike !
Yet our members of parliament
still hesitate to
use the word censorship !
Let's say right now...
RAl...
is noticing...
some restriction on pluralism
that l'll have to explain better...
The opposition is somehow
going along with
the rules of the game
because they accepted them.
Because they're playing the game.
Because from that point of view,
l think...
one side decided
to stop attacking for real.
To stop pressing the question
as long as they could keep
the little they had.
l don't think the opposition
has any idea what's going on.
lf tomorrow all the present
party leaders came back,
they'd still make 90% of the same
mistakes they made in 1996
and would still be trying
to get their men back in.
The opposition has to realize
they need a new concept,
a revolution of the ltalian
television and radio system.
They need to give up
control of television.
Zapatero was elected
and immediately started
abolishing the law
that let the prime minister
appoint public TV executives.
l hope that is irreversible
and that people in ltaly want it too
once the regime has fallen,
if it ever does.
Because it's not tolerable
that political parties
appoint public television.
The problem goes beyond Berlusconi
because politicians took
possession of RAl
long before Berlusconi
ever got into politics.
He got involved and took advantage
of a situation
other people had created.
That's why Centre-Left parties
don't say a word
about this kind of logic,
they see nothing strange about it.
ln 2003 a Left party leader made
shocking declarations to the House.
Very few ltalians
were ever aware of it.
Berlusconi knows that in 1994
he was guaranteed that
his corporation wouldn't be touched
if the government changed.
He knows and
and so does Honourable Letta.
But you called us
a ''regime'' back then
even though we didn't pass
a law against conflict of interest,
we allowed Berlusconi to run
for office despite his media license
and Mediaset's sales jumped
while we had the majority...
On behalf of which of your voters
were these decisions made ?
And in the interest of whom ?
Some of the laws
most detrimental to the Centre-Left
and most favourable
to Berlusconi and his cronies
were made
when the Centre-Left had majority.
l'm talking about
white-collar crime laws,
laws regarding public television
that saved Mediaset's Channel 4,
the shelving of
the Anti-Corruption Commission,
the laws on conflict of interest.
Why did Berlusconi cause the
two-Chamber commission to fail after
the Centre-Left made laws
that were not in
the interest of the general public,
but were laws that Berlusconi
and his cronies asked for ?
ln February 2005, Furio Colombo,
after a long struggle
with left-wing leaders,
was forced to resign from
the leftist paper Unit
since it questioned
Berlusconi's legitimacy
more than any other newspaper.
Why were so many of them persuaded
that it's wrong and damaging
to so passionately deal with
the man that is so determined
to ruin the country,
freedom and the constitution
and regurgitate fascism,
moral, psychological
and political poverty
as well as pre-Nazi thought
like that of the Northern League ?
Why must one want
to communicate
with someone
we don't want to listen to
because he has nothing to tell us ?
This is the mystery
l leave you with.
''Freedom means saying 2 + 2 = 4.
lf that is granted, all else follows''
said Orwell.
What is obvious, ridiculous and true
must be defended.
lt's obvious that if our freedom
of expression is restricted,
whoever governs
can do whatever he wants.
Think about me,
who by law cannot run for office
or even become a representative, is
now prime minister of the country !
That is so exhilarating !
This should give
every citizen lots of hope !
Just relax.
Using money nobody knows
where it came from !
And even though everyone knew it,
no one stopped me !
The opposition was elected
so they'd pass a law
against conflict of interest
and they didn't even do it !
They see all my china
and drop to their knees !
So l generously tell them:
''Help yourselves''.
Yes.
When they axed ''RAlot'',
we performed it live
and fellow artists, jokesters
and musicians all came.
For the first time,
more than 100 small stations
tuned in by satellite
so it was seen all over ltaly
on TV and the lnternet.
ln many towns, public viewings
were organized in theatres.
We raised hell !
l want to be free to talk and listen.
Since RAl
won't let us watch it,
we had to go somewhere
where we could.
We're here to protect
what freedom we have left.
The funny thing is that we didn't
come to laugh but we're having fun.
l've gone up and down
this corridor ten times.
You can't imagine
what's going on out there.
A message for the people
outside the auditorium.
Please do not push
and ruin this celebration.
Thank you.
- Tell them there's no more room.
- But there's a giant screen.
They can see it there.
- Do you see it ?
- That's outside ?
Hello and thanks for coming.
l'd like to tell
all the people outside the gate
that you alone are 15,000 people.
They go all the way to the bus stop.
Revolution is possible
here in the corridor.
ln this white light.
lt's not a coincidence
that we're like a spaceship.
The Centre-Left
has to get a move on.
They should run
a freedom of information campaign.
lf they don't,
it's their problem, not the Right's.
When the Left was in power,
they didn't do anything.
For future memory,
the freedom we have now
we fought for ourselves.
And freedom isn't the chance
to vote against ourselves.
For future memory,
so many people came
it looked like a miracle.
So many people came there was
no reason to worry anymore.
l am a buffoon
and l did my job so
seeing the people was the reward.
And l wasn't
the only one to see.
There were many witnesses,
including you.
lt wasn't funny at all !