To get back the “Belve” of the early days, “Belve Crime” was needed. In fact, it is with the spin off dedicated to interviews with witnesses and culprits of major crime cases that the program has returned to shine and savored the flavor of the early days.

In the “Crime” version everything works, starting with the landlady. Francesca Fagnani takes back what she does best (questions), giving up all that ultra pop part that has flattened her and the format over the years, between jokes, intercalations, smileys and so on and so forth, useful only to become material for the social media bubble.

In short, “Belve” lacked tension, represented first and foremost by that right and proper separation between the hostess and the guest. It is paradoxical, for example, that true ‘beasts’ are not asked what beasts they feel like. A break with tradition that continues with the cancellation of further rituals and standard questions that had become obsolete, above all because they were obvious and capable of allowing the interviewee to prepare the performance at home.

The strength of silences

In “Belve Crime” the difference is therefore made by the silence, which does not bore, but rather amplifies the emotions. The public is transparent, or even absent when Fagnani goes to register the arrest in prison. And it’s a good thing, because this restores solitude to the protagonists, an isolation that keeps the perception of restlessness and disturbance high.

Clearly characters with open accounts with the law were needed to remove that veneer of predictability from the show. The viewer once again has the feeling – and the hope – that something could go wrong. The person being questioned often rebels, is angular, rejecting. An attitude that is reflected on Fagnani, who at that point returns the blow.

Content becomes central again

What is finally central again is the potential content that the guest can guarantee and not the guest himself who – in the case of the traditional “Belve” – ​​has unfortunately promptly become the most popular one, the most pursued, the most talked about. Meanwhile, the name, we’ll see later. A legitimate move, which however in recent editions has left room for face-to-face meetings that were recorded and subsequently thrown away because they were deemed to be of little interest and performance.

“Belve Crime” stopped at 6% share (still an excellent figure for Rai 2 averages), well below the double digits achieved by the ‘owner’. Proof, for some, that this is the wrong path, that it is necessary to return to the right path. Probably, if you want to remain one Sunday In with money.

“Belve Crime” rather reminded us what the initial spirit of the program wanted (and should have been).