Eskil Vogt has been writing with Joachim Trier since they both started working in film. This collaboration has led to an intricate, very unique way of working together to create their stories based on the mutual respect and understanding they have for each other. With their multi Oscar-nominated film Sentimental Value (in which he is a co-nominee for screenplay with Trier), the process has stayed the same, but what they were open to in terms of exploring has changed, especially with the idea of sentiment itself.
Here, in an interview with The Contending, Vogt explains how themes are more important to them than plot, and how they explored several different ways to express so many diverse ideas in one film. Thanks to Vogt and Trier’s collaboration, it is easy to see why Sentimental Value has become such an Oscar juggernaut.
The Contending: You have worked with Joachim Trier on all of his scripts. What is your guys’ process?
Eskil Vogt: We have been working together for 30 years now and having been talking with people, I realize how rare that kind of collaboration is! I think to understand our process you need to know that we were friends before we started making films, but we also became friends because we both cared deeply about movies and had an ambition to make them. Every time we start to make a film we try to have uninterrupted time to sit together in my office and talk about ideas. We do not know if those ideas are going to be the film but we are trying to be very open and talk about everything. That is where the friendship part comes in. One of us will say I just heard this music, you should listen to that or I saw this film, you should see that. We talk about things like that and just our lives and our friends’ lives, and in the midst of that we’re talking about ideas for a film and then these things just kind of come together. The music we listen to, the mood we create in the room, the anecdotes, everything just comes together and then, at some point, we will know what the idea is.
Then we will start working in a more efficient manner hopefully ( laughing). The downside of being such good friends is that we have a lot of moments of procrastination where we just talk about anything. But sometimes even that feeds into the film so we accept that we’re slow, but we’re thorough. We go very deep into our lives and it’s a very safe place where we can really be ourselves. One of us can have a bad day or bad ideas and it doesn’t matter. But as film lovers we want to make a fascinating film. So we have that dynamic that we’re working on and, if it takes us a year to write a first draft that is okay, we then use that time to figure out financing. We can spend 9 to 10 months talking about the characters, the situation, and the formal aspects of the film and then, if we love these scenes, figure out what the story is. We work out the plot quite late, much later than most. Then I have to kick Joachim out so I can focus on hammering out the dialogue, and then sending it off to Joachim as I go along and he will comment and then I will incorporate those notes. We usually go really fast at this point and in 6 to 8 weeks we will have a first draft. Then we will sit down and redraft together. That’s our process and it has been that way since our second film. I consider it a great compliment that people follow our films because it feels like they’re part of that ongoing conversation between me and Joachim.
The Contending: So much of what I love about this film is that the emotions of the characters are expressed through a facial expression or just a little bit of dialogue. How do you write that for the actors to get that across to the audience?
Eskil Vogt: That’s a very good question because it’s harder than you think. It’s easy to write intention in the dialogue but sometimes the dialogue won’t be good enough even if it reads well. Good movie dialogue can be someone saying hello. With the right acting you can understand that hello means I hate you or I love you or I didn’t think you were going to be here. You have to leave room for the actors but at the same time it has to be readable. I began to permit myself sometimes to write some of the intention on the page so people will understand the emotions of the actor. But it is also a leap of faith that the actors will fill in those moments with their craft or even just by being there. Then sometimes you just have to add to the script to make certain everyone understands. The opposite can happen where we cut dialogue in the edit because the actor made it more than understandable and the writing has become redundant. I am not one of those screenwriters who cries when my dialogue gets cut. I root for that if it helps the film.
The Contending: In this film you talk about generational trauma, the art of filmmaking, the way the film industry is changing, issues with suicide, and human connection among family and peers. How difficult was it to get these all into one film, touching on them and not giving easy answers but just having us bask in them?
Eskil Vogt: Well, thank you! We discuss themes a lot in the writing room and that of course is linked to characters and the plot, but the themes are very important to us. They have to be there organically, and for me it’s not great when the themes are only there in a monologue. They have to be there in the gestures, the behavior, and in the form of the film. That is where the theme needs to be. We talk a lot about becoming too preoccupied with the plot. Obviously we love the plot, but it’s a device and it is not the main part of the film. I like to say it’s the hanger that you put the piece of clothing on, it isn’t the jacket. If you are too preoccupied with the plot you get caught up in the cause and effect. If you have a very strong plot you are imprisoned by it and you have to follow up on it. Then everything that’s not the plot needs to be cut. So we try to find strategies where we can open the film up a bit and not just be eye level with the characters.
For instance, if you back away from the emotions of the characters and try to see the story through a hundred years of family history, you suddenly realize how short a life is. Which lets you see how trauma can be passed down through generations. You can now tell these things in a very organic way that hopefully feels cinematic. You also get to pack things in. You can hide a lot of setups and themes that can echo through other moments. Then, especially with this film, having Gustav being a filmmaker you can have some of the themes inside of his films. Even if it’s an entirely different film language, you can trace a lot of the themes overall. We always try to shift things a bit and not make it obvious so the audience doesn’t feel like we are telling them the themes, we are letting the audience experience them.
The Contending: This scene I have not been able to get out of my head is when Rachel comes over and tells Gustav she cannot make the film. They both understand why, they are both hurt by it, and there is still a great deal of respect between them. With their dynamic, did that come from anything in particular that you have seen in the film world or individually experienced?
Eskil Vogt: It’s a bit of a hard question because it doesn’t come from something directly but it does come from the experience of working on films where you can have an actor because you love their talent so much you want them to work in the part but it is not a match. There’s just something there that doesn’t work and it is not the fault of the actor; they will be amazing in another role but if that’s what you want for that film you need to choose another actor. People who don’t work in film don’t realize that in casting it’s not about finding the best actor, it’s finding the best actor for the role. That could maybe be a worse actor but they’re the perfect fit. We found that interesting, but also how indirectly the movie communicates that in the way you can’t say the most important things directly to the people you love, that there’s always a way around, subtext, a gesture, or an action that shows instead of saying it outright.
The thing we liked with Rachel is that she is not a clichéd Hollywood actress; she is the one who realizes Gustav’s mistake before he does and confronts him with it. She is the one who gives him the option. She says she can do it and doesn’t want to leave him in a lurch, and he gets the chance to treat her in a very fatherly way. Which he can’t do with his own daughters, and he gets to say to her in his way that she is more important than this film. He tells her he will be fine and don’t worry about me; the things you want your parents to say, that they are not dependent on you, and are putting you first.
He does that with her but not with his own daughters, and that prepares him for the resolution with his own daughters. That’s one reason I really like that moment as well, and it’s wonderful the way Elle (Fanning) plays it because she’s done another emotional role earlier that’s about being a good actor when she gives a performance of the text he has written. Then in this scene she does some of the same kind of emotion but it is more grounded and has no performance in it. I really like what she brings to it.
The Contending: You’ve talked about having this similar process in your writing. Was there anything with this film that stood out as different or unique?
Eskil Vogt: I think it’s the first time we’ve written classical dramatic scenes that have a beginning, a dramatic point in the middle where things tip, and an ending. We usually write more messy sequences. Going back to the title of this film, when we started out we were young and punk and we wanted to avoid being sentimental. We wanted to have a cooler pure cinema language. Now we’ve grown up and we’re both parents and are now more open to the value of sentiment if it is truthful. I am still very skeptical of easy emotion, but if it is there why not use it because it has value. That is new for us to be braver in being emotional and being simpler in the way we write our scenes.
