WEBVTT - Girls Get Even: Birds of Prey and The Rhythm Section

0:00:00.220 --> 0:00:02.340
<v Natasha G.>Okay,  so  take  a  listen  to  this.

0:00:03.239 --> 0:00:07.809
<v Harley Quinn>The  Joker  and  I  broke  up.
 I  wanted  a  fresh 

0:00:07.810 --> 0:00:11.069
<v Harley Quinn>start.  But  it  turns  out,  I  wasn't  the  only  dame 

0:00:11.070 --> 0:00:12.790
<v Harley Quinn>in  Gotham  looking  for  emancipation.

0:00:13.700 --> 0:00:15.790
<v Natasha G.>Just  a  little  taste  of  the  trailer  for  Birds  of 

0:00:15.790 --> 0:00:19.300
<v Natasha G.>Prey,  the  upcoming  action- packed,  DC  Comics- inspired  release  from 

0:00:19.310 --> 0:00:23.209
<v Natasha G.>Warner  Brothers.  Welcome  to  Hello  Movies,  a  podcast  by  movie 

0:00:23.209 --> 0:00:27.670
<v Natasha G.>lovers  for  movie  lovers.  I'm  your  host,  Natasha  Gargiulo.  Today 

0:00:27.670 --> 0:00:29.979
<v Natasha G.>on  the  podcast,  we've  got  a  running  theme  going  on. 

0:00:29.979 --> 0:00:33.409
<v Natasha G.>We're  talking  about  women  and  revenge.  We're  going  to  be 

0:00:33.409 --> 0:00:36.690
<v Natasha G.>looking  at  two  films  that  feature  some  mighty  angry  females 

0:00:36.699 --> 0:00:41.330
<v Natasha G.>on  personal  missions  involving  violence,  emancipation,  and  vengeance.  Birds  of 

0:00:41.330 --> 0:00:44.250
<v Natasha G.>Prey,  of  course,  starring  Margot  Robbie,  and  The  Rhythm  Section, 

0:00:44.250 --> 0:00:50.120
<v Natasha G.>a  brand  new  thriller  starring  Blake  Lively.
 From  Lisbeth  Salander 

0:00:50.120 --> 0:00:53.089
<v Natasha G.>to  Wonder  Woman,  more  and  more  movies  are  featuring  these 

0:00:53.089 --> 0:00:56.789
<v Natasha G.>complicated  female  protagonists,  women  who  don't  do  things  by  the 

0:00:56.790 --> 0:01:00.130
<v Natasha G.>book  and  who  don't  shy  away  from  violence.  Audiences  are 

0:01:00.130 --> 0:01:02.340
<v Natasha G.>loving  these  films  and  we're  going  to  talk  about  why 

0:01:02.340 --> 0:01:04.980
<v Natasha G.>that  is  and  we've  got  some  killer  guests  lined  up.

0:01:04.980 --> 0:01:10.680
<v Harley Quinn>You  know  what a harlequin  is?  A  harlequin's  role  is  to  serve. 

0:01:11.509 --> 0:01:13.209
<v Harley Quinn>It's  nothing  without  a  master.

0:01:14.190 --> 0:01:17.860
<v Natasha G.>As  you  heard,  a  harlequin  equals  a  servant  trickster  character 

0:01:17.860 --> 0:01:22.119
<v Natasha G.>from  the  very  old  Italian  tradition  of  Commedia  dell'arte.  Harley 

0:01:22.119 --> 0:01:25.069
<v Natasha G.>Quinn  equals  the  name  of  a  complicated  female  with  a 

0:01:25.069 --> 0:01:28.470
<v Natasha G.>lot  of  moral  gray  area  to  explore.  We  last  saw 

0:01:28.470 --> 0:01:31.520
<v Natasha G.>her  as  The  Joker's  main  squeeze  in  Suicide  Squad.  She 

0:01:31.520 --> 0:01:33.729
<v Natasha G.>was  so  popular  with  fans  that  she's  back  in  her 

0:01:33.729 --> 0:01:37.729
<v Natasha G.>own  movie,  full  title,  Birds  of  Prey:  And  the  Fantabulous 

0:01:37.729 --> 0:01:41.119
<v Natasha G.>Emancipation  of  One  Harley  Quinn.  This  time,  she's  teamed  up 

0:01:41.119 --> 0:01:43.500
<v Natasha G.>with  a  whole  pack  of  female  anti- heroes  in  Gotham 

0:01:43.500 --> 0:01:47.379
<v Natasha G.>City.  The  Birds  of  Prey  includes  Black  Canary,  Huntress,  and 

0:01:47.420 --> 0:01:51.360
<v Natasha G.>Renee  Montoya,  the  first  openly  gay  character  on  screen  in 

0:01:51.360 --> 0:01:54.930
<v Natasha G.>a  DC  Comic  film.  Their  mission,  to  save  a  young 

0:01:54.930 --> 0:01:58.520
<v Natasha G.>female  thief  from  a  truly  evil  crime  lord,  Black  Mask, 

0:01:58.580 --> 0:02:01.620
<v Natasha G.>played  by  Ewan  McGregor.  Margot  Robbie,  as  we  know,  has 

0:02:01.620 --> 0:02:04.200
<v Natasha G.>taken  on  the  role  of  Harley  Quinn.  Is  she  good 

0:02:04.200 --> 0:02:06.340
<v Natasha G.>or  is  she  bad?  Does  she  still  like  The  Joker? 

