Interview: Joachim Trier and Eskil Vogt on Capturing Memory in ‘Sentimental Value,’ Missing Robert Redford, and the Movies That Make Them Cry
Director Joachim Trier and his co-writer, Eskil Vogt, have the kind of collaborative relationship that the characters in their films could sometimes only dream of. Trier and Vogt first met as teenagers and soon learned that, despite their initial differences in style, they might just be more similar than they seemed. Since then, they have worked together on six feature films, including the Oslo Trilogy (Reprise, Oslo, August 31st, and The Worst Person in the World), and now, Sentimental Value, their most ambitious film yet.
What made their Academy Award-nominated screenplay for The Worst Person in the World so beloved among cinephiles was just how vivid and authentic the duo’s character study felt. There was something about discovering Julie (and the breakthrough star, Renate Reinsve) that felt revelatory, especially in a cinematic landscape that all too frequently neglects complex stories about adults. In Sentimental Value (which won the Grand Prix at Cannes), Trier and Vogt pivot away from focusing on a single character, but the result is no less powerful. Instead, the script unravels the complex threads within a fractured family, exploring how art can inspire empathy and reconciliation. Trier and Vogt continue their experimentation with form and structure, but their embrace of emotion (and, yes, sentimentality) is what makes Sentimental Value a film that audiences around the world will continue to connect with for years to come.
In speaking with Trier and Vogt, it was instantly clear not only why they were able to tell such a human, family story, but also how they were able to explore the experience of a filmmaker and writer coming to terms with creating his own cinematic language. Throughout the conversation, we spoke about the power of memory and place, the American and European films of the past that inspired Sentimental Value, and the importance of leaning into the stories that make us feel something.
Sophia Ciminello: I knew I was going to love this movie right when I heard that voiceover guiding us through the house and Nora’s childhood essay. How did you decide that that was how you were going to begin the film and how you would introduce us to the house and Nora as characters?
Joachim Trier: I mean, yes, we’re from a different neck of the woods here in Norway, but we grew up with a lot of different films from around the world, primarily American movies. So I think we learned early from Hollywood that exposition has to be entertaining! (Laughs). You have to shoot into the film with a certain energy, and we love to make films that feel a bit like music, with a playfulness and a catchiness. And we thought of this idea, like you mentioned, about the house and the perspective, and through that, we learn that Nora is in a house that looks back at them. We thought that was a fun idea because it gives an objective perspective on this multi-character story. But then we also learn that she has a troubled past with parents who fought a lot. We learn a little bit about the house’s history and who lived in it. And we also learn that she’s someone who copes with trauma through creation, and that’s a core theme throughout the whole film. So we kind of thought that that had to be the opening. But also, we just think it’s fun to invite people into a film that can go several places. Our biggest anxiety about this one was making a chamber drama where people sat around and talked, and everything would be about the dialogue, so we were really trying to do something more cinematic.
Eskil Vogt: Yeah, the opening of the film is a very privileged moment because you can lead the audience anywhere. You can do anything because people are ready to see something, and we like to exploit that freedom. And this time, like Joachim said, we could have done a lot of set dumps and exposition but at the same time, we could just invite people into a world that’s not only about this family. It’s not only about Nora on the stage having stage fright; it’s about something bigger, and I think that is the right way to start a film like that. You know, if you start with Nora, you would expect to follow her through the whole film and here we say no, it’s a whole world you know? And the house gives us a perspective that life is short. We think we are just doing our own thing but we’re actually influenced by previous generations and we just felt that this is a place where we can bring people in the right way.
SC: And you really do feel that that house has been the constant that has absorbed everything from this family over time. Joachim, I just watched an interview that you did with The Criterion Channel and you mentioned being really interested in the idea of memory. I think that plays a huge part in this film in how our characters really carry their history. How did you both think about memory in this film?
JT: Yeah, thank you! I think that’s one of my favorite subjects, but I’ll try not go all night (laughs). I’ll do my best. I think a lot of what we’re making films about generally…really all of the six films that we’ve done together have dealt with internal struggles. It’s not always about making an antagonist or a journey film where there’s something to be conquered or something external. It’s an internal, existential story most of the time, that we’re playing around with; really, the idea of identity. And identity constitutes the negotiation of a story about who we feel we are. It’s like the Joan Didion quote, you know, “We tell ourselves stories in order to live” or in order to survive even. So again, the idea that the house is a staging for these memories, but that the two sisters feel so differently under the same roof about who they are. And they have to kind of, in an indirect way, negotiate going forward, who was our dad and who were we, and why did we end up so differently? I think that was at the core of drawing people into those internal experiences and existential questionings they do. So yeah, memory is a big deal when we ask ourselves, “Who are we?”
EV: Yeah, and I think the key idea in the beginning was just to make a film about sisters. Have Renate play one of the sisters and to do something about how you can grow up in the same family but have a completely different childhood. In the beginning, we were kind of playing with childhood memories remembered very differently between each of the two sisters, so that’s where we came from. It’s about, like Joachim says, how memory informs your identity, and also, we wanted it to be about, you know, how this house had so many memories. It’s such a luxury to live in a house with that kind of history, but it also can be oppressive, you know? It’s not really your house. It’s also everyone else’s, and you kind of have this thing you’re carrying around and that’s also bad because there are bad memories, of course. It’s not all nostalgic and happy. Spoiler alert for what happens to the house: it’s terrible, but it’s also liberating.
