All language subtitles for The.Godfathers.Of.Mondo.2003.DVDRip.XviD

Can a reporter be objective,
be it in film or in print?

I say, no.

Pure objectivity doesn't exist
in a documentary.

I totally agree.

Even if you're intimately,
sincerely objective,

the very moment you choose
the framing of a shot

automatically,
your personal point of view comes out.

Certainly, absolute objectivity
is impossible.

But honesty exists and is essential.

Italian neorealism
never convinced me, quite frankly.

As a documentarist,
as a lover of documentaries,

I saw neorealism
as fictionalized documentary.

It always gave me that impression.

''Let's pretend it's true.''

This always bothered me.

I don't mean to put down
the big directors of the past.

This is my opinion.

As a documentarist
I saw neorealism as artificial.

I was a professionaljournalist,
I still am.

For me the transition from, say,

written journalism
to visual or filmed journalism

was an evolution of my trade,

a development in the ability
to express and narrate

what I saw
and wanted to tell the public.

That is,

when I realized,
and it didn't take long,

that cinema provided me
an immense wealth of photos, of frames,

and at the same time a sound track
to transfer my text into spoken words,

I realized that
this was the perfect medium

to tell the facts oflife.

My background is that of a naturalist.

I graduated
in natural science and biology

and further specialized in theology.

We started shooting
some documentaries and realized that

they were much more
lucrative than scientific studies.

For us Europeanjournalists,

going out into the streets in search of
footage is a nearly suicidal endeavor.

In movie theaters,
newsreels with the events of the week

always preceded the feature film.

I was a commentator, and from that
I got my interest in filmmaking,

for the visual elements of storytelling.

So I began shooting short documentaries.

When Blasetti asked me
if I would do WORLD BY NIGHT,

he sent me location scouting
all over the world in search of shows.

He had given me some suggestions;

he was looking for shows
like cabarets, or theaters,

not things from real life,
but rather fiction.

I researched thoroughly.

Travel wasn't as easy then
as it is today,

but I noticed that the most interesting
were not the theatrical shows

but the show ofhumanity itself.

I met Gualtiero through a mutual friend,
Carlo Gregoretti.

I proposed the idea of a film
to Gualtiero: ''Love of the World.''

I wanted to show
different aspects oflove in the world,

ofhumans, and of animals.

He replied that we should do
an ''anti-documentary'' instead.

So farwe had done documentaries

that just hail the places you're seeing.

They're flattering, overpolished.

''Let's show the real world.''

My curiosity was such that I decided
I would do a very long newsreel.

A long document of actualities
that I would title MONDO CANE,

an ironic, mocking, even cynical title
to narrate these events oflife.

I loved the idea.

I chose events that caught my attention.

First of all, research varies.

You get it from the press,

collecting news, collecting stories,
collecting articles.

But you must assess if they
are cinematographically reproducible

in terms of narration,
if they are for real.

When it's certain
and you have a list of events,

you prepare a summary
based on geographical location.

For instance, film two scenes
in the Far East making just one trip.

The fact is, we took advantage
of the little knowledge

the public had of
the world at large back then.

Shooting MONDO CANE today
would be very difficult.

For instance, we could go with a camera
to an erotic club in Hamburg

and they would easily let us in.

If we attempted to do this today
we would have to pay, maybe.

It would not be a surprise to them.

Back then the whole world
was unprepared

for our shooting strategy:

slip in, ask, never pay, never reenact,

and get everything right there.

I was ignorant until I saw things
around the world.

And what I witnessed always surprised me
and caught me unaware.

There were no preparations.
There were no suggestions from anybody.

They were casual finds.

It wasn't difficult.

All we had to do was face reality.

Because all that we filmed
was true, real.

There's a restaurant...
if I'm not mistaken called ''Four Seasons.''

Anyway, it's a famous restaurant.
All Americans know about it.

It serves canned ants, lizards,
all sorts of delicacies, snake blood.

It was entertaining.

It was also an exclusive restaurant
for a rich clientele.

Very expensive.

I found it amusing
not so much forwhat they ate,

but for their ulterior reasons
for doing it:

how they wanted to be filmed
to seem like extraordinary people,

courageous,
nonconformists, experimental.

So it was interesting.
A point of view on humanity.

This issue of death being shown on film
was something rare then.

Today it is overinflated.

It was pure actuality,
and it happened to us by chance.

Obviously,you cannot rehearse
someone's death.

And as for the principle
of not showing human death on screen,

to be honest, we ignored it.

There is a death scene in MONDO CANE
where people are ready to die

and we showed the so-called
''House of Death'' in Singapore

where old people were taken,
waiting for them to die.

Not killed, but left there to languish
until their death came.

It was a normally accepted custom
there.

There was no hatred
or ill feelings involved.

Dying people didn't remain at home.
They awaited death in this place

specifically conceived to house them
in their last hours.

This was a discovery, and we filmed it.

Something rather sensational,
especially in those times.

We were aware
that we were shooting documentaries

in a totally different manner.

The cuts were quick,
lively and concise.