0:02:06.410 --> 0:02:08.989
<v Natasha G.>Whose  side  is  she  on?  And  can  you  really  trust 

0:02:08.989 --> 0:02:15.470
<v Natasha G.>her?  What's  driving  her  forward?
 So,  to  talk  about  what 

0:02:15.470 --> 0:02:18.549
<v Natasha G.>motivates  a  character  like  Harley  Quinn,  and  to  speculate  on 

0:02:18.549 --> 0:02:21.250
<v Natasha G.>why  people  love  her  so  much,  I've  got  Hina  Khan 

0:02:21.250 --> 0:02:24.659
<v Natasha G.>here  with  me.  Hina is  a  coach  and  a  registered  psychotherapist 

0:02:24.660 --> 0:02:27.930
<v Natasha G.>whose  main  job  is  guiding  people  to  create  lasting  change 

0:02:27.930 --> 0:02:31.220
<v Natasha G.>in  their  lives.  So  basically,  an  expert  at  helping  stuck 

0:02:31.220 --> 0:02:34.019
<v Natasha G.>people  get  unstuck.  I'm  sure  you're  very  popular  and  you 

0:02:34.019 --> 0:02:37.410
<v Natasha G.>have  a  lot  of  clients.  We  asked  her  to  consider 

0:02:37.410 --> 0:02:40.410
<v Natasha G.>Harley  Quinn  and  give  us  her  professional  opinion.  Hi,  Hina. 

0:02:40.410 --> 0:02:41.710
<v Natasha G.>Welcome  to  Hello  Movies.

0:02:41.760 --> 0:02:43.399
<v Hina Khan>Hi,  Natasha.  Thank  you  for  having  me.

0:02:43.419 --> 0:02:46.150
<v Natasha G.>It's  my  pleasure.  Okay,  so  you  heard  about  this  film,  right?

0:02:46.290 --> 0:02:46.770
<v Hina Khan>I  have.

0:02:47.400 --> 0:02:49.630
<v Natasha G.>We  get  to  watch  a  group  of  really  super  tough 

0:02:49.630 --> 0:02:52.660
<v Natasha G.>and  slightly  twisted  sisters  doing  it  for  themselves.  And  it 

0:02:52.660 --> 0:02:55.220
<v Natasha G.>comes  on  the  heels  of  Harley  Quinn  breaking  up  with 

0:02:55.220 --> 0:02:58.540
<v Natasha G.>The  Joker.  So,  what  role  do  you  think  female  friendships 

0:02:58.540 --> 0:03:00.220
<v Natasha G.>have  in  the  wake  of  a  breakup?

0:03:00.730 --> 0:03:03.709
<v Hina Khan>I  think  female  friendships  are  everything  in  the  wake  of 

0:03:03.709 --> 0:03:06.639
<v Hina Khan>a  breakup.  That's  who  you  go  to.  That's  kind  of 

0:03:06.639 --> 0:03:09.850
<v Hina Khan>the  soft  place  that  you  land.  And  that's  also  where 

0:03:09.850 --> 0:03:12.690
<v Hina Khan>you  can  take  some  time  to  heal  and  also  gain 

0:03:12.690 --> 0:03:16.459
<v Hina Khan>perspective  on  what  has  happened,  what  you've  been  through.  And 

0:03:16.459 --> 0:03:20.760
<v Hina Khan>then,  it's  also  an  opportunity  sometimes  for  those  girlfriends  to 

0:03:20.760 --> 0:03:24.020
<v Hina Khan>share  some  of  their  insights  that  they  could  not  share 

0:03:24.329 --> 0:03:26.310
<v Hina Khan>when  you  were  in  the  relationship.

0:03:26.310 --> 0:03:28.350
<v Natasha G.>Yeah,  you  are  right.  Whenever  we  get  out  of  a 

0:03:28.350 --> 0:03:31.380
<v Natasha G.>relationship,  whenever  we  go  through  a  breakup,  there's  obviously  a 

0:03:31.380 --> 0:03:34.930
<v Natasha G.>lot  of  anger  involved.  In  general,  how  would  you  describe 

0:03:34.930 --> 0:03:36.920
<v Natasha G.>the  female  relationship  to  rage?

0:03:37.240 --> 0:03:41.230
<v Hina Khan>So,  I  think  the  relationship  between  women  and  rage  and 

0:03:41.230 --> 0:03:45.130
<v Hina Khan>anger  is  complicated  even  for  us,  because  some  of  us 

0:03:45.130 --> 0:03:48.400
<v Hina Khan>are  not  comfortable  with  our  own  anger  and  our  own 

0:03:48.400 --> 0:03:51.410
<v Hina Khan>rage  because  we've  never  been  taught  ways  to  express  it. 

0:03:51.410 --> 0:03:53.619
<v Hina Khan>We've  been  told  to  bottle  it  up.

0:03:53.690 --> 0:03:55.070
<v Natasha G.>Why  are  we  told  to  bottle  up?

0:03:55.530 --> 0:03:59.830
<v Hina Khan>Because  it  makes  other  people  comfortable.  And  so,  we've  been 

0:03:59.830 --> 0:04:04.270
<v Hina Khan>told  that  we've  also  been  given  an  idea  of  how 

0:04:05.160 --> 0:04:11.250
<v Hina Khan>young  women  should  be  in  social  situations,  in  situations  like 

0:04:11.250 --> 0:04:13.670
<v Hina Khan>that,  and  that  we  should  not  get  angry  because  it's 

0:04:13.670 --> 0:04:14.870
<v Hina Khan>very  unbecoming.

