Film Groups File Criminal Complaint Against Selakovic

The president of the Association of Film Directors of Serbia, Milos Skundric, announced on October 19 that seven professional associations are filing a criminal complaint with the Public Prosecutor’s Office for Organized Crime against Culture Minister Nikola Selakovic and, as they put it, his accomplices in the Ministry of Culture and the Film Centre of Serbia (FCS). The trigger is a halt in funding for domestic film that, by their account, has lasted more than two years.

The complaint is signed by:

• Association of Film Artists of Serbia
• Association of Film Directors of Serbia
• Association of Film Actors of Serbia
• Association of Film Producers of Serbia
• Association of Screenwriters of Serbia
• Serbian Association of Cinematographers
• Documentary Makers of Serbia

Has the criminal complaint actually been filed?

Skundric’s statements leave that unclear. In both the interview with Danas and the statement to Vreme he speaks in the present tense, saying the associations “are filing” the complaint, but the date the document reached the prosecutor’s office is not given anywhere. Skundric himself says the proceedings “will certainly not start right away,” and in Vreme he says the Ministry of Culture and the FCS will “soon” face the prosecutors, because they refused to answer the question of where the money went.

Minister Selakovic’s response and any reaction from the prosecutor’s office have not been published so far.

How big is the damage, and how many films will not be made?

Skundric puts the initial material damage at about 2 billion dinars, or roughly 17 million euros. He told Danas:

Two billion dinars is the initial damage they have caused. That is money that was never spent and never will be, and that the Budget Law earmarked for domestic film production.

The number of films that, by his count, will not be made differs from one statement to the next. In Danas he says each competition supports six to seven feature films, so five missed competitions mean about 35 fewer feature films, plus around 20 feature-length documentaries, around 40 shorts and around 20 foreign co-productions. In Vreme he speaks of about thirty feature films, twenty documentaries, forty shorts and about 25 foreign co-productions. Both calculations rest on the two annual competitions the FCS is required by law to announce. According to Skundric they were not announced, so the debt now stands at four to five competitions.

On the responsibility of the FCS directors, Skundric told Vreme:

At this moment we already know that the acting directors of the FCS over the past two years acted contrary to the Law on Cinematography, which directly governs their work, as well as the annual contracts they signed with the Ministry of Culture. Their direct duty under the Law was to hold at least two competitions a year for co-financing domestic film. At this moment they owe at least four, that is, five competitions.

What do the associations say about the boards and Lekic?

According to Skundric, neither the Management Board nor the Supervisory Board of the FCS has reacted. He claims the Management Board did not take over the running of the centre in accordance with the law and the contracts, while the Supervisory Board “played dead” for the past two years. In that context he points to a possible conflict of interest involving the chair of the Management Board, Miroslav Lekic: in 2024, an FCS commission chose and funded Lekic’s film as the domestic entry for the Oscars. That claim appears in the sources only in Skundric’s own account.

The motive: retaliation or neglect?

Skundric does not see neglect as the motive for the halt. He told Vreme:

It is clear that this is nothing other than the deliberate suffocation of Serbian cinema and the people who make it, and the motive is retaliation for film artists speaking freely about corruption and the catastrophic situation in society in general.

He declines to speculate on whether the ministry is acting on a directive from former president Aleksandar Vucic or whether civil servants are simply currying favor with him, but he maintains that the Law on Cinematography, the Law on Culture and the Constitution have all been violated. He also claims that state resources are being placed at the disposal of director Predrag Gaga Antonijevic, Lekic and Lazar Ristovski, while projects that could draw large audiences and festival success are left without funding.

He made this statement about the minister’s political fate to Danas:

Selakovic will probably be pardoned by the former president for a crime against Serbian cultural heritage, but he will still have to answer for this, at the same address where they already know him: before the Public Prosecutor’s Office for Organized Crime. Selakovic is only one of the faces, but the most responsible one, as a culture minister who did everything except his job.

What about the 53 projects that were never completed?

Skundric also answers an earlier claim by Selakovic. The minister said at the start of the year that film workers had failed to complete 53 projects for which they received money, and Skundric calls that a serious lie. By his account, deadlines for completion run from three to five years, while a feature film takes about seven years on average, because the funds previously awarded were three to five times smaller than needed and than what neighboring countries put into film.

As an example he cites the documentary “Planina,” whose production took eight years and which won at the Sundance festival. He also notes that two short films took part in this year’s Cannes festival. Skundric says all of this is happening in a year in which domestic film has no funds invested in it.