With Fiume o morte! [+lire aussi :
critique
bande-annonce
interview : Igor Bezinović
fiche film], Croatian filmmaker Igor Bezinović revisits the occupation of Rijeka by Gabriele D’Annunzio, using a participatory, collective approach that turns history into a tool for reflecting on contemporary Europe. Drawing on his background in philosophy, sociology and political activism, Bezinović constructs a film that resists mythmaking and instead proposes cinema as a shared civic act. Winner of the Tiger Award at the IFFR last January, the film is now representing Croatia in the Oscar race and is nominated in the European Documentary and European Film categories at the European Film Awards.

Cineuropa: Your background is not that of a “classical” filmmaker. You studied philosophy and sociology before cinema. How did that shape your work and, specifically, Fiume o morte!?
Igor Bezinović: I studied philosophy and sociology before enrolling at the Academy of Dramatic Art in Zagreb, when I became interested in activist and political documentaries. That background has deeply influenced the way I think about cinema. My closest circle of friends is still largely composed of people from the humanities, from the artistic and political scene in Croatia and the former Yugoslavia. Being part of such a broad intellectual network has shaped my work profoundly. Cinema, for me, is never isolated from social, political or collective thinking.

What initially motivated you to engage with the figure of Gabriele D’Annunzio and the occupation of Rijeka?
I started noticing, already in my early twenties, that D’Annunzio was remembered very differently in Italy and in Rijeka, my hometown. In Rijeka, his name was always mentioned in a negative context, while in Italy I saw a growing number of books being published about him and streets and squares bearing his name, often in a celebratory way. This contradiction intrigued me. I first became seriously interested in the topic during my student exchange semester in Padua, but the project officially began in 2015, when I applied for development funding. It then took many years to understand the subject myself and to demystify it, both historically and personally.

The film adopts a very specific form, combining non-professional performers, reenactment and collective participation. How did you arrive at this format?
I didn’t have a clear formal idea at the beginning. For years, I read extensively, met historians, visited historical locations and tried to build my own understanding of events that I had never learned about at school. But I struggled to find the right cinematic form. Eventually, I made three key decisions. First, to tell the story chronologically. Second, to base it strictly on facts and photographs, reconstructed in real locations. And third, the most challenging choice, to involve the citizens of Rijeka directly, making the film participatory and collective. I wanted the story to be told from the perspective of a community, not from above.

What were the main challenges of working with non-professional participants?
The film had two major challenges: understanding the historical material and working in the present with non-professional participants. Many of the people involved were learning this history for the first time. I approached the process almost pedagogically, explaining to each participant what their role meant and what the scene was trying to convey. I was constantly worried that someone might feel uncomfortable or disconnected from the process. In the end, the response exceeded all expectations. The film became the most-watched Croatian documentary of all time and the most-watched film ever in Rijeka’s cinemas. Participants felt proud and emotionally involved: they saw the film as their own. What makes me happiest is hearing people say they wish they had taken part too.

In the film, you avoid explicit authorial judgment, letting facts speak for themselves. After all this research, how do you personally view D’Annunzio?
I believe D’Annunzio’s actions speak loudly enough on their own. The way the story is told already reflects my values, which are strongly anti-authoritarian and anti-aristocratic. D’Annunzio despised democracy, rejected collective processes and was deeply narcissistic. I find it astonishing that someone could proclaim war on his own country and later be rewarded with the title of “Prince”. It is a unique and deeply disturbing historical case. To me, he is a dangerous figure, not only historically but also symbolically, and one who can serve as a warning for the future.

The film clearly resonates with today’s political climate. Do you see it as a warning for contemporary Europe?
Absolutely. We should also call things by their name: fascism. The system in which D’Annunzio operated was based on four pillars: militarisation, propaganda, nationalism and capitalism. Someone financed the occupation, someone profited from it, and someone will profit from future wars as well. Today, we are witnessing the production of fear, the idea that war is inevitable, that more arms and more militarisation are necessary. This deeply worries me. I hope the film can function as a warning and help us reflect on what is happening in Europe right now.