0:04:14.920 --> 0:04:18.450
<v Natasha G.>But  yet,  in  movies  like  Harley  Quinn  and  Birds  of 

0:04:18.450 --> 0:04:23.089
<v Natasha G.>Prey,  we  are  seeing  these  anti- heroines  that  are  kind 

0:04:23.089 --> 0:04:26.240
<v Natasha G.>of  raging  and  getting  revenge  back  and  we're  seeing  it 

0:04:26.240 --> 0:04:29.080
<v Natasha G.>very  popular  on  the  big  screen.  So  people  love  them, 

0:04:29.080 --> 0:04:30.760
<v Natasha G.>especially  these  women.  Why  is  that?

0:04:31.400 --> 0:04:34.599
<v Hina Khan>I  think  people  are  ready  for  it.  And  it's  speaking 

0:04:34.599 --> 0:04:38.700
<v Hina Khan>to  something  that  people  are  craving.  They're  tired  of  women 

0:04:38.700 --> 0:04:44.140
<v Hina Khan>being  boxed  into  these  stereotypical  characters.  But  what's  really  exciting 

0:04:44.140 --> 0:04:46.340
<v Hina Khan>about  it  is  that,  I've  got  two  boys  that  are 

0:04:46.349 --> 0:04:49.740
<v Hina Khan>10  and  12,  and  when  they  see  these  strong  female 

0:04:49.740 --> 0:04:53.890
<v Hina Khan>leads,  they  don't  even  bat  an  eyelash.  To  them,  it 

0:04:53.890 --> 0:04:56.159
<v Hina Khan>is  normal  now.  So  I  think  we're  seeing  a  paradigm 

0:04:56.159 --> 0:05:00.659
<v Hina Khan>shift.  Also,  as  we  see  more  female  directors,  more  female 

0:05:00.659 --> 0:05:04.159
<v Hina Khan>screenwriters,  when  we  see  it  sort  of  in  front  of 

0:05:04.159 --> 0:05:06.969
<v Hina Khan>and  behind  the  camera,  we're  seeing  the  narrative  change  as 

0:05:06.969 --> 0:05:09.529
<v Hina Khan>well.  And  then  these  characters,  what's  so  beautiful  about  it 

0:05:09.529 --> 0:05:14.229
<v Hina Khan>is  that  they  are  complex  and  layered,  as  we  are.

0:05:14.349 --> 0:05:17.770
<v Natasha G.>Yeah.  How  do  you  think  films  like  this,  female- directed 

0:05:17.770 --> 0:05:22.270
<v Natasha G.>strong  female  leads  full  of  female- initiated  violence  will  impact 

0:05:22.270 --> 0:05:24.210
<v Natasha G.>the  next  generation  of  moviegoers?

0:05:25.099 --> 0:05:30.159
<v Hina Khan>I  think  it  gives  women,  young  girls  permission  to  be 

0:05:30.190 --> 0:05:33.630
<v Hina Khan>able  to  access  their  whole  range  of  feelings,  not  just 

0:05:33.630 --> 0:05:37.550
<v Hina Khan>the  feelings  that  we  find  acceptable.  And  I  think  there's 

0:05:37.550 --> 0:05:40.710
<v Hina Khan>something  really  powerful  to  see  it  on  the  big  screen, 

0:05:40.710 --> 0:05:45.359
<v Hina Khan>because  we  see  it  in  movies  of  superheroes  with  boys 

0:05:45.359 --> 0:05:48.349
<v Hina Khan>all  the  time  and  they  get  to,  in  their  imagination, 

0:05:48.349 --> 0:05:51.059
<v Hina Khan>go  there.  I  see  it  with  my  boys  that  are 

0:05:51.080 --> 0:05:55.159
<v Hina Khan>10 and 12  and  they've  gotten  Nerf  guns  and  they're  playing  parts 

0:05:55.159 --> 0:05:57.819
<v Hina Khan>and  they're  doing  it  and  it's  all  really  healthy  and 

0:05:57.820 --> 0:06:00.700
<v Hina Khan>it's  great.  And  it's  going  to  be  wonderful  that  young 

0:06:00.700 --> 0:06:03.670
<v Hina Khan>girls  will  be  able  to  access  that  as  well.

0:06:03.680 --> 0:06:06.580
<v Natasha G.>Hina,  thank  you  so  much.  It's  been  awesome  talking  to 

0:06:06.580 --> 0:06:12.109
<v Natasha G.>you  about  this.  The  fantabulous  Hina  Khan,  everybody.
 This  is 

0:06:12.109 --> 0:06:15.270
<v Natasha G.>the  Girls  Get  Even  episode  of  the  Cineplex  Hello  Movies 

0:06:15.270 --> 0:06:17.919
<v Natasha G.>podcast.  If  you  like  what  you're  hearing,  don't  forget  to 

0:06:17.919 --> 0:06:21.159
<v Natasha G.>subscribe,  like,  share,  and  review  us  where  you  get  your 

0:06:21.159 --> 0:06:25.489
<v Natasha G.>podcasts.  Coming  up,  The  Rhythm  Section  starring  Blake  Lively,  a 

0:06:25.490 --> 0:06:29.690
<v Natasha G.>tense  and  moving  film  about  anger,  loss,  and  retribution.  Blake 

0:06:29.690 --> 0:06:32.479
<v Natasha G.>plays  Stephanie  Patrick,  a  woman  who  turns  to  violence  to 

0:06:32.479 --> 0:06:34.520
<v Natasha G.>get  revenge  on  the  people  who  killed  her  family.

0:06:38.810 --> 0:06:40.409
<v Stephanie P.>I  lost  my  family  three  years  ago.

0:06:44.010 --> 0:06:45.109
<v Speaker 5>It  wasn't  an  accident.

0:06:47.359 --> 0:06:49.010
<v Stephanie P.>I  need  your  help  to  find  the  ones  who  did 

0:06:49.010 --> 0:06:50.900
<v Stephanie P.>this.  I've  got  nothing  to  lose.

