Raitre’s broadcast wanted to draw a portrait of the city through a series of chapters dedicated to characters, places, historical events, news stories, for the use of those who know nothing, or little, of Genoa, including many Genoese. If the goal was a primary disclosure it can be said to have been achieved
Genoa – Genoa summarized in a televised Bignami. I was impressed by the long transmission that Corrado Augias dedicated to our city, broadcast on Sunday evening on Raitre, for the “Secret Cities” series.
For the younger ones who have probably never heard of it, I remember that the Bignami was a booklet of summaries and synopses of all human knowledge, for use by students who studied little or, at best, who wanted to review quickly. In other words, a Wikipedia before the letter.
Bignami was condemned by the right-thinking for the scarce depth of the themes, treated in a purely notional way, but also had the great merit of the synthesis. And, in the end, studying on the Bignami was always better than nothing. Thus the Augias Bignamino wanted to draw a portrait of the city through a series of chapters dedicated to characters, places, historical events, news stories, for the use of those who know nothing, or little, of Genoa, including many Genoese. If the goal was a primary disclosure it can be said to have been achieved. For those who are unaware, in fact, everything is a “secret”.
It is almost impossible for a Genoese to tell (and judge) his own city; love and hate mix with the experiences of a lifetime, for the same reasons it is even more difficult to hear it told by others, even without taking into account the traditional propensity to grumble. For this reason, as soon as the credits of the program faded on the television screens, and even before, the social networks were filled with the most disparate comments: from the fierce criticism, applied even to the smallest details (via rather than course Turin, the pronunciation of creuza, the emphasis on‘Drunk, transformed into a Embriàco drunken), parochial enthusiasm (“after all we were on Rai in prime time. It will benefit tourism!”).
Many, for example, were scandalized by the chapter dedicated to Moana Pozzi, often negatively reported, together with the lack of mention of Christopher Columbus. Not everyone, however, understood well the space dedicated to the writer Mary Shelley, an extraordinary character, but not exactly central in the history of Genoa.
The reference to Mazzini, starting from the Staglieno cemetery, and above all to Mameli, the twenty-year-old revolutionary who died on the barricades of the Roman Republic. The references to De André and Villaggio are canonical, a bit like the images of Boccadasse. From a purely television point of view the program fluctuated between Geo and Raistoria and, in general, it seems to me to have sinned of a certain coldness and asepticity, probably due to the archive images and the extensive use of drones, which has now become cloying. Maybe going down the street a little would have been useful.
Yet the hot topics touched were many, from the Liberation to June 30, 1960, from the murder of Guido Rossa at the G8. Up to the recent tragedies, the sinking of the Concordia and the collapse of the Morandi bridge. I was surprised that Augias did not give some space to the poets, to the Genoese triad Montale, Caproni, Sanguineti. After all, they are the ones who keep the real “secret” of Genoa, that of a city that knows how to look at itself from the outside and, in a certain sense, is foreign to itself.