The most expensive short film ever made
Budgets have been spiralling out of control in Hollywood for decades, which makes even less sense when you consider what can be created at a fraction of the cost with just as much – if not more – visual splendour on full display.
One jaw-dropping comparison came along very recently in the form of Godzilla Minus One, which features voluminous amounts of CGI-assisted kaiju carnage. However, for reasons that will no doubt be unfathomably inexplicable to studio executives all across Tinseltown, the budget for the movie is estimated to be less than $15million.
By comparison, The Flash and The Marvels – two recent superhero blockbusters that were lambasted for their substandard visual effects – each cost at least $200m apiece. If that fails to make sense, then consider that the most expensive short film in history runs for precisely 180 seconds and cost more to produce than Mel Gibson’s The Passion of the Christ.
The biblical drama has been chosen as a direct counterpoint because it was released in the same year as Baz Luhrmann’s No. 5 the Film, but justified the expense by earning $612m at the global box office. Meanwhile, Nicole Kidman was paid $3m to appear in the advertisement that cost $33m to make and dedicated a third of its brief running time to the credits upon premiering in November 2004.
Karl Lagerfeld designed the costumes for the typically opulent Luhrmann production, which co-stars Rodrigo Santoro alongside Kidman. She stars in the challenging role of a famous celebrity, one who runs through New York City’s Times Square before getting into a cab with a man who doesn’t recognise her for the world-renowned superstar she is.
Her secretary – played by Lagerfeld – demands she returns to the spotlight, cementing her return to public status by standing and staring at a ‘Coco Chanel’ emblazoned in giant letters on top of a building. Having sold an average of 10m bottles per year for the last decade and beyond, regardless of which A-lister is the face of the brand, it remains entirely up for debate as to why the company would feel the need to spend $33m on an advert.
Not only that but it was trimmed down to a 30-second spot when broadcast in many countries around the world, rendering the entire cinematic aspect of it obsolete. To put things into perspective, for $33m you could make Trainspotting ten times over, commission 38 versions of Rocky to shoot simultaneously, have Martin Scorsese recreate Taxi Driver on 17 occasions with change to spare, and just about have the ability to give the green light to a shot-for-shot remake of Die Hard.
On the plus side, Kidman was handsomely rewarded for her efforts as the ambassador of Chanel No. 5, but it makes the mind boggle thinking that it was deemed a worthwhile investment to funnel $33m into the project.