0:06:52.779 --> 0:06:52.780
<v Speaker 5>What about your life?

0:06:52.780 --> 0:06:52.860
<v Stephanie P.>What about it?

0:06:57.960 --> 0:07:01.099
<v Natasha G.>Okay,  so,  The  Rhythm  Section  is  a  new  British- American 

0:07:01.099 --> 0:07:04.270
<v Natasha G.>action  thriller,  screenplay  by  Mark  Burnell,  based  on  his  novel 

0:07:04.270 --> 0:07:06.929
<v Natasha G.>of  the  same  name  and  directed  by  Reed  Morano,  who 

0:07:06.930 --> 0:07:10.369
<v Natasha G.>directed  the  first  three  episodes  of  The  Handmaid's  Tale.  Blake 

0:07:10.370 --> 0:07:13.869
<v Natasha G.>Lively  is  playing  Stephanie  Patrick,  a  grieving  woman  who  assumes 

0:07:13.870 --> 0:07:16.640
<v Natasha G.>the  identity  of  an  assassin  so  she  can  uncover  the 

0:07:16.640 --> 0:07:19.710
<v Natasha G.>truth  about  how  her  family  died  and  go  after  revenge 

0:07:19.710 --> 0:07:23.500
<v Natasha G.>against  those  responsible.  The  film  also  stars  Jude  Law  and 

0:07:23.500 --> 0:07:26.619
<v Natasha G.>Sterling  K.  Brown.  The  character  of  Stephanie  Patrick  has  been 

0:07:26.620 --> 0:07:29.630
<v Natasha G.>compared  with  Lisbeth  Salander  from  The  Girl  with  the  Dragon 

0:07:29.630 --> 0:07:33.249
<v Natasha G.>Tattoo  series,  a  woman  dealing  with  trauma,  dark,  and  self-

0:07:33.250 --> 0:07:37.439
<v Natasha G.>destructive  but  deeply  determined.  I  recently  had  the  chance  to 

0:07:37.440 --> 0:07:40.750
<v Natasha G.>talk  to  writer,  Mark  Burnell,  who  created  Stephanie  Patrick  to 

0:07:40.750 --> 0:07:45.830
<v Natasha G.>learn  more  about  her  and  the  film.
 All  right.  So, 

0:07:45.830 --> 0:07:47.790
<v Natasha G.>I  had  the  opportunity  to  read  this  book  over  the 

0:07:47.790 --> 0:07:50.580
<v Natasha G.>holidays  and  I  must  confess  it  is  a  page- turner. 

0:07:51.380 --> 0:07:53.989
<v Natasha G.>It  kind  of  reminds  me  of  a  female  Bourne  Identity 

0:07:53.989 --> 0:07:58.080
<v Natasha G.>because  Stephanie  Patrick  really  kicks  butt  in  this  novel.  So, 

0:07:58.080 --> 0:07:59.950
<v Natasha G.>Mark,  tell  me  what  you  were  setting  out  to  do 

0:07:59.950 --> 0:08:02.050
<v Natasha G.>when  you  wrote  the  character  of  Stephanie  Patrick.

0:08:02.520 --> 0:08:09.230
<v Mark Burnell>Well,  originally,  before  I  started the book, the character was going to  be  male  because  conventionally,  that's 

0:08:09.230 --> 0:08:11.880
<v Mark Burnell>what  happens  in  these  kinds  of  books.  But  there  was 

0:08:11.880 --> 0:08:15.760
<v Mark Burnell>something  that  just  didn't  feel  right.  And  I  can't  even 

0:08:15.830 --> 0:08:18.590
<v Mark Burnell>truthfully  remember  now  quite  when  it  was that  I  thought, " What 

0:08:18.590 --> 0:08:20.239
<v Mark Burnell>if  it  was  a  woman?"  But  it  was  one  of 

0:08:20.239 --> 0:08:22.500
<v Mark Burnell>those  things  like  the  moment  it's  thought,  you  can't  unthink 

0:08:22.810 --> 0:08:25.900
<v Mark Burnell>it.  And  then  I  thought, " Okay,  yeah,  that  would  be 

0:08:25.900 --> 0:08:28.489
<v Mark Burnell>so  much  more  interesting."  Because  I  haven't  read  anything  like 

0:08:28.489 --> 0:08:33.439
<v Mark Burnell>this  with  a  female  central  character  in  these  types  of 

0:08:33.439 --> 0:08:36.929
<v Mark Burnell>thrillers.  And  of  course,  then  the  big  issue  was,  well, 

0:08:37.280 --> 0:08:39.390
<v Mark Burnell>how's  that  going  to  be  for  me  to  write  this 

0:08:39.390 --> 0:08:40.949
<v Mark Burnell>character  from  her  perspective?

0:08:40.949 --> 0:08:46.100
<v Natasha G.>This character has been compared in  the  press  to  Lisbeth  Salander  from  The  Girl  with 

0:08:46.100 --> 0:08:48.880
<v Natasha G.>the  Dragon  Tattoo  series.  How  similar  do  you  feel  that 

0:08:48.880 --> 0:08:50.040
<v Natasha G.>they  are  to  one  another?