Making a synthesis of a scene
and showing it.

And also, it has to be said,
we wanted to shock the audience.

Shocking and alternating emotions.

Inserting soft scenes

to allow digestion
of the violent scenes.

To keep the audience's interest alive,

there needs to be a contrast of images.

I paid close attention to the openings,
contrapositions, everything,

so as to give the narration
a sense of unity,

the film being
a collection of distinct events.

Three minutes of this,
three minutes of that, etc.

Of course it was very energetic
and the scenes time consuming.

The pig slaughter in Goroca,
for instance,

would cost us a trip
to get a six or seven minute scene,

whereas others would get material
for a two hour documentary.

For us it was costly
in both time and exertion.

In fact our films would take
two or three years to make.

The editing of my films I do personally,

even though they don't write it
in the credits.

It's not important.

I insist on doing the editing myself.

I have a passion for editing.

I spend hours at the Moviola
without realizing it.

But it takes time,
the first cut and so on.

As you well know,
this is the nature of our craft.

So you cannot delegate the editing.
An author cannot delegate,

maybe only in the case
of a well-defined film,

with precise sequences
and takes, etc.,

born from a well defined script
that only needs to be sewn together.

A documentary has no script.
It is imagined, created on the spot.

You can't do the same.

It would be like a novel written
on loose sheets,

shuffled together
and given to the public.

Absurd.

No,you're narrating, and
narration calls for delicate editing,

and that's a task for the author,
as is the copy,

the spoken commentary.

Then there is the voice of music
which has to be descriptive, functional.

Music tells a story.
It is not filler.

I detest the kind of films where
two people kiss each other

and there goes the violins.
That's horrendous.

Music as a language
deserves the utmost respect.

When music is playing, all othervoices
and effects should be silent.

I was called.

I showed up and I met
Jacopetti and Prosperi and also Cavara.

Cavara was the third director
for a while,

but moved on and busied himself
with other movies.

We looked at each other
and we sniffed each other like dogs,

they asked questions,

and it was immediately clear
that there was a good feeling between us

and so that is how
we started our collaboration.

I worked very closely with them.

They were very hard workers.

They would go in the editing room
at around 8:00, 9:00 in the morning

and leave at midnight, 1 a.m.,

without a moment's rest.

They were so full of enthusiasm

and desire to work on these scenes

and I lived with them the whole time.

I followed them,
maturing the musical pieces.

I remember

a scene in MONDO CANE
of the chicks being dyed for Easter.

Ortolani asked what kind of music
I was looking for.

''Come on, improvise,'' he says.

''What do you mean improvise?''

''Just sit at the piano
and play something.''

I did the most obvious thing.

I said, ''I can play
a music box style piece.''

He replied, ''OK. Let me hear it.''

He would play a few notes,
this short motif.

He said, ''What is this?''
I said, ''I don't know.''

He told me,
''What do mean you don't know?''

''Write this down quickly right now!
This will be the theme of the movie!''

This is how ''More'' was born.

Katyna Ranieri, my wife,

was singing at the Plaza in New York.

At the time, Katyna appeared frequently
on television

as a guest on theJohnny Carson show,

and she started singing the song ''More.''

In a matter of a week, there were
seven American versions of the song.

In two weeks
there were versions by

Frank Sinatra,

Count Basie,

Nat King Cole,

Duke Ellington,

Della Reese,

Judy Garland,

Stan Kenton,

so many recordings,
so many American versions

from the best American artists
of the time.

The song was a hit everywhere.

And it even became a classic,

still played
at wedding ceremonies today.

I often happen to hear it
as background music in hotels.

''More'' got an Oscar nomination.

Everyone thought the song ''More''
would win the Oscar,

but as usual the American song won.

When MONDO CANE was first released
in Italy, it was very well received,

and it was the top movie
at the box office.

It played for a long period of time.

People would line up to see it.

Some of the critics were against it,
some for it.

The critics were not kind to them.

They attacked them for many reasons,

said they were porn directors

because there were these black women
showing their breasts.

Beautiful and real breasts,

not like the fake ones
you see everywhere today.

The film was treated as a special event,

so therefore it was a success,
we're not just talking about Italy here,

but it was a great success
all over the world,

even in the United States,
it was a huge success.

MONDO CANE did great in America.

I still rememberwhen I was in Florida,

in many ports I saw boats
named ''MONDO CANE.''

So it was successful...

but you have to take the times
into account.

The film was something new.
Its visual style was, too.

What do I think now?
I think it was a very good movie,

but it wouldn't work today,
because of television.

You couldn't keep the freshness,

therefore you'd lose immediacy.

Many beautiful things die.
It is normal.

Those that last are miracles
ofhuman intellect, ofhuman spirit.

I know what it cost me in effort,

in danger,

so I firmly believed in my work
and got satisfaction from it,

as did the others.

I keep it as an event in my life,

a beloved thing in my life.

While shooting MONDO CANE,

Rizzoli proposed that we should plan
to do more documentaries.

