Entertainment
Robin Wright and Olivia Cooke 'go feral' in 'The Girlfriend.' But who's the real villain?
This article contains spoilers for the finale of Prime Video’s “The Girlfriend.”
After reading the pilot for “The Girlfriend,” Robin Wright could see how the entire series would unfold. She was initially approached to direct the first episode, but she was so entranced by the adaptation of Michelle Frances’ 2017 novel she came on board not just as a director, but as an executive producer.
And when it came to casting Laura, a fierce matriarch committed to protecting her son, Daniel, from his new girlfriend, everyone she pictured in the role was unavailable.
“My dream was Tilda Swinton,” Wright says, speaking from the Ham Yard Hotel in London alongside her co-star Olivia Cooke, whose Prime Video series premiered Wednesday. “The time crunch was getting narrower, so Jonathan Cavendish of Imaginarium [Productions] finally said, ‘Would you consider playing Laura? You know her so well.’ What interested me was expanding on each character and developing this show beyond the book, which was already very full and rich.”
Cooke was Wright’s first choice to play Cherry, Daniel’s working-class girlfriend, who may or may not have suspicious motives and a violent past. The actors hopped on a Zoom call at the end of 2023 and were immediately on the same page about the thriller series. Both were intrigued by the idea that each episode depicted the characters’ individual takes on the events, forcing viewers to frequently change their allegiance about who is right. Is Cherry deviously trying to push Laura aside for better access to Daniel, or is Laura paranoid and overbearing?
Cherry (Olivia Cooke), Daniel’s working-class girlfriend. (Christopher Raphael / Prime)
Laura (Robin Wright) is suspicious of Cherry and her motives. (Christopher Raphael / Prime)
“I was enticed by the dual perspectives and delving more into that reality because that is how we operate,” Wright says. “That is the human condition. You perceive [something] in a different way than I do. We’re all a hero of our own story and of our own perspective, but we could be the villain in someone else’s perspective. That’s what happens with Cherry and Laura. Jealousy turns into a power struggle.”
“It’s really fun to dial up the maliciousness and the duplicitous nature of a woman,” Cooke adds. “To play all these different sides and all these different faculties. And both our characters contain them all.”
“It was almost like having the variety pack of being a female,” Wright continues. “It’s easy for the viewer to go back and forth, where you’ll be in favor of this one and then not in favor. And it’s always rooted in true emotion. Wherever Laura or Cherry is coming from, that’s her truth. That’s her story.”
“You’ve always got to champion the characters you’re playing in order to play them honestly,” Cooke says. “I completely understood where Cherry was coming from. A lot of that is lack and fear and scarcity. Not having a parachute or a safety net, and having to constantly strive and move forward. She’s a survivor and she’s scrappy, and she will be the quickest and most ferocious to her own defense.”
The conflict between Laura and Cherry aggressively ratchets up over the course of six episodes. After a rock climbing accident that puts Daniel (Laurie Davidson) into a coma, Laura convinces Cherry that he’s died. Cherry later threatens Laura with a knife — or does she? Cooke says she loved “having the excuse to go f— feral.”
“What’s fun about Laura’s perspective is Cherry seems completely unhinged and that there’s a real malevolent undertone to her behavior,” Cooke says. “But in Cherry’s perspective, it’s all coming from a place of just scrambling. She’s tried to put her best foot forward when she meets Laura for the first time and she’s tried to cover up her past a little bit by saying the odd white lie. And a mum sniffs that out immediately.”
“What’s fun about Laura’s perspective is Cherry seems completely unhinged and that there’s a real malevolent undertone to her behavior,” Olivia Cooke says. “But in Cherry’s perspective, it’s all coming from a place of just scrambling.”
(Jennifer McCord / For The Times)
Cooke describes Cherry as an “underdog trying to claw herself up.” “I want the audience to really be of two minds about her,” she says. “And women usually have to be so buttoned up.
