Change Your Image
Upload An Image
Crop And Save
Carlo Giuliani, ragazzo (2002)
A tragic event turned into a farce by a biased film director
A tragic event turned into a farce by a biased film director: this could properly be a short summary of this lame movie. The first thing I have to say is that the protest wasn't peaceful at all. It is true that many of the people taking part had no violent intentions. Anyway it is also true that a large part had declared explicitly and in advance their intentions not to respect the approved route and to penetrate the "red zone", guarder by the police, where the G8 meeting was. These "peaceful" protesters destroyed and burned 83 cars, 41 shops, 9 postal offices, 16 gas stations, 4 private homes, filling the streets of Genoa with 200 tons of rubble (source: Corriere della Sera). The cluster of people in Alimonda square, where Carlo was shot, were providing an incessant throwing of stones, while some of them attached a military police vehicle with iron bars, poles and various kinds of offensive weapons. Carlo was shot while attaching the vehicle which was stuck in a corner, holding a fire extinguisher high in his hands, his face covered with a balaclava. This dramatic situation is told in the movie by the mother of the boy with such absurd tones that make the movie sound as a piece of fiction: "the boys had no intentions of violence: they just reacted to the mean attitude of the police", "yes, they were equipped with helmets and funny (sic) body shields, but they just supposed "normal" (sic) club hits", "they resisted like the Italians resisted to the Nazism and Fascism during the end of the second World War", and so forth. We all understand that a mother can't be objective when remembering her own lost son. However I don't understand the reason to report such a one way view of the fact in a movie declared as a "documentary". The exact scene of the shooting isn't completely clear yet: whether the shot was diverted by a flying rock (as suggested by some pictures) or not is to be made clear by the commission of inquiry. What stays for sure is that a violent attack against the police was taking place. The death of a 23 years old guy is objectively a dramatic fact and a source of sorrow for everybody, no matter who was the boy or what were his intentions. Distorting the facts as it's done in this movie is in my opinion an offence to an unlucky guy and to any fair young man.