During post-production it was evident
that we had so much material

from MONDO CANE that it would be
a pity to waste three years' work

and hundreds of thousands
of feet of film.

Anyway, we didn't
want to waste the footage

so we decided to make another movie,
MONDO CANE 2.

Let me tell you one thing up front:
MONDO CANE 2 doesn't belong to me.

I didn't want to do it really.

I knew it was going to be old hat,
a rehash.

So I didn't have the same enthusiasm
that I had with MONDO CANE.

I would think, ''Look at what I've
invented, how beautiful and new it is.''

These were my thoughts
when I was shooting MONDO CANE.

MONDO CANE 2?
Well, the spell was broken there.

It was about commerce, money.

Not about creating something.

And most directors wouldn't either.

Imagine making LA DOLCE VITA 2
or 8 and 3/ 4.

They neverwould.

But the producers were really insistent
and I had a debt of gratitude to them.

So I agreed.

Exceeding expectations
for MONDO CANE 2 was difficult,

because the newness of it was gone,
it had been used up already.

We had to shoot additional scenes in
Africa, in America, in Europe, in India.

We shot in several parts of the world

and also acquired material
that was especially interesting,

something we never did
for the first MONDO CANE.

The burning monk was purchased
to be used as real life footage,

then we added some scenes
because we had very little.

It was simply a case of someone
arriving late to film that scene.

No, it was totally fabricated.

Exactly,
Rambaldi made this mannequin,

and it was taken to Bangkok
where it was burned.

We were making cinema.

We didn't just do documentary:

if something was missing
to make a scene work well,

we would fix it.

I only want to talk about
the films I've done,

whose responsibility
and merit falls on me.

I reject MONDO CANE 2, completely.

Not to save my reputation,
which I don't ultimately care about,

but because MONDO CANE,

sadly, indirectly spawned a breed of dozens
of titles: MONDO this, MONDO that.

Ghastly stuff, absurdities that people
strangely would go to see.

This offended and damaged me because
the overall perception was,

''Oh yes, MONDO CANE,

the film with the scene of the auntie
with her nose cut off.''

Stuff that I never filmed.

People confused MONDO CANE
with all that ugly, vulgar junk.

We didn't mind the imitations.

That was expected,

forwe had sold so many scenes
to other people

who were doing the same kind of films.

I had many requests to work
on this genre of movies.

But I always refused.

I didn't want to betray the original idea
of the creators and directors.

I even refused to work with Gualtiero
and Prosperi on MONDO CANE 2.

There were imitations,
and offers were coming from everywhere.

All the Italian producers,

Cervi, Titanus,
were trying to separate us,

because each of us was like a player
on a soccer team

afterwinning the world cup.

Each of us had seen his value magnified.

So they tried to pull us apart.

Very interesting offers to me,

to Gualtiero and the crew
to do these films.

Prosperi and I were together.

I shared with him success and failure,
the good ideas and the bad.

We each had our own lives,
our own tastes,

but our collaboration
was always friendly and polite,

despite our completely
different characters.

I'm much more extroverted,

but that didn't bear
on our relationship.

Prosperi andJacopetti
are both talented filmmakers.

Jacopetti is more inventive,
has more imagination,

Prosperi is more rational.

But they have the same
degree of influence on the direction.

We never profoundly disagreed.
I want to say it again:

foryears and years,
we had the deepest respect.

''Good morning. Good night.
How are you?''

The films were often credited
toJacopetti and not me.

They would say,
''This movie is byJacopetti.''

He was the man of scandal.

He had been in a scandal,

had a relationship
with a very young girl,

a sixteen year old.

He was almost put in jail,
but married her to avoid imprisonment.

The story was in every newspaper.

The man of scandal.

So he was obviously
better-known than I was.

I had a background as a naturalist.

I abstained from notoriety

and didn't have
a history of scandals behind me.

There was no jealousy

because after doing films with him,

I did other films
that had enormous financial success.

Like THIS VIOLENTWORLD and

SAVAGE MAN, SAVAGE BEAST,
produced by Titanus.

Films that I never put my name on

because I resented
always doing the same kind of films.

I'm telling this as proof that
I didn't really care about the credit.

If I had to put the different roles
in the crew on a scale of importance

I could only tell you this:

What really mattered was the team spirit,
our mutual cooperation,

our mutual dedication.

Not one of us was ever
more important than the others.

While we were shooting
MONDO CANE 2,

we began shooting
for WOMEN OFTHE WORLD also.

Rizzoli had proposed the project
during MONDO CANE 2

so that is why
the two productions overlapped.

WOMEN OFTHE WORLD, honestly,
the idea for it was Oriana Fallaci's.

So Rizzoli invited Oriana Fallaci

onto his yacht in Cannes.

Fallaci went and Rizzoli
proposed a collaboration with us.

When I said to Rizzoli, ''Let's do a film
about women in the world,''

Oriana claimed copyright on the title.

Now, Gualtiero and Oriana Fallaci
were both strong characters,

so they immediately clashed,

because Fallaci wanted to be in charge.