“It’s always, ‘You can’t say that or don’t emote that,’” Wright chimes in. “This gave us an opportunity to do what a lot of women would like to say or do, but they can’t. You always have to be a diplomat. This was about being a human being. Women are very layered individuals. We can do 16 things at once. That’s why we can carry children for nine months and then raise them. I wanted to show all of those colors of a woman.”
The role gave Cooke the chance to showcase her range and expressiveness.
“Even just for my own personal life, it felt really cathartic to be able to be angry and be able to scream and be a person who wears their emotions so closely to the surface,” Cooke adds. “Cherry is effervescent. It’s always there waiting to come out. She’s so reactive. And I’m hypervigilant for the warning signs before I react. This was like a rage room.”
In the tumultuous finale, Laura drugs Daniel to keep him away from Cherry. After Cherry breaks into Laura’s house, the duo find themselves in a physical altercation in the basement swimming pool. An addled Daniel discovers them fighting and jumps in to protect Cherry, accidentally holding his mother under the water for too long. The immediate interpretation is that Laura dies at the hand of her son, which is what the actors shot on set in London last year.
“There was an aerial shot of mom dead in his arms,” Wright says. “It was beautiful. He was holding her and he looks at Cherry and mom was dead in his arms in the way I had held him in Spain. But the [producers] cut it out because it showed that she had died.”
Laurie Davidson, who plays Daniel, and Robin Wright in a scene from “The Girlfriend.”
(Christopher Raphael / Prime)
The decision to have Daniel accidentally kill (or not kill) Laura resulted from a “big discussion,” as Wright puts it. The obvious conclusion was to have Cherry purposefully murder Laura, but Wright pushed against that.
“I said, ‘It needs to be the son that kills his mother because he will never get out of her clutches when she’s alive,’” Wright says. “He’s going to be in the middle of this war zone for the rest of his life. When he comes down [to the pool], he’s in a stupor. He’s almost hallucinating. When he dives in the pool and he sees [Laura] trying to drown his girlfriend, he doesn’t know what’s happened prior to that moment, which is she’s tried to kill mom. He has no sense of time and space because he’s under the influence.”
Cooke says she didn’t play the scene as Cherry wanting Laura to die. “Maybe people will read it as that, but I didn’t,” Cooke says. “She knows it’s gone too far. That’s what I played in the moment, shouting at Daniel to snap out of it. But, you know, she did get the house.”
Shooting the pool altercation was a challenging day. Much of the series was filmed in a private house in London’s St. John’s Wood neighborhood, which had an actual swimming pool in the basement. Although the pool was supposedly heated, the actors didn’t experience any warmth.
“It was f— hard,” Wright recalls. “For me, it was like waterboarding. People think, ‘Oh, my God, so much fun to act in those scenes.’ No, it’s not. It’s really tough. We were all drowned rats and freezing cold.”
Still, Cooke says it was enjoyable to go to such intense limits emotionally.
“It’s fun being able to go to the very edge of your emotional capacity in a very safe, fun, embracing environment,” she says. “We wouldn’t have been able to do that in the pool, and be able to try and murder each other and then laugh, if it wasn’t built on trust and love. … These characters do very heightened, crazy stuff, but it’s still seeped in honesty and naturalism, which you need in order to go on this journey.”
Robin Wright recalls how difficult shooting the pool scene was: “For me, it was like waterboarding.” Nevertheless, Olivia Cooke says it was “fun being able to go to the very edge of your emotional capacity.” (Jennifer McCord / For The Times)
At the end of the finale, Cherry and Daniel move into Laura’s mansion with the blessing of Daniel’s father, Howard (Waleed Zuaiter). Daniel discovers a voicemail from Laura recounting how Cherry’s mother, Tracey (Karen Henthorn), warned of her daughter’s malicious motives. But while Daniel is clearly in trouble, Wright says you’re not necessarily meant to interpret it as Laura being completely out of the picture.
