Cannes-Winning Producer Giancarlo Nasi: U.S. Indies Chase Foreign Funds
Chilean producer Giancarlo Nasi told VIFF that U.S. indie filmmakers are chasing Canadian, Latin American and European public funds as private financing dries up and distribution collapses.

Programme
- Giancarlo Nasi, founder of Quijote Films, has produced 29 features and spoke at VIFF on Oct. 2.
- "The Settlers" (2023) drew companies from eight or nine territories and took eight years to finance.
- Some German funds demand as much as 150% of the grant spent in Germany.
- Installment-based public funds can delay final payment until theatrical release, up to two years later.
- Nasi is still waiting on $500,000 from Brazil after its funding system froze.
Chilean producer Giancarlo Nasi told a Vancouver International Film Festival masterclass on Oct. 2 that American independent filmmakers are now lining up for public money from Canada, Mexico, Latin America and Europe as private financing dries up.
Nasi, founder of Quijote Films and an intellectual-property lawyer based in LA, has produced 29 features, many as co-productions. His latest, the South African film "The Smell of Apples," a co-production with the Netherlands and Chile, premiered at TIFF.
"In America, many, many folks, especially independent filmmakers, really want to co-produce," Nasi said at his Industry Masterclass, "Exploring the Art and Strategy of International Co-Productions." "They really want to get public money from other countries of the world."
Why are U.S. filmmakers looking abroad?
Nasi diagnosed a distribution breakdown at home. "I feel the U.S. independent movie distribution is in crisis," he said. "Theaters are more and more focused on horror or huge studio movies with superheroes."
The evidence, according to Nasi:
- Many films in this year's official Cannes competition had no North American distribution — "which, 10, five years ago, would be crazy."
- A significant share of titles in last year's Cannes Directors' Fortnight had no sales agent at all.
- Latin American and European funds are "very eager to support U.S. filmmakers as well."
For Nasi himself, co-production has long been a necessity. Chile lacks the funds to make films at the scale he wants, and its market is too small. "Why would I make a movie only for Chile?" he asked. "There's no business."
What does a co-production actually cost creatively?
International partners bring more than money. They can dictate where a film shoots, require local crew or post-production, shape casting and constrain creative choices.
"If you're a director and suddenly you have to have a Canadian DP, or you have to have a Canadian editor, you need to know if you want that," Nasi said.
The best co-productions, he argued, make creative as well as financial sense. His recurring example was Felipe Gálvez's 2023 debut "The Settlers," a period Western shot in the far south of Chile. Officially a three-country co-production, it drew companies from eight or nine territories, including France, Argentina, the U.K., Taiwan, Sweden, Denmark and Germany, plus U.S. equity. It premiered in Un Certain Regard at Cannes in 2023, won the Fipresci Prize, played TIFF — and took eight years to finance.
"It becomes complicated," Nasi acknowledged. "Nine countries is a lot."
"We were very desperate," he explained. "It was a first feature, a period piece and very ambitious, very expensive."
Treaty or no treaty?
Official co-productions follow treaty agreements. Canada holds one of the densest treaty networks in the world, potentially unlocking more public funding and granting national-production status in both countries — at the price of additional requirements. Several funds, including most German schemes, Luxembourg's and a newer U.K. fund, skip treaty requirements and may fit better.
Spending rules vary sharply, Nasi warned:
- Chile imposes no obligation to spend the grant at home.
- France typically wants half spent in France.
- Some German funds demand as much as 150% spent in Germany.
Before signing, Nasi said, producers need absolute clarity on contributions, production fees and expenses deducted, rights control and final decision-making authority. "You need to go and read the guidelines and the rules of the funds you're getting so you can actually make an informed decision," he said.
What about cash flow and politics?
Public money may not require repayment, but it can arrive late. Some funds pay in installments — at the start of production, at the end of the shoot, and a final payment at theatrical release, potentially two years later. That gap forces producers to borrow gap finance or find "creative" financing while they wait.
Public money is also political. Brazil and Argentina froze systems after changes of government, including awards already won. "I'm waiting for my $500,000 from Brazil, and I'm going into pre-production. Where's my money?" Nasi said. Italy went quiet after Giorgia Meloni took office. Chile, he said, tends to pay when it promises; Brazil pays more but is less predictable.
Still, Nasi sees international co-production funds as a bright spot in a struggling independent economy. Governments invest in cinema for prestige and "soft power" as much as economics. "Call it geopolitical bullshit if you want," he joked. "But I mean, it's great for us."
For U.S. independents priced out of a shrinking domestic market, the message from Vancouver was direct: the money is out there, but only for producers who read the fine print.
Source: Variety Film



