Born in Turin in 1953, Edoardo Fracchia graduated in medicine in 1979. In 1984, he co-founded Stefilm with Elena Filippini and Stefano Tealdi, an independent film production company based in Turin.

Throughout a career spanning more than four decades, Fracchia has worked at the intersection of production, development, mentorship, and international collaboration, accompanying filmmakers from their earliest ideas to their encounter with audiences. As a producer, he has worked on numerous debut films, including “Song on a Narrow Path” (Visions du Réel 2001) by Akram Safadi, “Rice Girls” (Venice 2004) by Matteo Bellizzi, “Mostar United” (IDFA 2008) by Claudia Tosi, “Vinylmania, When Life Spins at 33 RPM” (Rotterdam Film Festival 2013) by Paolo Campana, “The Strange Sound of Happiness” (DOK Leipzig 2017) by Diego Pascal Panarello, “My Home, in Libya” (Official Selection Locarno 2018) by Martina Melilli, and “Amor” (Official Selection Venice 2023) by Virginia Eleuteri Serpieri.

He also writes storylines and treatments for documentary series and one-offs and leads documentary writing and project presentation workshops for Italian and international organizations.

In this conversation, we discuss the culture of co-production in Europe, the changing landscape of documentary filmmaking, the most common misconceptions surrounding pitching, and why Fracchia remains optimistic about emerging filmmakers. Throughout our discussion, one idea consistently emerges: what ultimately gives a film its strength is not its budget or presentation, but the sincerity, curiosity, and long-term commitment of the person behind it.

TR | EN | Türkçe versiyona buradan ulaşabilirsiniz.

“As Tolstoy said, “If you want to be universal, tell the story of your own village.” Everything has already been told; it’s the way it’s told that makes the difference; the feelings that emerge are the true glue between people from different countries, who remain people, even before producers, directors, editors, etc.”

In Europe, the most visible aspect of co-productions is often their financing structure. However, you have spent many years working with directors and producers from different countries. What makes you feel that a project has truly become an international collaboration?

It’s clear that the financial aspect and the various national and international regulations are the foundation of any co-production and therefore of international collaboration. European regulations are often complex and require the producer’s careful interpretation and use of them to achieve the film’s goal. I believe there are some basic conditions for a project to allow for a co-production with conviction and mutual benefits (not just financial). The first is the story and the way it is told. As Tolstoy said, “If you want to be universal, tell the story of your own village.” Everything has already been told; it’s the way it’s told that makes the difference; the feelings that emerge are the true glue between people from different countries, who remain people, even before producers, directors, editors, etc.

“Nowadays, the independence of producers and films where the author’s perspective is strong and dominant are being severely challenged.”

Throughout your career, you have closely witnessed the evolution of co-production markets, training labs, and professional networks across Europe. In your opinion, what is the biggest challenge facing a young producer or director entering this world for the first time today? How have these structures changed in recent years?

Nowadays, the independence of producers and films where the author’s perspective is strong and dominant are being severely challenged. Creativity is stifled by schemes and algorithms that serve the supranational industry, platforms that treat viewers as consumers rather than individuals, and political and economic power in general. For producers, relationships with the professional world are crucial, as is ongoing training. Therefore, personal (or company) investment in staying up-to-date and networking is inevitable. Labs, pitching forums, and festivals are opportunities for networking and learning. The greatest challenge is building a unique cultural profile that is reliable in terms of work ethic and project quality. If you settle for less, you’re lost! We must be aware that tens of thousands of proposals are floating around the world of audiovisual and film. It’s up to us to provide the strong, structural reasons why they can and should be produced. We must be aware that the artistic and productive development of a project is the most important phase of the entire process.

Having led pitching workshops for many years, what are the most common misconceptions you have encountered among filmmakers preparing to present their projects internationally for the first time? What advice would you give to someone preparing for such a process today?

The biggest misconception is that presenting a project naturally leads to its completion. The presentation, or pitching, is one of the phases of personal accreditation and project development. No presentation is ever the same: it depends on the project phase (early development, advanced development, post-production) and the context (a large pitching forum, a smaller one, a thematic one, etc.). Preparing the presentation is developing the project. The feedback we receive will greatly benefit us in revising and updating the project. We are humble and always listening (this isn’t always the case). We don’t expect immediate results; we’re running a marathon, not a 100-meter sprint. In the presentation, it’s important to be brief and to the point, highlighting the motivations that support us and the project’s narrative and emotionally engaging potential. Knowing that beyond the project, those listening want to get to know us, understand that they can trust us, and understand that we’re open to collaboration.

