Hetzer

Anyway, and I address Stoney here, the point is this: the crap in Parliament was brought by Berlusconi just as it was brought by the left, both before and after him. Why, for example, doesn’t the fearless and incorruptible Travaglio shovel the dung of a character like his friend Di Pietro, champion of anti-Berlusconism who has defined himself as the only honest one among all? Could it be because he is biased? Of course, blaming a single individual, giving a body and face to the country's evils by attributing all possible and imaginable wrongdoings to one character, no matter how detestable and dishonest, is more convenient and in some ways easier, especially since there are people, particularly in public TV, who make big bucks off such issues. But here in Italy, this is not a fight between good and evil. I pass on the useful advice: wake up. And I’ll be waiting for the questionnaire..

I'm still waiting for the questions I wouldn't have answered, Stoney, as I requested some time ago.

As a film, it's watchable, aside from the silly title, but it doesn't hold up; an actress like Anne Hathaway doesn't quite fit the role of the faux-loser that's been stitched onto her. At first, it's amusing, but it gradually loses momentum and the ending felt rushed and confusing to me. The actor who plays the gay character, however, is very good, just like Meryl.

What an empirical argument. You are pathetic and redundant in your insistence that those who are anti-communist, anti-Santoro, or anti-Travaglio are therefore pro-Berlusconi; and you come here talking about brainwashing? I get how you think; if you have nothing to say that deviates from the script, it's not mandatory to insist.

Not information is provided by Santoro as it is by many others. Patience (but annoyance) that it happens at Mediaset, paid for by others, but that it happens at Rai, paid for by us personally, seems to me much sadder and more desolate. As for the fact that we need to stop with the philosophy of either-or, I agree with you, because looking at the world through a right door or a left door (to simplify) is rather reductive and stifling. I have never been able to trust Travaglio, whom I read as a distinctly biased character, who attacks freely and literally rides the wave of censorship. If he is the example of the ideal journalist, then we are in trouble. I apologize for the sarcasm, but I can't help but be ironic at times. See you soon…

I absolutely do not agree with your position expressed in the first paragraph, and I do not identify with it. Still with the conspiracy theories? Yes, but they get tiring after a while; the golden thread is already exhausted.

Aside from the merit of Santoro and Travaglio's ideas, which are clear to everyone and perfectly legitimate, I personally contest the method, biased and aggressive, with which they tackle the issues, specifically a historically complicated issue like the Israeli-Palestinian one. From public television, I expect a certain distance, a balance, or at least a renunciation of making definitive ideological judgments. You might think it's a Utopia and, in the end, I realize it is; but not for five, ten, or even fifteen years. For the rest, I largely agree with you, even if a few years ago (absolutely not now) I found a program like "Otto e Mezzo" interesting.

Very funny review.. I had heard about this movie and it made my heart sink, hoping for a true adaptation of the masterpiece.. but instead, nothing. I still wouldn’t go see it, I’d feel sorry for Verne..

On Santoro, Mr. Rebelde, the truly unacceptable thing is that a journalist from public television, paid with the money that we contribute every year, and supposedly persecuted and censored, can host, I repeat, funded with public money, a non-information program; there’s no need to twist the issue and bring in the pathetic ranting of a Speaker of the House, about whom I won’t comment out of respect for decency. That said, could you assert that the activities I described above have nothing to do with freedom and are not a form of it? If the answer is yes, then there’s really nothing more to say, or maybe I'm mistaken and we actually live in a branch of China.
I agree with Mr. Stoney: it’s a waste of time. When someone starts responding with jabs and expressions like "climbing on mirrors"; "pathetic attempts” and “a slap to intelligence," labeling and dismissing others' opinions in this way, it means their arguments are lacking. I’ll keep my freedom, you keep your regime.

Absurd and disturbing, I don’t feel like voting for it. I saw it years ago for a university exam, and I found it remarkable despite the fact that I don’t like surreal short films at all. But this and "Ballet Mécanique" stuck with me.