At the end of a recent interview with acclaimed filmmaker Christopher Nolan in New York City, we tell the man who’s given the world “Memento,” “Inception,” “Interstellar,” “The Dark Knight” trilogy, “Dunkirk” and 2023 Academy Award-winner “Oppenheimer” that we can’t wait to see what he does next.

“Hey man,” he says with an exasperated laugh, “give me a break!”

That’s fair.

Nolan is promoting his latest film, “The Odyssey,” and probably has earned some time to recharge his batteries.

After all, he filmed the epic, star-studded adaptation of the ancient Greek poem by Homer entirely in 70 mm IMAX, requiring incredibly big, bulky and heavy cameras, in what’s been reported as a grueling three-month shoot on location in spots including Greece, Morocco, Scotland and the United States.

Set largely after the Trojan War, in “a time of apparent magic,” “The Odyssey” is a tale of men, gods and creatures, of pain and vengeance. Matt Damon stars as Odysseus, the Greek king of Ithaca, who, along with his men, is on the long, treacherous journey home following the fighting. Back home, Odysseus’ wife, Penelope (Anne Hathaway), is desired by many suitors who insist Odysseus died years ago — a claim the king’s son, Telemachus (Tom Holland), is hellbent on disproving. Other notables in the multiracial cast include Robert Pattinson, Lupita Nyong’o, Zendaya, Charlize Theron, John Leguizamo, Samantha Morton, Jon Bernthal, Mia Goth and Benny Safdie.

Despite that murderer’s row and the critical and box-office success Nolan has enjoyed over the years, we get the sense “The Odyssey” — hitting theaters on July 17 — may not be the easiest of sells for him and the studio behind the film, Universal Pictures.

In our first attempt at an initial question, we refer to it as an “epic, three-hour adaptation,” and Nolan interrupts.

“Two hours and 52 minutes,” he corrects with a laugh.

Sorry, we say — we don’t want to scare people away by adding eight phantom minutes.

In the conversation, edited for length and clarity, Nolan discusses casting, the big-screen film experience, the movie’s visuals and sound and more.

Q: You decided to shoot this huge film entirely in IMAX, which requires massive cameras. Were you just sitting around one day with “Oppenheimer” behind you thinking, “You know, I’ve been taking it too easy on myself”?

A: (Laughs) I mean, in a way. It’s a balance when you’re choosing a new project between “What can I do? What have I learned how to do? What do I know how to do? But how can I build on it? How can I take that somewhere I haven’t been before?” You want to challenge yourself, but you also want to challenge these great collaborators.

People like (cinematographer) Hoyte van Hoytema — this guy is a genius. He’s an incredible director of photography but also has an engineer’s brain. And when you confront him with a problem — in this case, I said, “How can you light scenes in the ancient world, as if truly lit by firelight, not with (a traditional lighting rig)?” And he literally went away and invented an entirely new way of lighting a film using these pyramid-shaped high-red pyrahedron lights that simulate flickering flames. (He used) hundreds of them, placed them all around the set, alongside real firelight sources so we could shoot in more directions.

Those are the kinds of things you’re looking for — you’re looking for ways to really get the best out of people that you work with, who you know are able to step up and do incredible work.

Q: You’re a part of pushing this trend toward larger visual formats, such as 70 mm IMAX, at this time of streaming keeping people in their living rooms, creating these big cinematic events at theaters. I’m sure you take pride in that. At the same time, is it frustrating to know that some people won’t be able to see this film in a larger format simply due to their locations and a lack of compatible auditoriums?

A: No, no, no. Movies have always had different tiers of presentation. Because we shot the film in IMAX, we can take that negative and we can repurpose it for any format — such as the format standard, 35 mm — and make a beautiful result on digital screens.

We do all that very, very carefully. … And those digital tools get better all the time.

The consistency of presentations, actually, is strong. The thing about film presentation is it requires a lot of attention to detail. (With an) analog format, there’s a lot that can go wrong, essentially, so it has to be managed very carefully. So we have those premium screens, but we also have a really great version of the film that goes out to thousands and thousands of theaters that is a terrific way to see the film.

I don’t look back at the old 35 mm days (with great nostalgia) because there’s a lot that would go wrong. Digital is more consistent. You know, you’re able to put on a better show.

Q: Much talk has centered around just how difficult that shoot was. Do you recall a particularly grueling day where you thought, “Hey, maybe I AM crazy”?

A: I mean, so many! (Laughs) No, it was never feeling like, “I’m crazy.” I think there was a moment out on the boats with Matt. It was actually quite a calm day, but the sun was beating down, and we’d just had a sandwich out on the boat because we couldn’t go back in — there was no time for that — and I turned to him and said, “I said this would be hard and everything, but it really is hard.”

It was just physically taxing. Everyone was incredibly positive, but, you know, you get towards the end of the shoot — everybody was really, really tired.

Normally, when you say a shoot is hard, it’s usually to do with creative differences or tensions with the studio — you know, things going wrong with it. It wasn’t that. It was that we just tried to do as much as we could and … hit the limits in a way (laughs). But it was very productive and very much all there on the screen. There was a tremendously positive energy around it.

