Christopher Nolan has a bonkers justification for why he needs nine-figure budgets

As I’ve said a few times now, I really enjoyed Oppenheimer. My only real complaints were about Christopher Nolan still not understanding how to cast and write women, and that the script was too jumpy with the timelines, but it all made sense by the end of the film. Overall, it’s a good (perhaps even great) film with terrific performances all around, from Cillian Murphy to Robert Downey Jr to Matt Damon to Josh Hartnett. Oh, Gary Oldman was such blatant and unnecessary stunt-casting, and I fail to understand why two British actresses needed to play two American women, but you get the idea. It was mostly a great movie. I was surprised, as I watched it, that there weren’t huge set pieces – it’s mostly just people talking in rooms, and Nolan doesn’t even show the effects of the bomb. Imagine my surprise that the production cost $100 million? And Nolan wants a cookie for using his nine-figure budgets responsibly??

Christopher Nolan is a big fan of movies that are much more smaller-scale dramas like “Aftersun” (“a beautiful film”) and “Past Lives” (“subtle in a beautiful sort of way”) compared to his own output, he recently told Time magazine, but he’s probably never going to make them. Nolan got his start with indie productions like “Memento,” but he’s now famous for assembling blockbuster productions with huge sets and pricey budgets. He’s likely never going back to a more subtle production style.

“I’m drawn to working at a large scale because I know how fragile the opportunity to marshal those resources is,” Nolan told the publication about sticking with big productions. “I know that there are so many filmmakers out there in the world who would give their eye teeth to have the resources I put together, and I feel I have the responsibility to use them in the most productive and interesting way.”

Nolan’s most recent directorial effort was “Oppenheimer,” which carried a smaller-than-usual production budget of $100 million. That’s still a giant sum (especially for a dialogue-driven biographical drama), but it’s way down from the more than $200 million it took to get his espionage thriller “Tenet” off the ground. Nolan filmed “Oppenheimer” in around 60 days, and production designer Ruth De Jong revealed he slashed around 30 filming days in order to re-allocate the film’s budget to production design and set locations.

“It felt like a $100 million indie. This is not ‘Tenet,’” De Jong said last year. “Chris wanted to shoot all over the United States…just plane tickets alone and putting crew up all over the place [is expensive]. Not to mention I have to build Los Alamos, it doesn’t exist. That’s where I really felt like it was impossible. Chris said, ‘Forget the money. Let’s just design what we want.’ So that’s what we did, and when construction first budgeted my town it was $20 million. Chris was like, ‘Yeah, no. Stop.’”

[From Variety]

“We had to build Los Alamos from scratch” – a mini-town in the desert in which (again) most of the scenes took place in interiors, not exteriors? “We had to fly everyone all around the country” – for a film which AGAIN could have mostly taken place on soundstages?? Don’t get me wrong, I understand that Nolan felt it was important to film in California exteriors and desert exteriors, but holy sh-t, he’s really proud of himself for spending all of that production money, huh? What the hell is this kind of justification? “I know that there are so many filmmakers out there in the world who would give their eye teeth to have the resources I put together, and I feel I have the responsibility to use them in the most productive and interesting way.” Or you could not waste tens of millions of dollars on a pretty simple biographical drama in which people are mostly talking in rooms??? When Sofia Coppola was promoting Priscilla, she talked a lot about how few people would give her $20 million to make her movies, to the point where they even nickel-and-dimed her on Priscilla and she had to use B-roll footage from another project to complete the film. And here’s Nolan, basically justifying his exorbitant budgets as “I need those budgets because I know that I’m one of the few directors who gets those budgets!”

Photos courtesy of Cover Images.

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.

24 Responses to “Christopher Nolan has a bonkers justification for why he needs nine-figure budgets”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. VespaRed says:

    Maybe he should spend more money on clarifying the sound in post-production! I hate seeing his films without subtitles.

    • VSK says:

      Amen to this!

