The Ballando judge criticizes the beasts and their handler: “He wants to win, with wild underscores and allusive facets. But it looks like forced lever”
Published on: November 28, 2022 15:13:00
Nowadays we only talk about it Wilder Lucarelli: from the collision with VAT Zanicchiuntil his presence in Dancing with the Stars thereafter Grief for the loss of the mother, passing through the elimination out Henry Montesano and the last lawsuit with Guillermo Mariotto.
Libero Magazine is also on Twitter
Sign up for free to get the latest TV and Shows news
In the last interview that the journalist a David May, Rise to the news for that answer garlic attacks received from Caroline Smith, Lucarelli also spoke about why he did it rejected be Guest out Francesca Fagnani to beasts.
In the past, the Ballando judge had already expressed his Thought, Explain that the host of the cult show “wants to win, not knowing the interviewer” and now in May explained better the Why:
She wants to win in the sense that it’s interviews that enlighten her more than the interviewee, that’s all. In my case, losing means not gaining anything. I’m a journalist, I don’t really like speaking through others, I have the ability to say what I want with my direct tools. And besides, I’ve justified myself more than once for not going to her than for not baptizing my son, I don’t quite understand why!
And then adds: “I didn’t want to be interviewed by the good Cattelan and many others, but nobody asks me about it, I’m starting to think that beasts are a kind of conscription. I’m a conscientious objector!”.
So David May mention, that how walk Beasts to be seen as one did out Courage, almost as if those who “don’t participate have something to hide,” and Lucarelli Answers:
If it is experienced as an act of courage by the potential interviewees, it is a problem because it means that the interview is, strictly speaking, perceived as an ambush. It’s one thing to ask an awkward question, one thing to even pressure them into a certain subject, one thing to let that become the interviewer’s sole character, with wild underlining after the answer, the sarcastic look at the portfolio, and allusive facets . It’s a character that works for the interviewer, less so for the interviewee, because there’s no listening, there’s provocation. It can be fun, don’t get me wrong, but you have to have desire, not guts. have i been explained
TV program
You may also be interested