“We wanted to leave it a little bit open,” she says. “You see the pregnant family living in the Sanderson house and mommy’s gone. Could Laura still be alive? Did she really die? Has she just been shunned to the priory?”
Wright says they wanted to leave it to the audience to decide what happened.
“But Daniel is awakened,” she adds. “If Laura is alive, he could go back to her and say, ‘I now believe you and now I’m with a crazy woman and afraid she’s going to kill me in my sleep.’ There are many iterations where it can go if there is a Season 2.”
As of this interview, no announcement has been made about another season. Cooke, who also stars as Alicent Hightower in “House of the Dragon,” says she would have to get permission from HBO to be part of a concurrent episodic series. Plus, as Wright notes, it’s all about the algorithm. “You always have to wait and see if it’s a semi-success,” Wright says. She adds, turning to Cooke, “If there is a Season 2, I think you should kill the cat in Episode 1, gut it and wear it as a hat.”
For Wright, that’s part of the appeal of being an executive producer — she could brainstorm all the unhinged things that could happen between the characters. She loved coming up with story ideas and character backgrounds, and helping to sculpt the ending, which differs from the novel, was pure joy.
“This was my first opportunity to develop something from the ground up,” says Robin Wright, who executive produces and is a director on the series. “I took a bunch of personal stories, things that I’ve heard, and threw them in there.”
(Jennifer McCord / For The Times)
“This was my first opportunity to develop something from the ground up,” Wright says. “I took a bunch of personal stories, things that I’ve heard, and threw them in there. Like Laura kissing her son on the lips — that came from a friend of mine. And Laura spraying Cherry with her perfume in a shop and saying, ‘Daniel loves this,’ came from someone on set. Things were constantly percolating.”
Wright directed the first three episodes, setting the visual and thematic tone for the series, while Andrea Harkin took on the latter three. The actor says there was a real freedom on set, which was helped by the rehearsals the cast was able to do before filming. She made it a point to always give the actors their own take for each scene.
“Generally, I’d use the take where they went for a free-for-all,” she says. “You get locked in a box as actors. We all do. You pick a choice and you stick with that choice. But when you throw that out the window, the s— that comes out of actors is amazing. That’s what’s so beautiful about being able to direct and being an actor myself. I love watching how it evolves and the light that comes out of them and the emotion that’s brought to the surface.”
“I’ve never acted opposite my director before,” Cooke adds. “The chain of command was so short. Robin was acting with me, but also watching to see what I do and changing her performance to my reaction, which was amazing. It makes it very alive and kinetic.”
Ultimately, it’s up to the viewer to decide whether Laura or Cherry is the villain of “The Girlfriend.” And, as Wright says, it’s simply a matter of how you see things.
“You as the viewer get to decide: Is there a truth, or is it just subjective?” she says. “Because it is subjective for each of our perspectives and we own it. It happened the way you personally know it happened. But the truth lies somewhere in between.”
Entertainment
Bob Spitz proves the Rolling Stones are rock’s greatest band in magnificent new biography
By early 1963, the Station Hotel in London had become an epicenter of the burgeoning British blues scene. On a blustery, snowy night that February, the Rolling Stones’ classic early lineup took the stage for one of the first times, dazzling the audience with ferocious renditions of blues standards like Muddy Waters’ “I Want to Be Loved” and Jimmy Reed’s “Bright Lights, Big City.”
Multi-instrumentalist Brian Jones, the band’s founder and leader, synchronized guitars with Keith Richards, who favored a distinctive slashing and stinging style. Drummer Charlie Watts, the group’s newest member, a jazz aficionado and an accomplished percussionist, propelled the music forward with a rock-solid beat.
Anchoring the rhythm section with him was bassist Bill Wyman, who was recruited more for his spare VOX AC30 amp that the guitarists could plug into than for his musical skills. The stoic bassist proved a strong and innovative player. Together, he and Watts would go on to form one of rock’s most decorated rhythm sections.