She said that WOMEN OFTHE WORLD
was her idea and work,

so she wanted to direct everything,
and the rest should follow.

Gualtiero, as you can imagine, replied,

''No. I've done other films
so I have to direct.''

This fight got so out of control
that at one point

Gualtiero grabbed Fallaci
and wanted to throw her overboard.

I had to intervene to calm them down.

Oriana Fallaci is admirable,

as long as she is in New York
and you're in Beijing.

You can't deal with her.

She's too lively.
I don't know how else to put it.

Anyway, Rizzoli calmed her down,

you can always find a way
to settle these things.

And so we used the title
and did WOMEN OFTHE WORLD.

We just wanted to discuss
the subject of women,

very much explored in cinema,

and that somehow was in keeping
with my old idea about love in the world.

So it was very interesting to me.

The subject was strictly about women,
nothing else.

We salvaged many unused scenes
from MONDO CANE.

This reserve footage
is normally called ''the rushes,''

miles of film with complete events,

excess material that we had discarded
in favor ofbetter footage.

We had all sorts of problems
during the shoot.

Obviously not the same problems
we'd face today.

For instance we had to film
the life of prostitutes

in the streets of Hamburg,

on that dead-end street
of prostitutes in Hamburg.

There were pimps behind these women,
so it was forbidden to shoot,

because of the pimps
and because of the authorities.

We had to be on the lookout,
what to shoot and how.

And poor Cavara,

he had to covertly pass the exposed film

to a fellow technician
who waited in a nearby street,

who was pursued by a pimp
wanting to stab him with a knife.

He made it by sheer luck.

Again, it was the impact of newness.

A lesbian was a scandal then,
unlike today.

It was something exceptional,

especially because people
didn't admit it.

So it was something new,
something deserving prominence.

Scandals were taken advantage of,

until it became acceptable

and normal as they are today.

The world was different then.

At the time, to show exposed breasts,
a topless girl,

was a matter for the censors.

And so we really got into trouble.

However the documentary
evolved to completion

and was also a success with the public.

Something in particular interested me:

a topic both journalistically
and politically relevant,

AFRICAADDIO,

a spectacular political subject.

Gualtiero received a letter
from a friend.

She wrote, ''I'm in Africa,
and Africa is changing.''

That is,

Africa as portrayed
and idealized by Europeans,

by Westerners,

is changing and is about to disappear.

It might seem incredible
that a simple letter from a young woman

would affect me so much, but it was then
that I envisioned AFRICAADDIO.

I remember him saying
at the spur of the moment:

''Why don't we document
this change in Africa?''

Obviously, I agreed enthusiastically.

As usual, I paid Rizzoli a visit.

You can imagine proposing
a film about Africa at the time.

''What? Farewell Africa?
What does it mean?''

''Well, the changes in Africa
at this precise moment in time

of abrupt, brutal transition
for a whole continent.''

It was a long and hard enterprise
that lasted three years.

This is the destiny ofa people
who wanted to ignore the colorofskin.

This is Portugal.

White or black,
we're all Portuguese.

But the rebels ofAngola don't agree.

This is Africa.
Only blacks are Africans.

We were away for long periods of time,

and we were so busy working...

and had no daily newspapers,

no newspapers from Italy
in Africa at the time.

In Africa at the time
you didn't follow the news,

no computers,
many things were different.

The politics that concerned us
were of the continent

where we were working and traveling.

But we didn't have a political
point of view, an opinion to follow.

The film was totally objective.

There were no guidelines,
no ''this wins, that wins.''

No! We were witnesses to a tragedy,

political meaning left aside.

I love Africa deeply.

I had been dreaming of it
ever since I was a child.

The first time I set foot in Africa,

you know, like the Pope does
when visiting a foreign land,

we got off the ship
and kissed the soil of Africa,

for our dream had come true.

We have scenes in AFRICAADDIO
that, I believe,

are the only document of those dramatic
events the continent lived through.

We planned to spend a lot of time,
to even run fatal risks,

but without a schedule.

Suddenly the situation in East Africa
became explosive, so we moved there.

Thereafter, we would shuttle
to and from different countries,

South Africa, East Africa, Mozambique,
all the while running after events.

Every time something happened,
we would be there.

And instead of sending our material
to the papers, as a reporterwould do,

we locked it in a safe,
and we later assembled AFRICAADDIO.

We never abandoned our original idea
for AFRICAADDIO, that is,

to bid a farewell to Africa.

At the same time, predicting
what would happen in the future

and make a critical statement about
those who abandoned Africa so hurriedly.

We believed the British and French made
a gross mistake leaving Africa that way.

Africa wasn't ready for that independence,
which was its right.

Not at that moment.

There was no political class
that could replace

that kind of foreign administration,
the British especially.

There was no political class
prepared for this.

AFRICAADDIO prophetically
foresaw all this.

Violence, too, is a form of objectivity.

Violence exists in the world,

so why not show it?

We didn't show violence
for the sake of it,

but to point out that
it should be fought against.

If in AFRICAADDIO we show
the violence of animals being killed,

it's because it happens.

