•
Rating: I recently noticed how, with the reopening of cinemas, the pleasure of watching films on the big screen has been rediscovered. However, this is accompanied by the arrival of various films that, having been put on hold due to the pandemic, are not particularly noteworthy or worthy of viewing. "Il cattivo poeta" unfortunately falls into this category, even though it addresses a highly significant subject (the final glimpse of Gabriele D'Annunzio's life) during a historically important period both for Italian history and the world, namely the late 1930s of the last century.
In short, it is a portrayal of a luxury exile like D'Annunzio (by then so famous and celebrated to be known as "Il Vate") who, precisely because of his role, was viewed with such suspicion by the then Fascist regime, that he was discreetly monitored by a young party official. Moreover, D'Annunzio could raise some apprehension since he viewed negatively the alliance between Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany, and this stance could have a certain impact considering his significance not only as a man of letters and culture but also as a public and political figure for his past merits in defending the homeland. We know how things went: D'Annunzio died in March 1938 before the outbreak of World War II, the outcome of which was fortunately ruinous for Fascist Italy and is well known to everyone, thus the D'Annunzio problem resolved itself with his sudden departure.
But as I mentioned before, something did not quite convince me about this film. It is certainly not the impeccable performance of the excellent Sergio Castellitto as D'Annunzio (shaved so closely he could easily be mistaken for Il Vate), nor the setting within the sumptuous locales of the Vittoriale (the poet's last residence), and not even the claustrophobic and somewhat morbid atmosphere that pervades it. Technically, there are no criticisms to address towards the direction of newcomer Gianluca Iodice.
What is, in my opinion, decidedly questionable is the implicit and surreptitious assumption regarding D'Annunzio’s character, as if he could be mistaken for a potential dissident against the Fascist regime, or even a potential anti-fascist, to the point of arousing doubt towards the regime by those who were assigned to monitor him.
In light of what I have learned and read over all these years and decades, a thesis as mentioned earlier is simply far-fetched, unfounded, and therefore sordidly revisionist. D'Annunzio was merely a product of his times, a significant representative of Decadentism in literature and a staunch advocate, politically, of a line of aggressive nationalism (see his support for Italy's involvement in World War I). Therefore, his hostility towards Nazi Germany (certainly not for a presumed embryonic anti-fascism) should not be surprising, which was intimately shared even by other Italians (like Galeazzo Ciano himself). And anyway, how could he have explicitly opposed the Duce (towards whom there was a rivalry of a capricious prima donna) and the Fascist regime when, thanks to such a stronghold, he could evade the crowd of creditors hounding him? His main concern was rather to continue commissioning embellishment works at the Vittoriale where he would spend his last years as a decadent and vicious aesthete.
On the other hand, if we think about what happened during the fascist period to real Italian anti-fascists, a spontaneous question arises: but what did D'Annunzio say? Where was he? Was he ever heard advocating for certain illustrious victims like Amendola, Gobetti, don Minzoni, Matteotti, the Rosselli brothers? And when Gramsci ended his days in prison as we know, where was Il Vate? And when various individuals like Terracini, Pajetta, Pertini, Spinelli were sent to confinement, did D'Annunzio ever have objections? Was he ever heard expressing solidarity with the exiled don Luigi Sturzo or the poor librarian in the Vatican named Alcide Gasperi? Did he perhaps take a stand in favor of the dissident liberal philosopher Benedetto Croce who kept to himself, just because Mussolini wanted to give the impression of being a (falsely) tolerant dictator?
In short, presenting D'Annunzio in a vaguely progressive light is simply false, but what I consider truly serious is that this message is embedded in a film produced, among others, by RAI. And this, I don't know about you, but it drives me mad for the simple fact that, through the electricity bill, we poor taxpayers and viewers finance it. It follows then that, with our money, RAI finances films imbued with deleterious and contestable historiographical views. Since, in a few months, "Il cattivo poeta" will be broadcast on one of the three radio-television channels just to reach a wide audience (including young people not particularly well-versed in 20th-century history in light of how poorly it is often taught in Italian schools), wouldn't it then be appropriate to express some sort of fervent protest against the old institution of RAI? Just to signify, for once, that the populace for the most part is less bovine than one might think?
Loading comments slowly
