At this year's Documentary Film Festival (Beldocs 2025), five films are selected by the guest-selector Galeb Nikacevica, in the segment called "The Battle for Reality". Mr. Nobody vs. Putin Pavel Talankin and David Borenstein about everyday life in Russia - riddled with repression and propaganda, nationalist rhetoric, recruitment of teenagers - during the war in Ukraine. Blum brings the story of director Jasmila Žbanić about Emeric Blum, an entrepreneur and visionary who in post-war Bosnia and Herzegovina founded "Energoinvest", a company based on the model of workers' self-management. A bright future by Romanian director Andre McMasters illuminates the festival that was held in North Korea in 1989 and gathered thousands of students from all over the world under the idea of global solidarity. Hate hacking Simon Klose looks at the influence and growing power of far-right social media. The White House Effect Pedro Koss, John Schenck and Bonnie Cohen takes us back to the period when the world could start a decisive fight against climate change. "The selection of these films is inspired by the burning problem of modern society today, which is the battle for reality. With the historical development of technology, the birth of techno-oligarchs and the growing authoritarian regimes around the world, as well as their partnership, a threat was created that we have never seen before in terms of scale and strength," Nikačević wrote.
"WEATHER" What does the title of the program unit you are editing mean"Battle for reality"? In what way is reality threatened?, and that we would fight for it?
GALEB NIKAČEVIĆ: In order to fully understand the answer to that question, more space is needed for clarification, but basically, if you think about it, objective reality is not something we are given to understand, reality is a matter of social contract. We, as human beings, agree on what reality is. But if that agreement is broken, then how do we understand and agree on what is real and what is not? How do we understand the concept of truth, objectivity? Do we mean the same things by the same terms today? The answer, unfortunately, is no. And that's the moment we're living in now.
Why "unfortunately"? Wouldn't it be terrible if we meant the same things by the same terms? That would mean that we are not free beings...
Well, in such and such a case, we would not be free beings. And what does that mean? We would have to define more closely - what does it mean to be free? What does the word "freedom" mean and on what basis do we define it? It is a relational question and always stands in relation to something that made the circumstances unfree. The same goes for luck or privilege. There is no single definition, it is determined for each human being in relation to the circumstances of the life of each of those beings. But if we want to talk about the freedom of a society, in this case there must also be a social agreement and consensus regarding what we consider unfree (as well as what and what kind of boundaries we use to describe a society). And in order to be able to do that... We need to have a social agreement about beliefs, convictions, values and the way we communicate and transmit them. And that is exactly what we have lost thanks to the new brotherhood, which is the partnership of authoritarian regimes and big tech company in the last decade.
If it is judged by your choice, it is Putin and Trump who are the predators who have turned their backs on reality the fiercest? What about smaller predators??
I don't know what you mean by smaller predators, but the owners of "Amazon", "Facebook" and "Instagram", the owner of "Twitter" and the director of "Google" stood at Trump's inauguration. That, it seems to me, is a very important detail for understanding the world of news, information technology and politics today.
Smaller predators are Vučić, Orban, Fico, Marine Le Pen...
Smaller or just with smaller platforms and smaller means to achieve your goals? Power dynamics are largely determined by the resources at our disposal.
What criteria did you use to select films??
In addition to the quality of the films, which I believe goes without saying and is not important to emphasize, the criterion was determined based on the theme. First, we set the topic, and then we watched which of the offered films in the selection corresponded to this thematic unit.
How would you tell the difference between a feature film and a documentary film?, considering that a documentary film is also an interpretation of reality?
For me, the main difference is the process itself and its uncertainty. Reality has different rules of the game and far less control is in the hands of the author. In a feature film you create a story, in a documentary you follow it. The time of work, the circumstances in which work is done, the development of events, their success or failure, these are all details that are very difficult to predict. After all, waiting is a big part of documentary. There is a lot of empty space, depending on the circumstances.
And in a documentary, you create a story by choosing a perspective. That criterion of distinction is, let's put it that way, porous.
Porosity depends on the motive and intention with which we enter into something. It has nothing to do with film, art and culture in general or any other area in life. You cannot choose a perspective if the circumstances are not offered to you, and we have no control over the circumstances (Cinema verité). If we orchestrate the circumstances, then we are talking about propaganda. A documentary film carries with it different kinds of risks, responsibilities and challenges than a feature film. This does not mean that they are completely different, nor that there is no intersection between them, that is, a large number of common details, that is why they are both - a film. Only the first is a drama, the second is a documentary, and that distinction carries its own laws. If we don't respect them, we betray the very essence of what defines them and thus miss the point.