SC: Oh, I’m so curious how audiences will react to that, because it is such a beautiful home, but you’re right that there is a liberating quality to see it change and for the family to be free of it in a way.
JT: Yeah, that’s really the paradox of memory and the responsibility of memory. In a way, you owe the past to remember it and to not repeat its mistakes. Going into the context of the Second World War in the story…
EV: And the archives, too.
JT: Yeah, the idea that you need a factual recounting to justify moving forward. You’re responsible morally to the past. But also, sometimes you need to fucking sell the house and move on and start a new chapter.
SC: Totally. You have to move on at some point.
JT: Yeah, you owe that to yourself and to your kids. So, there is that paradox in the film.
SC: You’ve talked a bit about the dynamic between the two sisters, but I also wanted to ask you about Rachel Kemp, because I think it would’ve been so easy to make her a caricature of a Hollywood star, but there’s so much depth to her. Can you talk about your process for writing this character and how you wanted her to fit in or not fit into the family’s story?
EV: First, thank you for that. I’m so glad you experienced her in that way because that’s what we were really going for.
JT: Yeah, thank you. Elle did a great job in giving her depth. Elle is an extremely sophisticated actor. She does acting within the film as an actor, which has one tone, and then she has genuine vulnerability towards the end, too, which is completely subtle and a very strong dramatic performance. She has a sense of humor. I really love what she made out of Kemp, who is a character who is a mirroring character, and a kind of substitute daughter for Gustav. She’s a kind of pivotal figure that brings out some of the aspects of the family that they’re not dealing with. I love that. What I always felt while shooting, and I told Elle, is that whatever happens with the character inside the film and the joke around her trying to speak Norwegian and to have the Norwegian accent and all of that is that we are ultimately proving in our film that there is no difference of integration of different cultures when making a movie. Elle Fanning came to Norway and made a film with us, and we are grateful, and it was wonderful. We are all working in the same way around the world. So, ultimately, our film proves the opposite. So if anyone had the interpretation that, well, we’re insinuating that an American actress won’t fit in, I think the reason that she doesn’t fit in has to do with Gustav’s relationship to his daughters, not that Rachel’s not a great actor.
EV: I think also what we wanted was that, of course, it’s fun with that American star and that kind of culture clash, but we didn’t want too much of that. We did one thing with that, but that was enough. That won’t sustain drama or a film, and we thought it was more interesting that she was so sincere. She wants to do good work, that’s why she’s there. And then she kind of exposes for Gustav that she’s not right. She’s the one who realizes that before him. I think she’s very admirable as a character.
SC: I think so, too. And getting into Gustav a bit, when I spoke with Renate and Inga separately, they both shared that, for their characters, they eventually see that Gustav is still a little boy looking for his mom. What do you think it says about these two sisters that, despite their very different childhoods, they’re able to come to that conclusion about him in the end?
JT: I really think it’s because they do it at different points in the film, and we actually kind of see it happen. I spoke to both of the actors about it. Inga goes to the national archive. She goes to the factual part of our society in the building and finds the core of a part of her father’s vulnerability: the fact that he lost his mother in that complicated, traumatic way, which he’s never really talked about. He jokes with her, bragging that he made fun of Rachel a bit with the IKEA stool, but that’s how far he goes. I think Nora doesn’t really understand until the end, in a way. That’s when she sees her father as that grateful little boy who was able to create something and look to her almost more than just as a director admiring or giving her a sense of a compliment or saying, “You did well.” It’s also the other way around. She sees him and his efforts to create art in a language that is away from that clumsy social language that he’s so incapable of. It makes sense that they both said that, actually. You know, these are the things people can interpret, but I’m glad that they said that.
SC: The fact that you give the characters that space to get there with each other reminds me of some of my favorite films from the ‘70s…
JT: I think you’re giving us a huge compliment, and I can see Eskil over there smiling, as well.
EV: Oh, definitely.
JT: That feels very at home for us. People like Peter Bogdanovich, Paul Mazursky, Martin Scorsese…
EV: John Cassavetes…
JT: But they were also very affected by European cinema of the ‘60s, which we were also very affected by, so it’s a beautiful kind of back and forth between Europe and America when it comes to drama. You know, Ibsen supposedly inspired Arthur Miller, and Arthur Miller has inspired everyone. When you look at “Death of a Salesman,” that’s a beautiful story of family. Woody Allen admired Bergman, and everyone has learned something from Woody Allen’s movies that are funny about life. You know, it’s that whole ongoing process of back and forth between filmmakers and countries, and we are up here in the North in Norway, looking at it all in a strange way (laughs) because we didn’t grow up feeling that we had a local cinematic culture that was strong enough to sustain input that we urged. We needed movies! So, we watched all kinds of things. I think from a craft perspective, what I love about American ‘70s cinema, and that we really tried to live up to as best as we can, is that the mise-en-scène and the formal elements are not in opposition to real character work and acting. Being a director is doing both. And some directors are most concerned with fancy camera moves, while others are just concerned with acting. I don’t believe in that divide. You’ve got to get both things working in order to make a film. So that’s our dream and hope to try to achieve.
EV: But it’s true that those films are made less and less. I remember on television when I was little, there was Kramer vs. Kramer, Ordinary People, and that was mainstream film that everyone watched and loved, and they came from Hollywood. And of course, those films coming from Hollywood are few and far between now, and it’s a pity because Hollywood was the best at making mainstream, big films that were about that. Make more films for adults, you know? (Laughs)
SC: (Laughs) Yeah, I completely agree. It’s funny that you mentioned Ordinary People, because that was a movie I thought of often when watching this. The way it deals with grief and mental health, especially.
JT: We love that film, and it’s so sad with Robert Redford passing away. What a great, important man. As a director, an actor, and everything with Sundance. What an important person in the cinema world, you know? Let’s talk about Ordinary People! (Laughs).
SC: Oh, I wish we had another twenty minutes to talk about Ordinary People (laughs). I thought of it a bit too, with just how similar Gustav and Nora were and how those two were the ones to butt heads. The peacemaker dynamic, too.
JT: Wow, yes.
EV: That’s true. I hadn’t thought of that before. But you’re right, it’s all there.
SC: In a similar way to Redford, too, you let the camera linger on the objects that belong to people who are gone. I think of that moment with Nora and her mother’s chair. We also hear the title in that moment, too, with the vase. What does the title mean to you?
JT: Yeah, so, we like the English title almost more than Affeksjonsverdi, which means the same thing in Norwegian. Just because “sentimental value” sounds like a jazz standard. It sounds like a song. It’s melancholic and sweet. It could be like a Cole Porter tune played by a jazz group. There’s something about the vibe of that title that we like a lot, but it’s also a little bit of a pun in that we value a little bit of emotionality here. We think we’re taking off the filter a bit and going straight into quite intimate and tender material. What, in Hollywood terms, used to be called the women’s movies, the melodramas, and try to give that a modern shape and form that we hope is relevant, but without the kind of macho efforts of being cynical or cool, you know? We’re trying to be a bit sweet about it and honest about what we care about at the moment, both being parents and all that stuff. And we’re very grateful that people have embraced that, that it’s okay not to be cynical even though the world is such a complicated place.
SC: That’s great. There’s a beautiful moment in the film where we see Rachel having a very emotional experience to Gustav’s film at the retrospective. Have you both had that experience watching a film recently?
JT: Oh, yeah…
EV: I think Sentimental Value is also about the fact that we’re growing older and more emotional. And there’s more crying watching films now, at least for me. It’s easy to get moved. I can cry a lot, and I’m still like, this is a bad film, they’re just pulling on easy emotions. What I appreciate is watching a movie, and I’m suddenly crying, and I can’t pinpoint the moment that made me do that. The last time I can remember doing that so well was in Aftersun, the Charlotte Wells film a few years ago. At one point, it was just so emotional to me, but it was so subtle in how she did that. It was a little bit of a miracle in how she was able to orchestrate those emotions. We saw it together, Joachim. We had a screening with some friends, and almost everyone had been crying, but not necessarily at the same moment, which is wonderful.
JT: That’s a great example. Also, Petite Maman by Celine Sciamma. Both of these films actually deal with the deep, unspoken grievances that are given some sense of cinematic language that is puzzling and magical. Both of those films were actually quite inspiring for making Sentimental Value in a sense because they showed us how strong it can be with the intimate portraits of family. So, those are good ones to give shoutouts to. I think those are good films.
SC: Those are both great picks. As we wrap, I have to tell you that Sentimental Value was one of those for me, where I didn’t realize I was crying at first, and then it all just hit me. So, thank you both for this movie.
EV: Oh, thank you!
JT: Thank you. Thank you. Great to talk to you again, Sophia.
- Interview: Joachim Trier and Eskil Vogt on Capturing Memory in ‘Sentimental Value,’ Missing Robert Redford, and the Movies That Make Them Cry - January 14, 2026
- Interview: Inga Ibsdotter Lilleaas on Empathetic Storytelling and the Power of Saying “I Love You” in ‘Sentimental Value’ - January 12, 2026
- National Society of Film Critics (NSFC) Winners: ‘One Battle After Another’ Dominates with Four Wins - January 3, 2026
FINAL 2026 Oscar Predictions: COSTUME DESIGN and PRODUCTION DESIGN 
Interview: Joachim Trier and Eskil Vogt on Capturing Memory in ‘Sentimental Value,’ Missing Robert Redford, and the Movies That Make Them Cry 
FINAL 2026 Oscar Predictions: MAKEUP and HAIRSTYLING and VISUAL EFFECTS 
2026 SXSW Film & TV Festival Lineup: ‘Ready or Not 2,’ ‘I Love Boosters’ and the Return of David E. Kelley