Michelin star vs. McDonalds: The filmmaking style Christopher Nolan deemed “well below what movies can be”
Christopher Nolan is undoubtedly one of the most ambitious directors working today. Whether he’s tackling tales of Nasa pilots or dream infiltrators, borrowing from real-life history or comic books, he affords every project a mammoth visual and thematic scale. His storytelling focuses on weighty themes such as time and memory, while his cinematography seems to get more and more impressive with each new offering.
The culmination of this arrived last year in the form of Oppenheimer, which marked Cillian Murphy’s sixth collaboration with the director. He took on the role of the titular character, J. Robert Oppenheimer, to front the story of the creation of the atomic bomb and the destruction and guilt that followed. It was Nolan’s heaviest offering yet, as well as his most visually striking, with an explosion sequence made up of science experiments.
Though Nolan is always striving to improve the idea of the modern blockbuster, looking to create more impressive effects on an even larger scale, he also staunchly sticks to the basics of filmmaking. He has spoken out about the dangers of the streaming era, he would much rather create visual through practical methods, and he always shoots on film.
The director believes that shooting on film is still superior to shooting digitally despite the advantages of the latter. During a conversation with Film Comment, he admitted that while digital filmmaking has improved consistency, it has resulted in something he describes as the “McDonald’s approach”.
“Everything is the same,” he explained, “It’s not Michelin-starred fine cuisine.” When you go to a McDonald’s, you know exactly what you’re getting. There will be little difference between a Big Mac no matter who makes it or where you eat it – it’s dependable. But it’s also monotonous, predictable, and often disappointing.
Rather than each film being comparable to a distinct, standalone restaurant, with a menu hand-crafted by those behind the scenes, distinctive presentation and service, digital shooting has made the medium as predictable as eating at a chain restaurant. “You’re bringing everything down to a consistent level,” Nolan explained, “but it’s well below what movies can be.”
Perhaps the superhero genre serves as one of the most poignant examples of this – with each and every entry into the Marvel Cinematic Universe, audiences have grown to know exactly what to expect. Uninspired colour grading, recycled movie posters, reused plotlines. However, Nolan’s complaints about digital media extend to the presentation of films more widely, too.
Nolan argues that filmmakers should be able to control the presentation of their work through elements such as screen size and lighting. The experience of cinema-going should be likened to fine dining, with the experience carefully curated by a chef or a director. Instead, it has become more akin to a Happy Meal – a reliable service station stop on a long drive, but, ultimately, you’re probably going to forget about the toy the second it gets lost in your backseat.
The triumph of film is evident in Nolan’s own catalogue, in the ingenuity and innovation of every visual effect and every shot. Perhaps if the director was shooting digitally, his films wouldn’t be quite as captivating as they currently are. For as long as he shoots on film, a cinema trip to see a Nolan film feels far closer to Michelin-star than McDonalds.
