This website uses cookies so that we can provide you with the best user experience possible. Cookie information is stored in your browser and performs functions such as recognising you when you return to our website and helping our team to understand which sections of the website you find most interesting and useful.
Privacy Overview
Strictly Necessary Cookies
Strictly Necessary Cookie should be enabled at all times so that we can save your preferences for cookie settings.
If you disable this cookie, we will not be able to save your preferences. This means that every time you visit this website you will need to enable or disable cookies again.
3rd Party Cookies
This website uses Google Analytics to collect anonymous information such as the number of visitors to the site, and the most popular pages.
Keeping this cookie enabled helps us to improve our website.
Please enable Strictly Necessary Cookies first so that we can save your preferences!
Director's Statement
Giulio Andreotti is the most important politician Italy has had in the last half- century. His fascination lies in his ambiguity, and he is so psychologically complex that everyone has been intrigued by him over the years. I've always wanted to make a film about Andreotti, but when I started reading up on him I found myself wading through literature that was so vast and contradictory, it made my head spin. For a long time I thought that all this "material" could never be funnelled into the essential structure that a film, with its rules, requires. Moreover, the image of Andreotti as the quintessence of ambiguity has not only been projected by scholars, reporters and Italians in general, but is also one that he himself has cultivated by invariably playing on and exploiting that ambiguity.
First, by saying that his favourite movie is Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde.
Then, as he wrote his urbane, ironical and reassuring best sellers, by dropping hints about his personal archive filled with names and secret doings that only he appeared to know about.
This constant duality between the mask of a normal, predictable man and a mysterious and dark private persona, has given rise to countless stories about Andreotti.
Such a huge amount of literature required the rare gift of synthesis. So I am going to quote two women who possess this gift to a far greater degree than myself or others.
One of them is Margaret Thatcher, who does not mince her words when describing Andreotti:
"He seemed to have a positive aversion to principle, even a conviction that a man of principle was doomed to be a figure of fun."
The other is Oriana Fallaci:
"He scares me, but why? This man received me most courteously, warmly. His wit made me roar with laughter. He certainly didn't look threatening. With those rounded shoulders as narrow as a child's. With those delicate hands and long, white Fingers, like candles. His always being on the defensive. Who's afraid of a sickly person, who's afraid of a tortoise? Only later, much later, did I realize that lt was precisely these things that made me scared. True power does not need arrogance, a long beard and a barking voice. True power strangles you with silk ribbons, charm and intelligence."
Of the thousands of statements I read, it was these two comments about the most influential man in Italy that revealed powerful core concepts on which a film could pivot.