In the new episode of the eternal conflict between narrative and reality, the protagonist is neither a betrayed emperor nor a poisoned philosopher, but a Brazilian winger from Madridf, a stand of excited fans and a streaming platform.
The documentary Baila Vini, baila, fresh from the Netflix oven, has brought to light not only the scars of racism in Spanish football, but also the sensitivity of clubs when it comes to managing their public image. And Valencia CF, in this case, has decided that it is not going to dance to the rhythm set by the audiovisual montage.
Valencia denounces the distortion of the original audio
The controversial scene is one that the scriptwriters of the modern scandal know well: images from the match on May 21, 2023 between Valencia and Real Madrid, Vinícius pointing to the stands, shouts flying like stones, and subtitles that —according to the Valencian club— distort the original audio.
Where the fans were shouting "fool, fool", the documentary inserts "monkey, monkey". Thus, from a football insult to another with racial connotations, there is only a change of text, but an abysmal ethical difference.
Valencia, with a twisted face and the judicial robe already on its shoulders, has declared that it will not allow its fans to be defamed by the acts of a few. Let us remember: there were three fans identified and sanctioned for racist insults that day. Three out of forty thousand. And yes, they were expelled from the stadium on the spot, and later convicted. But that does not prevent the images selected and subtitled in the documentary from painting a portrait that the club considers unfair, if not directly slanderous.
Here appears one of those antitheses as painful as they are illustrative: on the one hand, the fight against racism, which demands visibility, denunciation and firmness; on the other, the need for precision, not to confuse the forest with the tree or the stands with the thugs. Because in times of viral stories, the border between testimony and montage is more blurred than a VAR line in the 90th minute.
Is Valencia's anger exaggerated? Or is it legitimate to ask that a distinction be made between the mass and the stain?
There is something almost biblical in this story: collective punishment versus individual sin, the totalizing narrative that crushes nuances in the name of drama. Netflix, as expected, has opted for rhythm, tension and effective editing. The truth, on the other hand, is usually rougher, less brilliant... and much more uncomfortable.
Vinícius, for his part, has become a symbol of a just cause. But justice, as the Romans well knew, also requires balance: neither minimizing what happened, nor inflating it to the point of deforming it.
The denunciation of racism cannot become an alibi for simplification. Because in the end, the fight for a better society is also played out in the details. And in this match, no one should be defeated by a montage.
Valencia demands rectification. The ball is now in Netflix's court, where they are probably already weighing whether editing is worth more than the truth, or whether it is sometimes better to change the subtitles before the judges do.
Because in this dance between memory, justice and spectacle, every misstep can end in a lawsuit.