0:08:50.400 --> 0:08:52.300
<v Mark Burnell>They  do  differ  in  some  respects.  I  mean,  the  reason 

0:08:52.300 --> 0:08:56.069
<v Mark Burnell>Stephanie's  in  such  a  pitiful  state  when  we  meet  her 

0:08:56.260 --> 0:08:58.270
<v Mark Burnell>is  as  a  direct  consequence  of  what  happens  to  her 

0:08:58.270 --> 0:09:01.120
<v Mark Burnell>family,  when  she's  in  her  sort  of mid,  like  in  her 

0:09:01.120 --> 0:09:03.880
<v Mark Burnell>late  teens.  Prior  to  that  point,  she's  grown  up  in 

0:09:03.880 --> 0:09:07.870
<v Mark Burnell>a  very  loving,  stable,  well- off  middle- class  family.  She's 

0:09:07.870 --> 0:09:10.390
<v Mark Burnell>had  the  best  kind  of  upbringing  you  could  possibly  imagine. 

0:09:10.439 --> 0:09:13.700
<v Mark Burnell>That  is  not  true,  I  know,  of  the  Lisbeth  Salander 

0:09:14.150 --> 0:09:16.640
<v Mark Burnell>character.  If  there  were  some  comparisons  to  be  made,  I 

0:09:16.640 --> 0:09:19.540
<v Mark Burnell>would  say  it's,  they  both  have  a  part  of  them 

0:09:19.900 --> 0:09:23.020
<v Mark Burnell>somewhere  held  somewhere  deep  inside  them,  deep,  deep  inside  them, 

0:09:23.480 --> 0:09:26.079
<v Mark Burnell>which  is  who  they  truly  are  and  it's  that's  protected, 

0:09:26.079 --> 0:09:28.610
<v Mark Burnell>so  whatever  else  happens  to  them,  whatever  people  do  to 

0:09:28.610 --> 0:09:31.319
<v Mark Burnell>them  physically,  the  kind  of  emotional  stuff  that  gets  thrown 

0:09:31.319 --> 0:09:34.520
<v Mark Burnell>at  them,  as  long  as  that  little  bit  stays  safe, 

0:09:34.520 --> 0:09:35.950
<v Mark Burnell>they  can  kind  of  deal  with  everything  else.  I  would 

0:09:35.990 --> 0:09:39.390
<v Mark Burnell>say  that's  probably a sort of  big  similarity  between  the  two.

0:09:39.640 --> 0:09:42.189
<v Natasha G.>Yes.  I  think  another  similarity  is  kind  of  like  that 

0:09:42.189 --> 0:09:46.780
<v Natasha G.>underlying  message  about  seeking  revenge  or  getting  vengeance.  So,  what 

0:09:46.780 --> 0:09:49.420
<v Natasha G.>were  you  trying  to  get  across  with  that  story  for 

0:09:49.420 --> 0:09:50.280
<v Natasha G.>this  character?

0:09:50.809 --> 0:09:54.510
<v Mark Burnell>For  Stephanie,  what  she's  looking  for  is  to  feel  better. 

0:09:55.170 --> 0:09:57.929
<v Mark Burnell>She  wants  justice  because  there's  been  an  injustice  and  not 

0:09:57.929 --> 0:10:01.410
<v Mark Burnell>only  that,  it's  taken  away  her  family,  so  on  a 

0:10:01.410 --> 0:10:06.329
<v Mark Burnell>basic  level,  that's  what  she's  looking  for.  But  more  deeply, 

0:10:06.900 --> 0:10:09.709
<v Mark Burnell>she  wants  to  feel  better.  She  doesn't  want  to  be 

0:10:09.790 --> 0:10:13.880
<v Mark Burnell>hurting  so  much  and  she  feels,  initially,  that  if  she 

0:10:13.880 --> 0:10:16.459
<v Mark Burnell>can  get  revenge,  if  she  can  make  it  right,  then 

0:10:16.459 --> 0:10:17.350
<v Mark Burnell>she's  going  to  feel  right.

0:10:17.929 --> 0:10:20.360
<v Natasha G.>You  worked  with  Reed  Morano  who  directed  the  first  three 

0:10:20.360 --> 0:10:22.800
<v Natasha G.>episodes  of  The  Handmaid's  Tale.  What  was  it  like  working 

0:10:22.800 --> 0:10:23.219
<v Natasha G.>with  her?

0:10:23.510 --> 0:10:26.449
<v Mark Burnell>Truthfully,  when  I  first  met  her  here  in  London,  I'd 

0:10:26.449 --> 0:10:29.290
<v Mark Burnell>sort  of  heard  about  her,  but  I  hadn't  seen  Meadowland 

0:10:29.679 --> 0:10:33.890
<v Mark Burnell>and  I  hadn't  seen  Handmaid's  Tale  either.  But  she  was 

0:10:33.890 --> 0:10:35.980
<v Mark Burnell>a  name  I  sort  of  heard  of  anyway.  I  was 

0:10:35.980 --> 0:10:39.980
<v Mark Burnell>introduced  to  her  by  Barbara  Broccoli  and  Michael  Wilson.  And 

0:10:40.380 --> 0:10:42.170
<v Mark Burnell>they  said, " Look,  it's  very  important  to  us  that  you're 

0:10:42.170 --> 0:10:45.329
<v Mark Burnell>happy  with  her  before."  So  we  met.  And  as  soon 

0:10:45.329 --> 0:10:46.980
<v Mark Burnell>as  I  met  her,  as  soon  as  we  started  talking, 

0:10:47.309 --> 0:10:48.929
<v Mark Burnell>I  just  thought, " Okay,  this  is  going  to  be  absolutely 

0:10:48.939 --> 0:10:52.500
<v Mark Burnell>fine."  And  we  got  on  amazingly  well.  She  had  a 

0:10:52.500 --> 0:10:56.490
<v Mark Burnell>totally  old  views  of  how  this  should  be.  We're  totally 

0:10:56.490 --> 0:11:00.100
<v Mark Burnell>locked,  really  from  the  first  day.  So  yeah,  I  couldn't 

0:11:00.100 --> 0:11:02.970
<v Mark Burnell>have  been  happier.  She's  been  terrific  the  whole  way  through.