    • Deering24 says:

      He might also want to spend cash to make his (non-historical) scripts make sense–and to have someone reassure him that every single movie minute does not have to be a quadruple-twist/water-cooler moment. 🤣

  2. CC says:

    The studio gave him the money because they knew it was a safe bet that the movie would make it back.
    Also, Nolan left Warner Bros due to disagreements on how to film and market, so Universal both wanted to appease a director with a built-in fan base and stick it to Warner Bros.

  3. Dutch says:

    “script was too jumpy with the timelines, but it all made sense by the end of the film.”
    Wow tell me you’ve not seen another Nolan movie without telling me you haven’t another Nolan movie. Pretty much every movie he’s directed that doesn’t involve Batman or magicians plays with time in some way.

    And for a major studio production $100 million is on the low end, especially for a director with the box office success rate like Nolan’s. I mean Killers of the Flower Moon was also a talky period bio drama with a star studded cast and epic length and it cost twice as much as Oppenheimer and had fraction of the box office success.

    • Amie says:

      @CC

      exactly, this is the actual answer. But it’s more popular to ignore those facts because it’s sport to hate Nolan right now, especially from the crowd who thinks Greta Gerwig not being nominated was some kind of hate crime. The same type of crowd that would call you a misogynist for not liking Taylor Swift….the same type of crowd who thinks it’s best to focus on Barbie *snubs* than the POC landmark nods….gee, I wonder what those type of people have in common…

      • C says:

        Lol what? Nolan is the exact type of Academy white boy who is in the way of nominations for people like Gina Prince-Bythewood and Celine Song. And yes, Gerwig too.
        You cannot examine the problematic nature of the feminism surrounding the arguments about Gerwig and then try to gloss over the massively offensive way Nolan chose to portray the development of the bomb (completely ignoring the legacies of New Mexicans and indigenous people exposed to the atom bomb and the civilians killed in Japan; a “we can bring our boys home” propaganda directive in my opinion”).
        Oppenheimer is also far from his best work.
        Killers of the Flower Moon is not even remotely in the same category even if some other indigenous artists have objected to it in certain ways.

      • bisynaptic says:

        They’re female and sick of the patriarchy?

    • Deering24 says:

      Dutch–correction, The Prestige (which involved magicians) did play with time quite a bit. It was the poorer for it. And, yep, the book was way better…😂

  4. Elizabeth says:

    Most standard studio movies now have budgets nearing $100 million. This isn’t the 90’s where you can get a mid-budget drama made for $30 million.

    This is a narrow-minded POV on how filmmaking works, and how the studio system now operates. Which, is fine. Not every blog needs to be technical, but dismissing how Nolan works and how he puts his films together is needlessly dismissive and frankly, incorrect.

    He pulled in almost a billion dollars on a $100 mil budget. That’s pretty good in my books.

    Also – why not cast British people to play Americans? Y’all seem to have no problem playing anyone with an accent. And no one kicks up a fuss.

    This is such a weird take! Not every movie is made for everyone! A Chris Nolan movie, whether we like it or not, is now an “event” and a huge number of people enjoy his movies.

    • Korra says:

      This. I know someone who worked at Paramount when Interstellar was released 10 years ago — this was probably his only break from Warner Brothers before their relationship fractured after the release of Tenet. He was under budget and early with his delivery of every post-production aspect that the studio was said to be especially surprised by this. Besides his film output, the industry loves him because he is incredibly efficient and respectful of resources. And to your point about his films being events for theatergoers, he is aware of the precarious state of movie theaters and the economic impact it has on people employed by this system; he wants to create “event” experiences for audiences to help keep them going.

      • C says:

        “And to your point about his films being events for theatergoers, he is aware of the precarious state of movie theaters and the economic impact it has on people employed by this system; he wants to create “event” experiences for audiences to help keep them going.”