Q: Obviously, you’re no stranger to playing with time in films, and this story really lent itself to a nonlinear approach. For example, you were able to move the Trojan Horse around like a chess piece on a board. Can you talk about that?

A: The poem itself, when you go back to the text — and this is the irony of nonlinear approaches being seen as modern or new — but you go back to the “Odyssey” — it has that. It’s the original foundational text. It has a very adventurous, very cool structure, so I actually took that as a jumping-off point and then looked at, “How can I amplify the setups of things?”

Q: You mentioned Matt Damon a little bit ago. You’ve worked with him a couple of times but never before put him front and center. A bit of a tongue-in-cheek question: Why is late-night talk show host Jimmy Kimmel wrong about his talent? Why was he the right person to carry this film?

A: (Laughs) He’s an incredible actor — artistically, creatively, technically — and a tremendously charismatic movie star, but in two very different ways. He’s an everyman, a very approachable guy in films like “The Martian,” “We Bought a Zoo,” “Good Will Hunting.” AND he’s Jason Bourne. Odysseus needs both of those things, and that’s an incredibly unique combination for an actor.

And he has that audience association with both those things. The truth is when you work with a movie star, you’re giving that character some relationship with the audience from the first frame, and you have to be mindful of that. And when you’re casting, you have to be mindful of that.

For me, the challenge was taking Odysseus, who is a very wily, interesting, sort of supporting character in “The Iliad,” and making him center stage and being the conduit for the audience and needing someone the audience would really invest in and go on that journey with them. That’s Matt Damon.

Q: Sticking with the cast, this film has an embarrassment of acting riches. Many of the other notable performers you’ve worked with previously. Is there a common trait those actors possess?

A: It’s different with everybody.

I’ve worked with Anne a couple of times before. She’s just an incredible actor. That’s the thing: Once you’ve worked with someone, you’ve seen that process and you’ve been a part of that process. As a director, you are trying to help them get to where they need to go, either by talking about a thing or analyzing it or just by stepping back and creating an environment where they can create. You get a real insight into what that person can do and what they might be capable of.

So when you look at, for example, (her) character, Penelope — so complicated, such a tricky thing to pull off. … I knew in my bones that she’d bring something to it that I couldn’t even begin to imagine, a reality, a truth and a depth to the character that was absolutely necessary for the narrative. I needed a great artist, and she’s a great artist.

Q: I want to talk a bit about violence. With this film, you’re addressing man’s need for or relationship with violence. At the same time, you’re making this big summer movie that boasts its share of action and violence. Are you walking a tightrope?

A: Yes, very much, but I think that tightrope is a very interesting place to be. That tightrope is analogous to the tightrope that Odysseus is walking as a moral or an ethical creature who has had to engage in warfare. That’s a tightrope. How do you do what is necessary in a particular situation without losing touch with your humanity, without losing touch with what’s necessary for civilization to hold together and continue?

I think the most interesting approaches to art and films tend to embrace that tension. I love “Gladiator” — I’m a big fan of (its director) Ridley Scott — and that tension of, “Are you not entertained?” It’s that tension between the spectacle — engaging the spectacle and judging the spectacle at the same time. That’s something movies can do in a pretty interesting way.

Q: We talked about the visuals of this film, but we can’t talk about your movies — and this one is no different — without addressing the sound. What did your composer, Ludwig Göransson, and other collaborators on that side of the equation bring to this intense experience?

A: Well, I’ve worked with Ludwig a couple of times, and he’s just such an extraordinary talent. We have such an engaging, friendly, fun collaboration. And he, once again, is someone you want to challenge. I came to him at the very beginning of this process — I said, “Look, we’re not making this film in the style of 1950s Hollywood, so everybody’s not going to be doing English accents. So it seems to me we might want to not do the kind of classical, Romantic music tradition, where you get a big orchestra (playing) sort of 19th-century music and stick that on film.” And he was completely up for that. So you’re taking away his most powerful tool (laughs) and saying, “Find a different way.” And he went all over the world and … used these ancient instruments and did all these incredible things in the studio.

He also collaborates with our sound designers. … We’re trying to create a very complicated aural soundscape where the boundary between music and sound effects is blurred and almost nonexistent. That’s important to the way the world of the film is brought together — you want to immerse the audience in the world.

Q: Lastly, I think it’s fair to say most people walking into “The Odyssey” won’t have spent time with the poem. Is there anything they could be thinking about as they’re in line for popcorn to best prepare them for this experience?

A: I just want them to go on the ride and be entertained. I mean, truly, for me, the reason “The Odyssey” has persisted as a piece of literature is because it’s just a massively entertaining, fun story. I want the audience to sit down and just engage with this world and just enjoy the hell out of it.

The story, as given to us by Homer, has more going on and has things to be thought about, but that’s all subtext. So just go out and have a wild ride.

———

©2026 The News-Herald (Willoughby, Ohio). Visit The News-Herald (Willoughby, Ohio) at www.news-herald.com. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.