0:11:03.630 --> 0:11:06.089
<v Natasha G.>And  I'm  curious  to  know  about  your  thoughts  of  Blake 

0:11:06.089 --> 0:11:08.160
<v Natasha G.>Lively  playing  Stephanie  Patrick.

0:11:08.429 --> 0:11:12.809
<v Mark Burnell>So  I  sat  through,  I think it was  85  separate  auditions  for  Stephanie. 

0:11:13.130 --> 0:11:13.960
<v Mark Burnell>Blake  was  not  one  of  them.

0:11:13.960 --> 0:11:13.990
<v Natasha G.>85?

0:11:15.100 --> 0:11:16.079
<v Mark Burnell>85,  yep.

0:11:16.230 --> 0:11:17.990
<v Natasha G.>Can  you  tell  us  who  were  some  of  the  other 

0:11:17.990 --> 0:11:19.510
<v Natasha G.>actresses  that  auditioned  for  it?

0:11:20.079 --> 0:11:25.209
<v Mark Burnell>There  were  two  really  real  standout  auditions,  both  English.  That 

0:11:25.620 --> 0:11:28.749
<v Mark Burnell>was...  But  we'd  always  agreed  here  that  no  matter  who 

0:11:28.750 --> 0:11:30.670
<v Mark Burnell>made  this  and  how  it  should  be,  that  Stephanie  should 

0:11:30.670 --> 0:11:33.490
<v Mark Burnell>stay  English.  She  should  definitely  be  English  on  the  screen. 

0:11:33.589 --> 0:11:36.280
<v Mark Burnell>So,  most  of  the  actresses  who  auditioned  were  English.  And 

0:11:36.309 --> 0:11:40.209
<v Mark Burnell>there  was  Florence  Pugh.  Her  audition  was  really  fantastic,  as 

0:11:40.209 --> 0:11:43.770
<v Mark Burnell>you  would  expect.  And  then  there  was  another  woman  whose 

0:11:43.770 --> 0:11:48.319
<v Mark Burnell>audition,  again,  rather  to  my  shame,  I  hadn't,  I  didn't 

0:11:48.319 --> 0:11:50.099
<v Mark Burnell>know  who  she  was because  I  hadn't  seen  the  series  that 

0:11:50.140 --> 0:11:52.330
<v Mark Burnell>she  was  in  over  here,  which  is  very,  very  popular. 

0:11:52.939 --> 0:11:56.640
<v Mark Burnell>Big  sort  of  Sunday  evening  show  called...  Eleanor  Tomlinson  and 

0:11:56.730 --> 0:11:59.290
<v Mark Burnell>she's  in  the  show  called  Poldark,  which  is  this  sort 

0:11:59.290 --> 0:12:02.229
<v Mark Burnell>of  17th,  18th- century  thing  set  down  in  Cornwall.  It's 

0:12:02.230 --> 0:12:07.679
<v Mark Burnell>a  big  costume  drama.  Her  audition  was  absolutely  extraordinary.  I 

0:12:07.679 --> 0:12:11.559
<v Mark Burnell>mean,  really  amazing.
 Anyway,  so...  But  anyway,  there  were  about 

0:12:11.559 --> 0:12:16.509
<v Mark Burnell>half  a  dozen  really  standout  ones,  but  Eleanor  Tomlinson's  was 

0:12:16.579 --> 0:12:18.040
<v Mark Burnell>the  best.  And  then  suddenly,  I  get  a  call  from 

0:12:18.040 --> 0:12:20.959
<v Mark Burnell>Barbara  saying, " Oh,  by  the  way,  Reed  signed.  She's  definitely 

0:12:20.959 --> 0:12:24.610
<v Mark Burnell>directing."  So,  that  was  excellent. " And  Blake  Lively  is  going 

0:12:24.610 --> 0:12:28.010
<v Mark Burnell>to  play  Stephanie."  It  was  like, " Really?"  It's like,  it  came 

0:12:28.010 --> 0:12:30.620
<v Mark Burnell>as  a  total  surprise.  I  have  no  sort  of  hesitation 

0:12:30.740 --> 0:12:33.160
<v Mark Burnell>about  saying  this  now  because of the way  it  turned  out, but  I  was 

0:12:33.160 --> 0:12:37.479
<v Mark Burnell>slightly  taken  aback  because  I  thought, " Well,  this  is  not 

0:12:37.480 --> 0:12:41.939
<v Mark Burnell>who  I  imagined  that was going to  be  playing  Stephanie,"  because  I'm  mostly 

0:12:41.939 --> 0:12:45.240
<v Mark Burnell>familiar  from  her  work.  My  daughter's  a  huge  fan  of 

0:12:45.240 --> 0:12:45.809
<v Mark Burnell>Gossip  Girl.

0:12:45.969 --> 0:12:45.979
<v Natasha G.>XOXO.

0:12:47.380 --> 0:12:50.989
<v Mark Burnell>Well,  exactly.  And  although,  I  had  recently  seen  The  Shallows. 

0:12:51.040 --> 0:12:53.589
<v Mark Burnell>I  had  recently  seen  The  Shallows  where  she's  in  every 

0:12:53.589 --> 0:12:57.349
<v Mark Burnell>single  scene,  and it  was  terrific.  But  nevertheless,  that  wasn't  quite 

0:12:57.349 --> 0:13:00.649
<v Mark Burnell>what  I  had  in  mind.  But  then  from  the  first 

0:13:00.650 --> 0:13:04.540
<v Mark Burnell>day,  the  first  day  on  the  set  was  in  Dublin. 

