Author's judgement: 2/5
The last months of Bettino Craxi's life in Tunisia. This, in less than one line, is the story of a film, of a man, of a political leader, of a man sentenced to ten years with final sentences for corruption and illicit financing (the first relating to the ENI-Sai case and the second for the bribes for the Milan subway) which has finished its days, precisely ad Hammamet. The film is signed by Gianni Amelio who can boast, for this job, only on an element of indisputable value: a great acting performance by Pierfrancesco Favino. Thanks to an impeccable make-up but, even more to a profound study of the posture, gazes and vocal tones of the former leader of the deceased PSI, he manages to make it absolutely plausible.
For the rest of the film there is nothing else: all the other protagonists are floundering behind his shadow. The screenplay, the lyrics, are more or less plausible soliloquies stamped only by the memory of who reported them. Cinematographically speaking, he is boring, dressed up, poor and devoid of any incentive to understand, to deepen. Then we can talk about another film proposed by Amelio: what you see, what you hear, but even more what you don't see and don't hear. We see an impatient and angry Craxi who tries to reiterate his thesis (everyone knew and everyone took bribes) but Craxi is not seen who admits his responsibilities, his faults and those who were close to him and accomplices.
Appears, for a few sequences, his lover beneficiary of so many donations to the tune of millions, without a word about why and how the gifts came about and where all that money came from. The grandson can be seen on the beach reconstructing what happened in Sigonella (where he had the carabinieri intervene to prevent the formally illegitimate extradition of the kidnappers of the Achille Lauro) but not a word about his friend and associate Silvio Berlusconi nor on Milan from which his political leadership started and consolidated. Now, it is good to keep in mind the limits of the critical evaluation of the film which is not and cannot be historical and political analysis. However, it is necessary to understand well the profound meaning, the narrative spirit that is intended to be proposed to the public in theaters.
The figure of the man, for many a modern statesman, is controversial and still arouses debate and opposing positions to the point of justifying on the part of some the desire to operate a sort of "revisionism" of his role and his figure. And it is precisely in this aspect that what appears to be the soul of this film emerges with great force: an attempt to put things in order, at least from a human point of view, the salient aspects of Craxi's personality. The story, however, is by no means neutral and the “tender” reading of her gaze with her nephew is not enough to mitigate what is behind it. Much is said and seen about him in the final phase of his life but the whole world that he generated, craxism, and all the good or bad he left as a legacy and which, in many respects, survived him has faded.
The very closing of the film lends itself to providing the same side opened by many, too many, dark stories that can be told around Craxi's life. The story ends by opening yet another box of mysteries among the many in this country: a videotape where there are things that no one has ever heard before and which could make many, perhaps still on the scene, spend nightmarish nights. It is the same story of Aldo Moro's purse which disappeared during the kidnapping and never found as well as Giovanni Falcone's red diary: always lit fuses aimed at those who have been accomplices or connivers in deeds and misdeeds that have bloodied the history of the Republic.
Cinema is also this, like it or not, and it is always useful to remember, to refresh memories that are too easily withered. It could also be defined as a "political" genre film but the story lends itself well to being interpreted, contextualized ... much less to be manipulated. Hammamet, perhaps, does not exactly perform this operation, however it leaves a vague and obscure taste. Beyond the cinematographic judgment, the effect of the film will end up reopening the discussion on the political role of Craxi and craxismo, hopefully secular, without sanctifications or demonizations.