Ian Stewart’s energetic boogie-woogie piano style rounded out the sound. Months later, manager Andrew Loog Oldham kicked him out of the band for being “ugly,” although Stewart continued to record, tour and serve as the band’s road manager until his death in 1985.
This April 8, 1964, file photo shows the Rolling Stones during a rehearsal. The members, from left, are Brian Jones, guitar; Bill Wyman, bass; Charlie Watts, drums; Mick Jagger, vocals; and Keith Richards, guitar.
(Associated Press)
Fronting the group was Mick Jagger. Channeling the music like a crazed shaman, Jagger shimmied and sashayed, owning the stage like few lead singers have before or since. By the end of the night, the Stones had the crowd in a frenzy. Although only 30 people had made it to the gig because of the treacherous weather conditions, the hotel’s booker had seen enough: He offered the Stones a regular gig.
“The Rolling Stones had caught fire. The music they were playing and the way they played it struck a chord with a young crowd starved for something different, something their own… It was soul-stirring, loud and uncompromising,” writes Bob Spitz in “The Rolling Stones: The Biography,” his magisterial work that charts the 60-year journey of “the greatest rock and roll band in the world.”
Spitz, the author of strong biographies on the Beatles and Led Zeppelin, as well as Ronald Reagan and Julia Child, captures the drama, trauma and betrayals that have kept the Stones in the public’s consciousness for more than six decades. It’s all here: The Stones’ evolution from a blues cover band to artistic rival of the Beatles; the musical peaks — “Aftermath,” “Let It Bleed” and “Exile on Main Street” as well as misfires like “Dirty Work”; Keith’s descent into a debilitating heroin addiction that nearly destroyed him and the band; the death of the ‘60s at the ill-fated Altamont free concert; Marianne Faithfull, Anita Pallenberg, Bianca Jagger, Jerry Hall and other lovers, partners and muses; the breakups, makeups and crackups; and perhaps most important, the unbreakable bond between Jagger and Richards at the center of it all.
Although Spitz unearths little new information, he excels at presenting the Stones in glorious Technicolor. Spitz homes in on the telling details and anecdotes that give the band’s story a deep richness and poignancy.
Take “Satisfaction,” the Stones’ 1965 classic and first U.S. chart topper. The oft-told story is that Richards woke up in the middle of the night, grabbed the guitar that was next to his bed, and recorded the iconic riff and the phrase “I can’t get no … satisfaction” on a cassette recorder in his Clearwater, Fla., hotel room before falling back asleep. But as Spitz notes, the song initially went nowhere in the studio. That is until Stewart purchased a fuzz box for Richards a few days later, which gave the tune a raunchier sound that perfectly matched Jagger’s lyrics of frustration and alienation. A classic was born.
Piercing the Stones mythology
Spitz’s deep reporting often pierces the mythology surrounding the band. Contrary to the popular belief of many fans, for instance, Jones bears much of the responsibility for the rift with his bandmates and his tragic demise.
The most musically adventurous member of the group — he plays sitar on “Paint It Black” and dulcimer on “Lady Jane” — Jones wasn’t a songwriter. That stoked his jealousies and insecurities, along with frontman Jagger stealing the spotlight from him. A monster of a man, Jones impregnated multiple teenage girls and physically and emotionally abused several women, including Pallenberg. Perhaps that’s why she left him for Richards. Over time, Jones made fewer contributions in the studio and onstage, becoming a catatonic drug casualty. The Stones fired Jones in June 1969 but would have been justified doing so a couple years earlier. He drowned in his pool less than a month later.
