For Maradona, star of the popular stage

It’s often that you hear about how moving images bro­ke free of the dark scree­ning room’s grasp and that this expan­si­on made space for audi­en­ces more diver­se than ever before. 

I am not sure if the fan­ciful, indus­tri­al halls of art gal­le­ries or the impo­sing, migh­ty pil­lars of muse­ums are any more invi­ting or any less daun­ting than the situa­ting seats of a cine­ma. I also doubt that the type of works on dis­play in the­se places would attract a more mani­fold group of peo­p­le than the ico­nic per­for­mers of popu­lar cine­ma like Totò, the cran­ky prin­ce from Rio­ne Sanità.

Becau­se to con­stant­ly broad­cast foot­ball pro­mi­ses its grea­ter acces­si­bi­li­ty, alt­hough the under­ly­ing pro­fit-see­king moti­ves could not be dis­gu­i­sed by the con­cei­ted and pre­sump­tuous mot­tos of the art world. 

And tho­se moti­ves con­ta­mi­na­te the public expe­ri­ence with pro­mi­ses desti­ned to fail. Hence the emp­ty, caver­nous halls and the inten­si­fy­ing skep­ti­cism oppo­sed to the soul­less if not script­ed events foot­ball has become.

Popu­lar cine­ma stands for the con­tra­ry; for the pri­de of sin­ce­ri­ty, for times when popu­lism wasn’t a dir­ty word and mass enter­tain­ment wasn’t exploi­ted by the ruling class. Apart from Totò and tho­se spe­cial come­dies from post-war Ita­ly, it is Char­lie Chap­lin who imme­dia­te­ly comes to my mind regar­ding the­se slogans.

And Chaplin’s foot­bal­ling equi­va­lent was Die­go Mara­dona, ano­ther tiny man of para­mount accom­plish­ments who per­so­ni­fied an enti­re medi­um for the who­le world, who­se unres­trai­ned brain was con­stant­ly burs­t­ing out inge­nious ide­as and who­se per­so­nal eccen­tri­ci­ty and mid-care­er apo­theo­sis overs­ha­dowed ever­y­thing else.

Just like Chap­lin, Mara­dona is much more than the few signa­tu­re mas­ter­strokes with which he stu­pe­fied mil­li­ons and, just like Chap­lin, is not often enough dis­cus­sed today as one of the prime archi­tects of the game, an equal of Michel Lau­drup or Andrea Pir­lo – an equal of Jean Renoir or Mizo­guchi Kenji. 

But no mat­ter, becau­se like Chap­lin, he’ll be remem­be­red as the star who shi­ned for the peo­p­le. Unli­ke Chap­lin, who dedi­ca­ted most of his enti­re artis­tic life to inves­ti­ga­ting the cri­mes of capi­ta­lism and ridi­cu­ling the cul­prits, Mara­dona main­tai­ned this sta­tus becau­se he had thri­ved on top befo­re foot­ball got irrever­si­bly asso­cia­ted with business. 

Like his less iden­ti­fia­ble con­tem­po­ra­ry peers, Mara­dona also ear­ned incon­ceiva­ble amounts of money, but used this wealth to satis­fy his hedo­nism, to proud­ly and una­po­lo­ge­ti­cal­ly enjoy life as many would do; ins­tead of sepa­ra­ting hims­elf in the luxu­ry sub­urbs and main­tai­ning an impene­tra­ble pri­va­cy, which depri­ves today’s foot­bal­ling éli­te of such public admi­ra­ti­on. On the other hand, if it was the suf­fo­ca­ting influence of capi­ta­lism that escala­ted his down­fall, his vic­tim­hood is ear­ly pro­of of what shouldn’t have been allo­wed into the appa­ra­tus of foot­ball culture.

Eit­her way, from the popu­lar per­spec­ti­ve, he shall be glorified. 

And he will be. Becau­se like Chap­lin, Mara­dona will be eternal. 

We honor them with this dou­ble bill: