The Monster without a Monster: Stefano Sollima and his team recount the behind-the-scenes and genesis of the Netflix series

To tell the story of the Monster of Florence without falling into the trap of theories, obsessions, and media trials: this is the challenge that the co-creators of the show The Monster (a miniseries for which you can read the review here, which celebrates the tenth anniversary of Netflix's arrival in Italy) Stefano Sollima and Leonardo Fasoli set for themselves with the new crime miniseries dedicated to the most disturbing news case of 20th-century Italy. A project that blends historical fidelity and cinematic tension, with the aim of bringing procedural and historical facts back to the center — stripped of interpretations and prejudices born over years of “monsterology” — and restoring the atmosphere, fears, and contradictions of Italy from the 1950s to the 1980s, when the idea that there was a serial killer targeting couples in the Tuscan territory began to form.

At the presentation of the miniseries at the Venice Film Festival, Gamesurf had the opportunity to hear it recounted firsthand by the three main individuals responsible for the creative choices that made it what we see on Netflix today:

• Stefano Sollima, director and co-creator of the series
• Leonardo Fasoli, co-creator and screenwriter
• Francesco Cappelletti, historical consultant

Showrunners Sollima, Fasoli and historical consultant Francesco Cappelletti told the press how the project was born, the rigor with which every detail was reconstructed, and the difficulty of confronting a wound still open in the collective memory.

Why is the miniseries entirely dedicated to the so-called “Sardinian lead”?

Stefano Sollima - It all started by reading the books written by investigators, journalistic inquiries, and all the incredible judicial and procedural material on the case. We realized that everything was, I wouldn't say tainted, but flawed by an original sin: every document started from a preconceived thesis, bending reality to the need to prove a theory. So we asked ourselves how to tell such a complex story. In this process of reordering, it seemed right to restart the story from the beginning, and the "Sardinian lead" was the first of the major investigations into the case.

Leonardo Fasoli - The story was complex, and there were many crimes attributed to the Monster from which we could have started our narrative. In the end, we started from that historical moment, from that true crime event where the very idea of the serial killer was born: before, there was no overall vision, and the concept of a serial killer itself was unknown to the Italian public.

Why does your series never express a judgment on who the culprit might really be?

Stefano Sollima - Our research work started from the premise of never wanting to give an answer, but rather to ask intelligent questions. The pleasure of watching a work, for me, is not finding answers, but going home and continuing to think about it and debate it.

What is striking about your Monster is the almost total absence of faces familiar to the general public.

Stefano Sollima - The cast was chosen based on the needs of the story: the "Sardinian lead" required linguistic and cultural specificity, so we chose very talented Sardinian actors.

Even though several decades have passed, many of the witnesses, investigators, and directly involved parties are still alive. Did you speak with the victims' relatives?

Stefano Sollima - We met practically everyone except the direct relatives of the victims. It seemed to us that we would be needlessly reliving pain, given that the testimonies and data we had were already more than sufficient. It was a matter of respect. There was no point in asking a father what he felt losing a daughter. We spoke, for example, with the sister of one of the victims, who in fact reopened the case, and with Natalino Mele, the child witness.

Leonardo Fasoli - We took on the responsibility of using real names, and everything we tell is exactly what happened, based on the records. It is clear that this will create a reaction, but our intention was to remember a story that, in our opinion, has always been betrayed by a thesis or a hypothesis, and never told only through facts.

What did you ask them?

Leonardo Fasoli - We tried to avoid the questions everyone had asked them about what happened: we focused on how he felt, on the emotion he associates with those difficult years for him.

Stefano Sollima - I focused more on his memories of the interrogations and how those events marked his life. It's hard to understand what such a young child truly remembers after such trauma and after perhaps being somewhat guided by relatives. It's a tangle of trauma, grief, and the experience of being an involuntary witness to his mother's death.

The silhouette of the monster changes depending on the suspect. How did this idea come about?

Stefano Sollima - That is exactly the wonder of Leonardo's idea. The trick is to anticipate in the crime what the next "monster" will be. So, in each episode, the one who plays the monster changes. This also gave us the freedom to tell all the hypotheses, changing uncertain elements like the type of flashlight or knife.

Did you ever take narrative liberties with respect to the facts?

Stefano Sollima - No, never. There was incredible research work on everything: costumes, cars, props. The only limit was the reality of the facts. We reconstructed the scenes based on forensic and ballistic reports, putting the actors in the exact positions, following the sequence of shots. It was a gigantic job; we couldn't not do it this way.

Francesco Cappelletti, you were a consultant for the series. Can the term "monsterologist" be used? And what was your experience on set?

Francesco Cappelletti - Today, with social media and self-publishing, anyone who has read a book thinks they have the solution. There are people who deal with it correctly and others who use excessive and disrespectful tones, almost like stadium fans. I try to report the facts coherently. On set, I experienced very strong emotional moments: seeing those atrocious facts reenacted made me lose my voice more than once while explaining them to the cast, to prepare them.

Initially, you considered the idea of a film. Why did you ultimately opt for a miniseries?

Stefano Sollima - We thought about it, but we wouldn't have made it into a film, for reasons of time. The structure of monographic episodes, dedicated to each "monster," allowed us to use time jumps and revisit scenes from different points of view, which would have been confusing in a film. The material was enormous, and even so, we had to make sacrifices.

Have you thought about the possible consequences of your work, a social media buzz that could bring new clues to light?

Stefano Sollima - Honestly no, and maybe that's a mistake I've been making for twenty years! You can't worry about the consequences, because it would prevent you from doing your job well. When you do a job with rigor, seriousness, and honesty, without claiming to provide a solution, it's inevitable that there will be reactions, but you can't think about it beforehand. It's all unpredictable.

How complex was the work with the lawyers? And what effect did rereading the newspapers of the time have on you?

Leonardo Fasoli - Incredibly, we had no problems with the lawyers. First, we did informational work with law firms to understand what could be said, and based on the judicial records, there were no problems. We consulted the newspapers of the time more for the general atmosphere and for some interviews, but our primary source was the records. And who is trembling in Florence today? I don't think there's anyone who should be trembling.

Given that the series does not comment on the matter, I ask here: in your opinion, is the absence of a unanimous verdict due to procedural flaws or a conspiracy of powers?

Stefano Sollima - I believe it's a combination of causes: technological limitations of the time, cultural prejudices that misled the initial investigations, and incredible media pressure that negatively influenced the investigators. Every time someone was arrested, the monster struck again, perhaps to reassert his presence, creating enormous psychological responsibility for those investigating.

Leonardo Fasoli - Once the Sardinian lead was exhausted, the Public Prosecutor's Office split. It was decided to close a door. The prejudice about the first crime, that of '68, weighed heavily: the victim, Barbara Locci, was cheating on her husband, so the investigation was not thorough. Since the same gun was always used, that initial procedural flaw complicated everything.

Francesco Cappelletti - The judicial affair is complex and limping. For the '68 crime, there is a culprit, Stefano Mele. Then Pietro Pacciani emerges, who is also accused of that crime. Pacciani is convicted and then acquitted. Then the "compagni di merende" (drinking buddies), Lotti and Vanni, are convicted, but only for the last four double murders, because the "caller in complicity" only makes statements about those. It's a picture that is not very convincing, and perhaps that's why we are still talking about it today.