Books: Question 7, by Richard Flanagan, 2023

Not quite a novel, the book is part memoir part journalistic non-fiction, and research-based fictionalization of the development of nuclear science leading to the creation of the atomic bomb.

It is a example of late-modernist type of literature where personal accounts mix with research and scientific exploration of (most frequently) atrocities committed by humanity against itself, wars, genocides, environmental disasters – of the type of W.G. Sebald and his book “The Rings of Saturn.” Or, to use Flanagan’s own example, it follows H. G. Wells, who, he argues, “reinvented journalism as literature, prefiguring much of what literature would become.” Unfortunately, that is indeed what much contemporary literature has become. One need only look at recent Nobel laureates such as Olga Tokarczuk and Annie Ernaux.

The most exciting pages of the book cover the affair between H.G.Wells and Rebecca West. They are full of psychological insight, stylistic craftsmanship, and literary history fictionalized in a hilarious ingenious way.

By contrast, the sections devoted to the author’s earliest memories, family history, and portraits of his parents and relatives come across as deeply narcissistic. The attempt to filter major historical events through intensely personal experience is often irritating, if not self-aggrandizing. Reading and interpreting history through a fictionalized “I” raises questions about the ethical implications of such an approach.

Flanagan’s philosophising about the past, is at best helpless – “the past stays with us, that what was, is and shall be”, what is happening has happened and will always happen and other similar “deep thoughts” sound hollow.

The title of the book is taken from a Chekhov’s story – and again Flanagan misinterprets Chekhov by trying to imbue some grand meaning into the question “Who loves longer.” Where Chekhov is parodying, Flanagan is sentimentalising. The latter is right about one thing – his book is asking questions, without providing answers. As in Chekhov’s stories “the only people who have all the answers are the fools.”

Films: Sentimental Value, Dir. Joachim Trier, 2025

Isn’t it unbelievable that this film is considered the best European film of 2025?! Poor European film industry—how far it has sunk. This is not a bad film, but it is such a lightweight creation in every respect.

First of all, the script is a pathetic attempt to manufacture a Chekhovian drama out of a family-reunion story. It is heavy with clichés and obsessively focused on the self-indulgent “issues” of the so-called creatives of this world—filmmakers and actors in particular. The introductory scene centers on the main character’s stage-fright “drama,” played with ambitious self-importance and pedal-to-the-metal intensity by Renate Reinsve.

Her father, a famous director, offers her a role in his latest autobiographical film (yet another narcissistic element). They have been estranged for years, and the mother has passed away. There are grievances to be aired and guilt to be atoned for. The daughter refuses the role, and both sisters want nothing to do with the father. This is the core conflict of the film. Please! Chekhov’s characters wrestled with far greater questions—such as the meaning of life or the impossibility of happiness. Compare that to two daughters sulking over their father’s return and his failed attempts to involve them in his next film project.

Stellan Skarsgård could have played this role with his eyes closed. Meanwhile, the overachiever quality in Renate Reinsve’s performance is far too conspicuous; it is as if she approaches every scene with the attitude of, “Look how good an actress I am!”

The film’s ending does carry a certain sentimental value, but it is nowhere near enough to elevate it into genuinely good cinema.