Elephants are segregated
in national parks

where they are decimated yearly to keep
the population within the right limits.

When these national parks
were only a few,

showing the slaughter of these animals

was a way of creating an awareness
in public opinion.

Now, the Safari caused a lot of debate.

I understand the reason:
we showed animals being killed.

Actually,
half of the total footage was cut.

I decided to cut it.

Ortolani did something extraordinary.

He composed a symphony
in sync with the killing.

While I was working in the U.S.

I kept thinking of some scenes
from AFRICAADDIO that I had seen.

I was thinking about it and
I had always admired Walt Disney

for the way they do
their musical editing,

how they synchronize everything,

every movement of a tail,
of a squirrel, of a bird,

every gesture was
in sync with the music.

When I was back in Italy,
I saw the footage of AFRICAADDIO.

I applied the precise technique
I learned from Walt Disney.

This is the famous,
tragically famous male hippopotamus

that you see speared to death
in AFRICAADDIO.

I think it would be very difficult

to find a beautiful hippo this size
today in Mozambique,

where most animals have been killed

in the course of the war that divided
Mozambique from the Portuguese.

The police discover
hundreds ofcaches ofivory and furs.

The gangs ofpoachers
have used grenades

to kill over300 elephants
without tusks

Poachers would kill elephants
ust for ivory.

We have film with tusks being
confiscated, warehouses full of tusks.

Rhinos were killed for their horns.
Animals were killed for food.

It was a form of anarchy.

We had access to these national parks

with the permission of the management
of these parks.

This one belongs to one of the biggest
elephant specimens in Mozambique.

During the time
we were filming AFRICAADDIO

we had a helicopter at our disposal

so the park rangers
protecting the animals

sometimes would borrow it
to prosecute poachers.

On one occasion
we caught a group of them

who had just killed this animal.

As a token of gratitude
the government gave me this tusk.

Our biggest advantage throughout
the eight months of filming AFRICAADDIO

was having this helicopter
at our disposal with a pilot and mechanic.

We could reach places, film,

and flee if we sniffed danger.

We were in Kenya when the episodes
against Nyerere occurred.

It was a Muslim revolt.

We rented an airplane
and flew to Dar es Salaam

which was closed down, practically.

We checked into a hotel
where they wouldn't let us out.

But we were so curious
and eager to film what was going on.

It was our reason to be there
in the first place.

So we found a taxi that drove us
to a place called ''The Barracks''

where the rebel soldiers were.

We asked to be let in,
even if it was all shut.

It was a state of emergency.

They refused initially,
but then as is usual with journalists,

we insisted on talking
to the chief of the rebels.

They led us into The Barracks,
searched us and took our belongings.

They tied our hands,
and called in a firing squad.

This is all true.

They had machine guns.

They lined us up against a wall,

Climati, Nievo, and me.

We were ready for the worst.

I remember telling Climati,
''Smile, smile.''

Showing panic
would have been really dangerous.

And this squad of a dozen men got ready.

For a moment I thought,
''This is the end!''

Finally a young colored officer arrived,
shouting,

''Stop! They're not Whites.
They're Italians.''

The phrase that saved our lives.

''They are not whites,''
which meant we were not English.

So they didn't kill us,

a miracle at the end,
but we got this close.

They were the worst episodes
we've gone through.

Two months later, Stanleyville, stronghold
ofSimba leader Nicholas Olenga,

has been conquered
by Belgian paratroopers and mercenaries.

The city is a cemetery without graves.

During the 1 00 days ofoccupation,

the Simba have tortured and,
in part, eaten 1 2,000 Africans.

It was physically wearing,
due also to being away from home.

We all had loved ones.

Just to let you know the spirit
we had at the time,

we were young -Climati and Nievo
came close to me and said:

''We've thought about it.
We've got families, and no insurance.''

We actually had insurance,
but not forwar.

I didn't know what to do.
It was a situation of responsibility.

I took a pen and ink and extended
the insurance for risks at war.

I took the responsibility.

They accepted this paper.

They were simply honoring a duty
towards their families,

but we were really happy to be there.

The next day we followed the battle
to the front line.

People were not
prepared for cameras then.

They didn't know what we were doing,

and most of the time
our cameras were disguised.

In Zanzibarwe rented a Dhow,
an Arabic sailboat

and we would film
from inside the Dhow.

Orwe filmed with an angled loop:
we pointed the camera in one direction,

but were actually filming on the side,
like a periscope.

The scenes we shot in the Congo
were really strong,

like the one
with the terrorist, ''Gancha.''

Prior to the arrival of the mercenaries,

This man had set a school on fire,

killing 30 children and their teacher.

When the mercenaries got there
and were interrogating him,

one of them suddenly
pulled out his pistol

and killed him before our eyes.

Carlo Gregoretti was with us,

the same Gregoretti
that had introduced Gualtiero and me.

We invited Gregoretti to join us
simply out of friendship.

He was there and he took part
in the filming in Africa,

and also published in ''L'espresso''

some of the scenes from AFRICAADDIO.

