MovieChat Forums > Reprise (2006) Discussion > Eskil Vogt, and the writing of the film

Eskil Vogt, and the writing of the film

posted 16 years ago by the_crystal-image
2 replies | jump to latest

Does anyone know how Eskil Vogt and Joachim Trier split the writing of this film? Was it a long, fully integrated collaborative process, or did Vogt plot out the ideas and write the screenplay and then hand it over to Trier for editing?

The reason I ask is because, although I liked the film, it seemed exceedingly literary. It seemed as if the writer had finished the screenplay, said, "well, I've just written the most literary screenplay ever ... and all about the lives of writers and the details of the writing process, to boot" and then handed it over to the director, saying "make this cinematic for me." Then Trier went on to pull out every stylistic stop he could think of.

Obviously, since both Trier and Vogt are credited as writers, this isn't what happened. And I know, I know, IMDb credits Vogt with directing two shorts. But Alain Robbe-Grillet directed films as well, so I'm not sure that means anything.

Anyone know anything about this? Or, more broadly, anyone else think the film was really, really literary?

[–] assmatronix 16 years ago

they wrote it together in a process going over almost 5 years. They're not smug about their "intellectualism", they simply wanted to make a film with a rich scenery and loads of references.

The first draft for the script was over 200++ pages long, meaning they almost trimmed it down to half and filled it with the "cream" of the material.

A basic rule is that 1 page in the script translates into 1 minute of film, meaning that the original script would have made an over 3 hour long film. Obviously that would've been too much and they were forced to shrink it.

it's a literary film. It's a film about poetry, books and publishing so it is only natural that they ended up throwing in a ton of references in the mix.

- - -
Biggest idiot on the IMDb:
the_gage

[–] the_crystal-image 16 years ago

I don't think the film or its authors came across as smug in its intellectualism. I thought the references and details added nuance and believability to the characters in their lives. Still, I would characterize the film as very literary--in its level of detail, and also in its storytelling technique. I really did have this pegged as a "writer's writer"/"director's director" collaboration, and it looks like I was off the mark. Thanks for setting me straight as to the writing process.