The words of Amadeus’ former agent, who revealed the host’s alleged ambiguous behavior at the basis of the termination of their relationship, are causing discussion. On the merits come the harsh words of director Di Pietro against the agent, Amadeus and the consolidated scheme that the interview brings to light.
The interview given by Lucio Presta to Il Giornale in which the former Amadeus agent reveals the reasons for the breakup with the presenter did not go unnoticed, breaking a silence that had lasted for months and in the midst of which there was ‘huge case of Amadeus’ farewell to Rai, which has been official for several days now.
Lucio Presta’s serious accusations against Amadeus
But beyond the opinions that every reader is free to have on interesting characters, Presta’s are statements that also bring to light malfunctions within the Rai machine, as well as possible violations by Amadeus himself who, according to Presta’s wordswould have demanded compensation as artistic director of the Arena Suzuki ’60-2000 event by the company that produces the show, namely Arcobaleno Tre which refers to Presta’s son, despite being the host of the show himself. A practice which, as the agent himself explains in the interview, is absolutely prohibited in Rai.
The words of Rai councilor Davide Di Pietro
This is why Presta’s words sparked a debate among Rai employees in the afternoon, with the councilor representing male and female workers, Davide Di Pietro, who analyzed Presta’s words and openly contested them. In a letter also published on the IndigneRai Facebook group, Di Pietro writes:
Lucio Presta: “Amadeus closed with me without paying me. Travolta case? He knew about the agreement”
Today’s interview with manager Lucio Presta with “Il Giornale” offers various food for thought, all of which are unfortunately bitter. In addition to the personal and professional relationships between artist and impresario which I do not want to go into, some passages concerning RAI describe a picture that many of us already knew and contested outside and inside the offices of Viale Mazzini, while others denied or pretended not to see. It is enough to work for a few years in the studios, directions or editorial offices of many RAI programs to understand that the interview tells a consolidated pattern.
Lucio Presta, in fact, “candidly” admits that it was he himself (with the host) who chose “set designers, directors of photography, directors, etc” (all external), depriving RAI of its authority, in his opinion, with all due respect to the internal rules, reassurances from the Directors, of the service contract which requires the valorisation of internal resources and despite the crowd of more or less top managers who have always denied when asked directly, while shaking hands around the Ariston with colleagues who work with heart and believe in public service. According to the impresario, an equally serious point, the interview also prefigures a strong violation of the rules when he asserts that the host Amadeus, on the occasion of the Arena Suzuki broadcast, received emoluments from the production company: this practice is expressly prohibited by the RAI Supervisory Commission.
So when he suggests that the issue of the sponsorship of John Travolta’s shoes was a matter perfectly known to the host and his entourage: is it possible that none of the managers and directors present at the Ariston knew anything? I will work until the last day of my mandate so that let’s clarify. Finally I add: it is clearer to me today why the “directors’ hub” and “authors’ hub” (i.e. the creation of a pool of internal professionals with priority over the external ones to which the company is bound to resort) that we strongly desired in the Industrial Plan is finding so many obstacles, resistance and difficulties in the practical application being discussed in the technical sub-tables underway in recent weeks. Here too the impression, supported by this interview, is that some “little hand” within Mazzini is trying to rewrite what has been decided by the Board of Directors because it is less “welcome” than the method described by Presta. In short, the interview paints a devastating picture: many of us are not surprised, but few over the years have had the courage to say it and denounce it publicly. The only thing that is certain is that Riccardo Laganà has always been right.
Di Pietro’s reference is to the late councilor representing Rai employees, Riccardo Laganà, who passed away last summer, who had put the fight against logics that favored great managers and productions at the center of his mission to reform Rai. external, to the detriment of the company’s workers.