This false news that caused
such a scandal in Italy in ''L'espresso,''

Carlo Gregoretti
wrote a few articles about

''The army of Ciombe
at the orders ofJacopetti.''

The famous article in ''L'espresso''
was triggered by this:

Gualtiero, as I said,
was a man of extraordinary charisma,

but also of peculiar attitude,

impudent at times.

He met Carlo Gregoretti, who
had been invited to join us in Africa.

While chatting, Gualtiero blurted out
something he shouldn't have said,

as often happens among friends.

Gualtiero said something like,

''The mercenaries did everything
we told them to do.''

This is how the unfortunate
misunderstanding happened.

So, the legend that
we were after bloody events was born,

ust for the sake of entertainment.

It was said that we would
cynically twist the circumstances

to make the scenes
technically more effective,

''staging death under the sun.''

Can you imagine
that we would stage such a scene?

I say it cynically, to have a man killed
for a single take?

Technically speaking,
it didn't even make sense.

It would be much smarter to fire blanks,
and have him drop 1 00 times,

so as to be able to film as many takes
as needed and pick the best.

Nobody in his right mind would say
we had a man killed

ust to film a scene.
It was preposterous!

An exaggeration,
but it affected the public opinion.

When our material arrived in Rome
it was viewed by our editors.

Paolo Cavara was also on the staff,

but was left out of the crew
of all our films except MONDO CANE.

Maybe he was holding a grudge,

mostly againstJacopetti,

so when he saw some of the footage,

he claimed he had seen us
forcing a mercenary to kill a black man

ust to complete a scene.

The film was confiscated at Technicolor,
with a sign on the door saying:

''Confiscated due to massacre.''

So I was in Rome now,
answering the magistrates

about all the incriminating scenes
in the movie.

I was asked absurd questions.

For example, the judge
sat with me at the editing table,

when he saw the scene of the liberation
of the town of Stanley,

where we filmed dead people
in the streets, he asked,

''Who killed them? Was it you?''

This kind of nonsense.

In the meantime,
Gualtiero, Nievo, and Climati,

the ones under direct accusation,
had to go back to the Congo

and get some papers to certify

that all the accusations were false.

Stanis Nievo went with me
and we made the same trip again.

First to the embassy,
where we had a notary accompanying us

with seals and everything
to legalize signatures,

and in fact we did gather a big folder
with all the evidence and testimonies

of people stating
that we had saved them.

We had actually saved people,

on both sides,
who were about to be executed.

We would hire them as our crew,
saying they were porters or something.

At one point
we really had a following.

How did it end?
All ended well

for the simple reason
that as soon as the judge asked us

if the scene was real
where people are killed,

we would answer,
''It was all a fake, all staged.''

So the magistrates were happy
and we could walk away from this mess.

But of course the acquittal was published
with three lines on page five.

The accusation had been broadcast
on the front page of every paper.

But that's how it goes.
It's no surprise.

Following the publication
of the article,

the left took a stand.

They realized that this film
showed something very different

from the politically correct
vision of Africa

finally becoming independent,

the death of colonialism,
freedom to Africa.

This was the politically correct view
of the time.

We showed the other side of it.

No, Africa is not ready
for this independence.

The debate became political.

Our position was clear.

The scenes we filmed,

the interviews we made,

we weren't interested
in the politics of the moment.

We said things honestly.

Our point of view was quite clear.

It was not a justification
for colonialism

but it was a condemnation for leaving
a continent in miserable conditions.

Daily I fought with the censors,
with the Ministry.

They demanded cuts
they had no authority to demand.

You don't ask to cut political ironies.

Rather,you ask for cuts
because of customs, and moral codes.

But they had the upper hand

and without their OK,
newspapers wouldn't advertise.

So I had to make a flexible compromise.

The result was that I got a reputation

for being politically incorrect.

The film was released
to great anticipation by the public

because all these attacks
caused quite a stir.

So they were very curious to see it

and it was promoted very well,
in terms of propaganda.

I remember Rover
bought our battered cars

to be displayed in the theater
for publicity.

Of course, when a film is released,
if it stirs debate

the producers are more than happy,

because it leads to success
and that means money.

We all know about lines
at the box office.

It was an assault
to see AFRICAADDIO.

No one wins and no one loses,
once and forall.

No condition is defiinite
except forwhite and black deaths

that together infect the ruins
and dissolve, amidst the buzz offlies

into absolute biological equality.

As for the criticisms,
they were ferocious.

The public was not used to
this kind of truth.

People were very reactive to the idea
of mistreatment towards blacks,

towards Africans.

The mere mention of the difference
in skin color

provoked violent reactions,
no matterwhat you said.

On our part there was absolutely
no intention of racism.

I counted 98 press conferences
all over the world,

always fighting to no avail.
There was no point.

It was like talking to a wall:
''No! The film is racist!''

On our left is
one of the Davids of Donatello

that we had the fortune
ofbeing awarded.

This is the one for AFRICAADDIO,

the one that we did not receive
from the hands of

the Minister of Culture
and Entertainment, who refused to do it.

This is to point out again how lively
the controversies were

surrounding AFRICAADDIO.

Regarding the foreign language editions,

I decided to personally oversee
the French version,

because I wanted a good translation.

Cineriz Productions didn't spare
any expense so it was a job well done.

Then one fine day the copies are gone.

Vanished.

I did some research
but got only vague replies.

Then the truth is revealed.

Politically,
France's De Gaulle government,

De Gaulle's dictatorship,

formally asked Rizzoli not to distribute
the film for political reasons.

It was during the ''Pieds Noirs''
in Africa, the Algerian crisis.

The compensation was generous, though.

It included a Legion d'Honneur.
To whom, I won't say, for discretion.

The English version, unbeknownst to me,

was entrusted to an English translator.

But I couldn't oversee it.

I was busy with other things.

It ended up with
a completely different translation,

for fear of riots
from the black population.

Forthis great day ofUhuru,

every party has promised its voters

the prize ofthe land, livestock,
houses and cars,

ofthe whites that remained.

An excess of caution, probably.

The film was completely altered.

Anyway, the film that resulted
was not AFRICAADDIO.

It was something else.

To this day I'm still indignant,

and wish I could
bash someone's face in.

Unfortunately, I got to know about it
when it was too late.

Rizzoli had died,

and I had to suffer the outrage
of seeing the film I loved so much,

a film that cost me sacrifice,
passion, and youth.

To see it castrated, and insulted.

I felt rage and grief.

''Blood and guts.'' Come on!

MONDO CANE no longer exists,
but AFRICAADDIO still exists.

If I had to reedit it,

I would only change the voice over,
the commentary.

I wouldn't touch the images,

because the film AFRICAADDIO
is still relevant today.

This comforts me immensely.

I'm really proud,
not because it might be immortal,

but because of
how I intuited the future.

AFRICAADDIO is a film
that I love very much.

I remember it with pleasure and pain.

Great pain.

It was a beautiful film,

an important film,

shocking, full of events,
violent.

Very beautiful, it had it all.

AFRICAADDIO is the film
I'm most partial to,

the one that cost me the most effort

that I had the most enthusiasm about.

AFRICAADDIO was a film with a soul.

It was an act oflove.

After AFRICAADDIO...you don't like to
get so viciously criticized or insulted,

especially after traveling
for three years, risking your life,

sacrificing so much
to make a documentary.

Upon receiving defamatory accusations
as being racists etc.,

we tried to make a new film
that would be clearly anti-racist.

Once I got this idea, this intuition,

to make a movie as if staging a newsreel
back in past times,

it would be something bizarre

because certainly in the 1 800's
they wouldn't conceive of documentaries.

The idea fascinated me.

Also it would give me some respite from
the toils of actual newsreel shooting,

which is draining and unfulfilling.

So we thought, ''Why don't we do
'Mandingo' as a documentary?''

Like a vintage documentary,

in the sense that we imagine
being photographers

coming to America in the 1 800's
to observe the situation.

So we studied the subject,
the history of slavery in America

and began to film adopting,
mind you,

the viewpoint of men from those times
regarding slavery.

So you would see
the English poet Thackeray

visiting one of those
gorgeous mansions in Louisiana

like in GONE WITH THE WIND,

and witness the confusion
that reigned in the house.

In GOODBYE UNCLETOM,
the characters are not made up.

They portray real historical characters,

people who played a role in history,
science, and religion.

The reverend and his sermon;
those writings are for real,

not some screenwriter's dialogue.

The theory of scientific racism is real.

I was the one doing the research

because of my professorial background.

So I read all the documents I could find

on the topic of slavery in America.

The topic was very interesting.

It was the time when racism and slavery
were widely discussed.

It was a time of redemption.
It was the time of Martin Luther King.

A topic very up to date.

This was our idea, to demonstrate
how such aberrations originate.

Without softening it
with our present day view of things.

Without the hypocrisy of declaring that

African slaves in those times were
woefully aware of their conditions.

Because for the most part
they were not.

They were stolen from their homeland,

brought to another, totally different
country, with a different language.

Receiving no education,
not going to school, without freedom,

they could hardly
have an idea of their roots.

Just as the white owners had
no conscience of doing something evil,

they were righteous in what they did,
based on religious beliefs,

the Bible suggesting it.

So they saw things differently.

An African was a sort of animal
to be used as a workhorse,

and it was for their own good that
they were taught to live that way.

Let us not forget that
for us Christians, Catholics,

traveling along with Spaniards
and Portuguese to America,

the pagans didn't have a soul.

I mean, literally,
pagans didn't have a soul.

So a slave was like an animal,

he could be killed
like we would kill a chicken.

That was the concept back then.

So in the film we tried to show that.

But it was interpreted as cynicism.

It was probably our mistake.
We should have stated it clearly:

''Attention, what you are about to see
is the viewpoint of men of those times.

It is not ourviewpoint.''

As for the shoot, remember
we were coming off AFRICAADDIO,

a project that lasted three years
and cost us much sacrifice.