0:13:05.010 --> 0:13:08.489
<v Mark Burnell>The  moment  I  saw  her  on  the  monitor,  the  way 

0:13:08.490 --> 0:13:11.880
<v Mark Burnell>she  looked,  her  attitude,  she  looked  terrible  because  it's  right 

0:13:11.880 --> 0:13:13.002
<v Mark Burnell>at  the  beginning  of  the  movie,  she  was  (crosstalk)  

0:13:13.400 --> 0:13:16.660
<v Mark Burnell>shocking.  But  the  way  she  looked and  the  way  she  got 

0:13:16.660 --> 0:13:20.540
<v Mark Burnell>into  the  car  and  her  insolence  and  her  accent,  everything 

0:13:20.540 --> 0:13:22.990
<v Mark Burnell>was  just  like, " We're  in  safe  hands  here.  We  are 

0:13:23.770 --> 0:13:26.800
<v Mark Burnell>absolutely  in  safe  hands."  I  mean,  she  really  exceeded,  I 

0:13:26.800 --> 0:13:29.640
<v Mark Burnell>think,  everybody's  expectation.  And  I  would  say  that  part  of 

0:13:29.640 --> 0:13:31.839
<v Mark Burnell>that  was  probably  due  to  the  relationship  she  had  with 

0:13:31.839 --> 0:13:37.770
<v Mark Burnell>Reed.  I  think  Reed  enabled  her.  I  think  Blake  trusted 

0:13:37.770 --> 0:13:43.369
<v Mark Burnell>Reed  enough,  and  that  that  meant  that  Reed  was  then 

0:13:43.589 --> 0:13:45.640
<v Mark Burnell>able  to  get  this  performance  out  of  her.

0:13:45.829 --> 0:13:48.410
<v Natasha G.>Well,  you  see,  I  think  that is  a  perfect  example  of 

0:13:48.410 --> 0:13:50.780
<v Natasha G.>why  people  should  go  see  this  movie,  because  we  want 

0:13:50.780 --> 0:13:52.610
<v Natasha G.>to  see  what  Blake  Lively  is  going  to  do  to 

0:13:52.610 --> 0:13:55.319
<v Natasha G.>Stephanie  Patrick  and  how  she's  going  to  perform.  And  I 

0:13:55.319 --> 0:13:57.689
<v Natasha G.>think  it's  a  role  that's  going  to  challenge  her  but 

0:13:57.689 --> 0:14:00.339
<v Natasha G.>also,  we'll  see  her  in  a  different  light.  So,  thank 

0:14:00.339 --> 0:14:04.410
<v Natasha G.>you  for  that.  What  I'm  interested  in  knowing,  very  briefly, 

0:14:04.410 --> 0:14:07.229
<v Natasha G.>I'm  sure  there's  a  long  process  to  it,  but  what's 

0:14:07.230 --> 0:14:10.290
<v Natasha G.>the  process  from  taking  a  novel  and  converting  it  into 

0:14:10.290 --> 0:14:13.209
<v Natasha G.>a  screenplay?  Because  I'm  sure  there's  a  lot  of  bits 

0:14:13.209 --> 0:14:15.780
<v Natasha G.>in  the  book  that  are  not  included  in  the  film 

0:14:15.780 --> 0:14:16.429
<v Natasha G.>that  we  won't  see.

0:14:17.699 --> 0:14:22.450
<v Mark Burnell>There  are.  Well  firstly,  the  general  first  step  that  happens 

0:14:22.450 --> 0:14:25.321
<v Mark Burnell>in  this  process is that  you  should  exclude  the  writer  because-

0:14:25.321 --> 0:14:25.750
<v Natasha G.>Oh.

0:14:26.479 --> 0:14:30.739
<v Mark Burnell>Of  the  novel.  Writers  very,  don't  generally  get  asked to adapt their  own 

0:14:30.740 --> 0:14:32.940
<v Mark Burnell>work  for  a  very  good  reason  actually,  is  that  most 

0:14:32.940 --> 0:14:35.160
<v Mark Burnell>of  them  find  it  hard  to  butcher  the  book.  But 

0:14:35.160 --> 0:14:37.720
<v Mark Burnell>for  me,  the  book  exists  in  its  own  right.  It's 

0:14:37.720 --> 0:14:40.560
<v Mark Burnell>there.  And  so,  we're  making  a  movie,  which  is  something 

0:14:40.560 --> 0:14:43.460
<v Mark Burnell>different,  and  it's  not  important  that  we  hack  up  the 

0:14:43.460 --> 0:14:45.550
<v Mark Burnell>book,  which  was  just  as  well  because  that's  actually  what 

0:14:45.550 --> 0:14:49.310
<v Mark Burnell>we  did.  You've  read  the  book,  there's  way  too  much 

0:14:49.370 --> 0:14:52.750
<v Mark Burnell>in  those  pages  to  go  into  a  one  hour  45 

0:14:52.750 --> 0:14:56.560
<v Mark Burnell>movie.  And  that  never  bothered  me.  In  fact,  I  found 

0:14:56.560 --> 0:14:59.050
<v Mark Burnell>that  I  really  enjoyed  that,  having  to  sort  of  think 

0:14:59.050 --> 0:15:05.060
<v Mark Burnell>of  something  completely  new  and  alternative,  and  just  doing  whatever 

0:15:05.479 --> 0:15:08.700
<v Mark Burnell>needs  to  be  done  to  make  the  two  hours  work.

0:15:09.200 --> 0:15:10.190
<v Natasha G.>That's  some  great  insight.