        Which is why his reported displeasure with Barbie’s release date is curious to me. Even Francis Ford Coppola on his IG stated the simultaneous release would only be a boon for theaters.

      • Korra says:

        We get it, you hate him, lol.

      • C says:

        I don’t hate anybody and I like a lot of his work. But as a person who likes discussing film, yeah, I disagree with these takes.

      • Korra says:

        Ok, I am being glib here, lol, but I do think there something to be said about how he shepherds film resources. And I do think both things can be true: he was bitter about having his film compete with Barbie, but he still cares about the theater going experience. Also, I think your take above — his unwillingness to explore the perspectives of indigenous and how is awarded privileges as a white male filmmakers women and WOC are not — are really more pertinent conversation points than his comments about nine-figure budgets itself.

  5. Leslie says:

    Considering the summer and fall strikes and the film business barely limping along with projects and shows getting cancelled left and right, a film maker employing hundreds of people to design, build, and dress practical sets is going to get the okay from me. Large scale movies the way Nolan makes them also means large scale employment for a few months for below the line crew members as well. Did he need to build a town? No, but the people in charge of lighting that town were probably glad he did.

  6. JaneS says:

    His movies make huge money. So he gets what he wants.

    Personally, I disliked all 3 Batman movies from him.
    The screens too dark, the sound is muddy, too long run time.
    WTH are ya doing putting Tom Hardy in a mask that covers his face?
    Worthless Tool. I want to see Tom Hardys face, he is gorgeous and talented.

    Nolan is now considered by some to be a Star Director, epic films w/2-3 hour run times are his style.
    Not for me any more.

    • C says:

      I agree.
      The Batman films have not aged that well imo (only the first really has).
      But he will continue to make tons of money and so can command what he wants.

  7. Kirsten says:

    I mean, he makes a ton of money for studios any time he makes a new film, plus I feel like everything he makes is very re-watchable; idk how many times I’ve seen Interstellar and Tenet at this point.

    And there’s no problem with Brits playing Americans. Acting is pretending you’re someone you’re not. American actors/actresses are doing just fine.

  8. lucy2 says:

    I have to disagree. I saw it in the theater, and remember it pretty well, and if you’d told me it cost $200 million plus to make I would not have been surprised. It was a big film, with a big cast of big names, and a period piece which has to drive up costs. I believe it was also filmed in IMAX which is more expensive. The cameras alone are hundreds of thousands of dollars.
    He’s got a proven track record and the studios have made a LOT of money off of his films. It’s not surprising to me they give him big budgets.

  9. Jake says:

    This is a weird take to me. Not everything he makes is to my taste but I have to respect the guy for caring as much as he does about cinema. $100M is not much to a big studio when you get the box office return Nolan’s name promises. If anything giving him a smaller budget is riskier because if you just film it on sound stages as suggested by this post you’re running the chance it’s going to look like shit and not be as successful.

  10. NikkiK says:

    I like that he creates sets, which also creates jobs and doesn’t just film on a soundstage and then CGI in everything. I appreciate it that about Denis Villeneuve too. Also, wasn’t Gerwig praised for her Barbie set creation? Should that have been filmed on a soundstage? I think Nolan can be pretentious but he makes well received and financially successful films. That’s good for him and good for the Hollywood ecosystem. As for the Oscar’s Best Director has been his to lose since the first trailer for Oppenheimer came out. It will be a massive upset if he doesn’t win.

  11. anon says:

    I know the location scout on that movie and it was absolutely not a sound stage movie. They shot at tons of practical locations.

  12. bisynaptic says:

    “I’m drawn to working at a large scale because I know how fragile the opportunity to marshal those resources is,” Nolan told the publication about sticking with big productions. “I know that there are so many filmmakers out there in the world who would give their eye teeth to have the resources I put together, and I feel I have the responsibility to use them in the most productive and interesting way.”

    Translation: studio heads are fickle; I love being their current favorite and seeing how envious everyone else is.