Being away from home for three years
is very hard.

So for GOODBYE UNCLETOM
we planned three months of shooting

like a normal film.

So where do we shoot?

It was going to be a fiction,
for the first time in our lives,

so we decided on Brazil.

We obtained visas, passed medical tests
and were granted permission.

We left Italy for New York and
were stopped by the Brazilian government

with a counterorder stating:

''Stop the crew of MONDO CANE
and AFRICAADDIO.''

Our reputation had eventually
caught up with us.

''Stop this crew from entering Brazil.''

Papa Doc was in charge of everything.

With the recommendation
from the Italian ambassador,

Papa Doc gave us a lot ofhelp.

Seven or eight cars with diplomatic
plates, special permission,

all in exchange for some chit-chat,
some sympathy for this strange old man.

I remember the dinners
we had to attend every Friday night.

He would treat us to stale bread,
cheese and water from the swimming pool:

the rhetoric of sobriety.

It was fun, it was a new experience:

putting on costumes, building sets,
and writing dialogue.

I had never done that before.

They called me.

I went and stayed there not too long,
three or four months. I don't remember.

Maybe two months.
I stayed a very short time

because the film was born bad
and was going to end worse.

The final scene
was the story of Nat Turner,

who at the height of the slave era was
the first to revolt against the whites.

So, what were we aiming for?

The chance to have
a conscience for blacks.

The closing scene where the child
wants his balloon back and he pops it.

He does it just out of malice
and I felt it wasn't gratuitous malice.

I saw it as a legitimate moral vengeance
from this man

who had so much
identified with that character

who had been destroyed.

It should go without saying that
nobody today would endorse slavery,

by any stretch of the imagination.

So, a film that was made to respond
to all accusations of racism

from AFRICAADDIO, to be anti-racist,

turned out to be a reiteration
of our alleged racism.

Racism that, once again,
we absolutely reject.

It would be illogical, stupid.

As for the film being...
it is difficult to watch.

Understandably so.

Maybe we went a little too far

and lost sight of the public.

My theory is the public is always right.

There's no such thing as the masterpiece
that the public didn't get.

I find the idea offensive.

The public appreciates good things.

But if it is rejected
because it isn't understood,

it means that it needed an explanation,

and if an explanation is necessary
then the film just doesn't work.

It must be self-explanatory.

Presenting this documentary
about the slavery ofblack people

without a word of introduction,

it was inevitable that the authors'
intentions would be misconstrued.

It's our own fault.

As for the criticism of the film,
we had to accept it.

Moreover, it didn't have
the same success as the previous ones,

and so evidently,
something wasn't quite right there.

The film aroused curiosity at first,

then came the censors
and it was banned.

At the trial, it was discharged in full.

Anyway, two months later
the film is released again.

It was not the success
it should have been.

Once a film has been removed,
the public is rightly distrustful.

It was a beautiful film
in its intentions,

but it came out wrong.

After thirty years,
I would redo the film.

Redoing it, giving it
a more documentary and scientific slant.

I would explain situations,
give dates, and data

about the whole phenomenon
of slavery in America,

and how it all happened.

Revisiting the film today, honestly,
I would change a lot of things.

I don't justify myself at all costs.

I'm not after a moraljustification.

In my opinion, if you state a moral,

you corneryourself.

Finding morals is the critics'job.

WithJacopetti and Prosperi
there was precise research.

Even if there was violence
it had style and intelligence.

It's not about art.

There is no true art. Today
it's all about shocking the public.

There is no love
of the movie-making culture.

Everything that was done afterwards
served no purpose.

They were the true creators
of this genre.

The collaboration ofJacopetti
& Prosperi lasted four, five years

in perfect harmony.

Extreme mutual politeness,
extreme respect.

We were still getting along great
while filming GOODBYE UNCLETOM.

Our relationship cooled down a little
while shooting MONDO CANDIDO

from Voltaire's ''Candide'' for reasons
that are pointless to explain now.

It was his lack ofloyalty

in terms ofhis partnership with me,
from an economic standpoint.

In the end, and I don't want to
go into the reasons again,

we had a final crisis and we parted.

A decision kept to this day.

This separation
saddened me immensely.

I understand that
they had some argument

and because
of their strong personalities,

they couldn't reach out to each other.

They just stopped working together.

It was a loss
for the entire movie world.

They had such great potential
and capacity

to create important and great films.

I am sorry
because you can't simply forget...

but no resentment, nothing.

It was always discussed
in a civilized manner.

We really went too far.

The dangers, illnesses, accidents,

but we never felt
we were heroes or martyrs.

It was always a pleasure for us.

To this day I still have nightmares.

I no longer have nightmares
about graduating, about examinations,

but I have nightmares
about someone calling me

and telling me to go organize
and film something somewhere.

This genre is attracting
a lot of attention.

I've received proposals.
I can't accept them now.

It's not my time anymore.

At another time
I'd surely like to take the plunge

and do something contemporary.

There's still so much to be told.

It's not true that
everything has been done already.