0:15:10.190 --> 0:15:10.220
<v Mark Burnell>And I really enjoyed that.

0:15:10.960 --> 0:15:15.229
<v Natasha G.>Yeah,  no,  that's  some  fantastic  insight  for  any  screenwriters  out 

0:15:15.229 --> 0:15:17.109
<v Natasha G.>there.  Do  you  have  any  tips  for  them?  Any  last 

0:15:17.110 --> 0:15:20.140
<v Natasha G.>words  that  perhaps  some  screenwriters  are  listening  right  now  and 

0:15:20.140 --> 0:15:23.960
<v Natasha G.>they're  saying, " Oh,  I'd  love  to  find  out  some  little 

0:15:24.660 --> 0:15:26.759
<v Natasha G.>tidbits  on  how  I  can  improve  my  work."

0:15:27.250 --> 0:15:30.570
<v Mark Burnell>The  first  bit  of  advice  I would give is,  would  apply  actually  to 

0:15:30.740 --> 0:15:35.120
<v Mark Burnell>novelists  and  screenwriters,  which  is,  just  do  it.  And  I 

0:15:35.120 --> 0:15:36.999
<v Mark Burnell>know  this  better  than  anybody.  I  spend  an  awful  lot 

0:15:37.000 --> 0:15:39.020
<v Mark Burnell>of  time  finding  excuses  not  to  sit  down  and  do 

0:15:39.020 --> 0:15:41.440
<v Mark Burnell>the  work.  And  if you  can  get  past  that,  just  do 

0:15:41.440 --> 0:15:42.270
<v Mark Burnell>it.  That's  helpful.

0:15:42.940 --> 0:15:42.950
<v Natasha G.>I think we all do.

0:15:43.180 --> 0:15:46.790
<v Mark Burnell>Yeah,  exactly.  Exactly.  And  the  other  thing,  this  is  something 

0:15:46.790 --> 0:15:49.150
<v Mark Burnell>I've  sort  of  picked  up  the  screenwriting  on  the  way, 

0:15:49.229 --> 0:15:51.530
<v Mark Burnell>it's  the  dialogue  is  the  dialogue  but  all  the  other 

0:15:51.530 --> 0:15:53.920
<v Mark Burnell>stuff,  try  to  find...  A  lot  of  different  people  are 

0:15:53.920 --> 0:15:56.970
<v Mark Burnell>going  to  read  your script  and  they're  going  to  feel  about 

0:15:56.970 --> 0:16:00.970
<v Mark Burnell>it  differently,  and  you  need  to  find  a  language  that 

0:16:01.200 --> 0:16:04.979
<v Mark Burnell>is  clear,  it's  going  to  be  very  economical,  and  not 

0:16:04.979 --> 0:16:08.100
<v Mark Burnell>be  off- putting.  There  are  scripts  which  are  very  off-

0:16:08.100 --> 0:16:11.369
<v Mark Burnell>putting  sometimes,  to  different  eyes  and  to  different  sensibilities.  And 

0:16:11.370 --> 0:16:13.210
<v Mark Burnell>you've  got  to,  if  you  can  find  a  sort  of 

0:16:14.270 --> 0:16:18.040
<v Mark Burnell>a  neutral  way  that  isn't  boring  but  is  clear,  that's 

0:16:18.040 --> 0:16:20.310
<v Mark Burnell>going  to  be  incredibly  helpful.  That's  something  which  I  really 

0:16:20.310 --> 0:16:23.890
<v Mark Burnell>picked  up  along  the  way.  And  that  was  an  unexpected 

0:16:24.359 --> 0:16:25.100
<v Mark Burnell>lesson,  I  would  say.

0:16:25.530 --> 0:16:27.580
<v Natasha G.>Mark,  thank  you  so  much  for  taking  the  time  to 

0:16:27.580 --> 0:16:28.609
<v Natasha G.>speak  with  us  today.  We  appreciate  it.

0:16:29.260 --> 0:16:30.019
<v Mark Burnell>Well,  thank  you  so  much.

0:16:31.060 --> 0:16:33.510
<v Natasha G.>That's  it  for  today.  I  hope  you  enjoyed  this  Girls 

0:16:33.510 --> 0:16:37.259
<v Natasha G.>Get  Even  episode  of  Hello  Movies,  looking  at  women,  revenge, 

0:16:37.260 --> 0:16:40.530
<v Natasha G.>and  the  art  of  reclaiming  your  identity  after  trauma.  The 

0:16:40.530 --> 0:16:43.800
<v Natasha G.>Rhythm  Section  opens  January  31st  and  Birds  of  Prey  comes 

0:16:43.800 --> 0:16:47.450
<v Natasha G.>at  you  February  7th.  Plus  if  you  like  action,  opening 

0:16:47.450 --> 0:16:51.009
<v Natasha G.>this  week  on  January  24th,  The  Gentlemen,  an  action  comedy 

0:16:51.010 --> 0:16:54.750
<v Natasha G.>written  and  directed  by  Guy  Ritchie,  starring  Matthew  McConaughey  as 

0:16:54.750 --> 0:16:58.190
<v Natasha G.>a  marijuana  kingpin  who's  looking  to  retire.  Plenty  of  great 

0:16:58.190 --> 0:17:00.640
<v Natasha G.>reasons  to  get  down  to  your  local  Cineplex  and  check 

0:17:00.640 --> 0:17:02.990
<v Natasha G.>out  a  movie.  Don't  forget  to  save  me  some  popcorn. 

0:17:03.200 --> 0:17:05.280
<v Natasha G.>I'm  Natasha  Gargiulo.  Thanks  for  listening.