Countless projects circulate through co-production markets, funding applications, and international meetings. Yet some projects remain memorable long after the meetings have ended. In your view, what creates that lasting impression?

We who carry out a film project create the first and last impression. The project serves our creative ability and quality, not the other way around. I’ve attended pitches where the project presented was never realized, but the creator left something memorable and inspired others to work with him or her sooner or later. Those who listen to pitches want to be moved and find elements of identification. Memorable moments remain when we and our projects resonate with others. The person remains first and foremost; the project/story can always be changed, but the intention and motivation behind the creator must be clear and solid.

Some projects appear very strong during the pitching stage but struggle during production, while others that attract little attention at first gradually gain momentum. What usually makes the difference?

Difficult to answer. I believe that careful, in-depth, and conscious development is the key to a good project becoming excellent. Never cheat, but be yourself, highlight difficulties, and be open to criticism and help are essential.

Over the course of your career, you have worked with both established filmmakers and directors making their first films. Do you sometimes get an early sense of whether a director is ready for a long creative journey? Is there a common quality that has consistently convinced you to invest in a project or a filmmaker?

Even before investing in the story, I “invest” in the person (director/writer), and the person, at the same time, invests in me. We need to take the time to get to know each other, to see if the initial positive intuition is confirmed or not. The meeting should make me want to hang out, spend time together, get to know each other. The producer’s personality also matters a lot: who they are, what they’re looking for, what their inner world is, their interests, their predispositions. That said, the professional aspect is also important: what the director has already done or what he hasn’t done yet, how open he is to collaboration, what his storytelling skills are, what language he wants to use, etc. This is for first-time authors. For “experienced” ones, the criteria may be even different: what kind of project they have and what their market potential is. But in the end, it’s still the person and the quality of the meeting that comes from it. For me, what matters a lot is the stage in my life, my emotions, the desire and satisfaction of discovering new narrative, historical, philosophical, and cinematic territories..

During a film’s development process, directors and producers often approach the same project from different perspectives. What do you believe forms the foundation of a healthy creative partnership, and at what point is that trust most often tested?

Differing visions are a problem that often occurs, too often. The author and the producer are the ones who must develop and safeguard the project’s genetic code, around which the development and production process will be built. They must know each other thoroughly and consider each other as mutual resources. Only after a careful process of getting to know each other and building mutual respect can they consider starting a collaboration that often lasts for years. A vague understanding of this aspect is a surefire way to fail, a path that can become a nightmare. Authors often don’t know the producer’s work, and producers often consider authors boastful. It’s necessary to rid ourselves of these prejudices and invest time and energy in getting to know each other personally and professionally.

“I love working with first films because they more easily allow for experimentation, diversity, and total dedication.”

You have witnessed the journey of films from their earliest ideas to their encounter with audiences. Looking back, do you see a common characteristic or even a recurring human behavior among successful projects that still surprises you? In the long journey of making a film, what truly makes the difference?

I love projects that focus on a specific vision, a search for cinematic language, and a strong, personal motivation that the filmmaker is able to convey to the producer. I love my job because it aims to create a distinct personality for the film. I love working with first films because they more easily allow for experimentation, diversity, and total dedication. It’s the will of the people that plays the fundamental role and can challenge purely commercial rules.

“The crisis is profound, the “masters” have become predators.”

What has been the most surprising change you have observed in documentary production in recent years, and what do you think has driven that change?

Cinema is part of society and its changes, both positive and negative. While until a few years ago, television and support funds rewarded diverse content, language, and independence, in recent years the situation has completely changed. Everything is fast-paced, we move from one series to the next, from one film to the next: a bulimia that weakens critical thinking and accustoms audiences to passivity. Faced with this international situation, producers and directors find themselves marginalized and often excluded from funding systems. The crisis is profound, the “masters” have become predators. Only a general cultural shift and civil resistance can attempt to stem this devastating trend.

“Documentaries are treated as products, not artistic works.”

Stefilm has been active for many years in production, training, and distribution. Looking at the intersection of these different experiences, how would you describe the documentary ecosystem in Italy today?

In Italy today, the ecosystem is fragmented, bureaucratic, and often in the hands of politicians. Regional funds are not counted in national applications, the public television system is abandoned to political feuds and pursues the commercial language of platforms. Documentaries are treated as products, not artistic works.

I’ll end on a positive note. There will always be someone in the world willing to listen to you. You have to reach them by leveraging your few but strong qualities—content, visual approach, and good character—while knowing that no one will ever adequately repay your time and efforts.