Author Bob Spitz
(Elena Seibert)
Similarly, Stones lore has long romanticized the making of “Exile on Main Street” in the stifling, dingy basement of Richards’ rented Villa Nellcôte in the South of France, where the Stones had decamped to avoid British taxes. In this telling, Richards, deep in the throes of heroin addiction, somehow managed to come up with one indelible riff after another built around his signature open G tuning — taught to him by Ry Cooder — leading the band to create one of the best albums in rock history. That’s not entirely accurate, according to Spitz.
Yes, Richards came up with the licks for “Rocks Off,” “Happy” and “Tumbling Dice.” But it’s equally true that a strung-out Richards missed myriad recording sessions, invited dealers, hangers-on and other distractions to Nellcôte, and repeatedly failed to turn up to write with Jagger. Far from completing the album in the druggy haze of a French basement, the band spent six months on overdubs at Sunset Sound in Los Angeles, where Jagger contributed many of his vocals.
Beatles vs. Stones
One of the more interesting themes Spitz develops is the symbiotic relationship between the Beatles and Stones, with the Fab Four mostly overshadowing them — until they didn’t.
John Lennon and Paul McCartney wrote “I Wanna Be Your Man” and gave it to the Stones, whose 1963 rendition, with Jones on slide guitar, became the group’s first UK Top 20 hit. The Lennon-McCartney songwriting partnership inspired Jagger and Richards to begin penning their own songs. In early 1964, the Beatles came to the U.S. for the first time, making television history with their appearance on “The Ed Sullivan Show” and playing Carnegie Hall. A few months later, the Stones kicked off their inaugural American tour at the Swing Auditorium in San Bernardino. In 1967, the Beatles released “Sgt. Pepper’s Lonely Hearts Club Band,” a psychedelic masterpiece. The Stones responded with “Their Satanic Majesties Request,” a psychedelic mess.
The Rolling Stones: The Biography cover
As the Beatles began to splinter, Spitz writes, the Stones sharpened their focus. The band released “Beggars Banquet” in late 1968 and “Let It Bleed” the following year, albums every bit as innovative and visionary as “The White Album” and “Abbey Road.” For the first time, the two groups stood as equals.
When the Beatles broke up in 1970, the Stones kept rolling. With Jones replaced by virtuoso guitarist Mick Taylor — whose fluid, melodic style served as a tasty foil to Richards — they produced what many consider their finest works, “Sticky Fingers” and “Exile on Main Street.” More impressively, the band, with Taylor’s successor, Ronnie Wood, has continued to dazzle audiences with incendiary live shows, touring as recently as 2024 behind the late-career triumph “Hackney Diamonds.” The Beatles, by contrast, retired from the road in 1966 and devoted their energies to the studio.
Hundreds of books have been written about the Rolling Stones, but few sparkle quite like Spitz’s. For anyone who loves or even likes the Stones, it’s indispensable.
Like most of the band’s biographers, Spitz gives short shrift to the post-“Exile” period after 1972. He curtly dismisses 2005’s strong “A Bigger Bang” and 2016’s “Blue & Lonesome,” a back-to-basics album of blues covers, as “adequate endeavors that signaled a band living on borrowed time.” That critique is both off target and under-developed. Spitz ignores the band’s legendary live album, “Brussels Affair,” recorded in 1973, or why the band waited decades before officially releasing it.
These are small quibbles. Spitz has written a book worthy of its 704-page length; another 50 or so pages covering the later years would have made it even stronger. To quote the Rolling Stones: “I know it’s only rock ‘n roll, but I like it, like it, yes, I do.”
Marc Ballon, a former Times, Forbes and Inc. Magazine reporter, teaches an advanced writing class at USC. He lives in Fullerton.
‘4’, the opening track on Richard D James’ (Aphex Twin) self titled 1996 album is a piece of music that beautifully balances the chaotic with the serene, the oppressive and the freeing. It’s a trick that James has pulled off multiple times throughout his career and it is a huge part of what makes him such an iconic and influential artist. Many people have laid the “next Aphex Twin” label on musicians who do things slightly different and when you actually hear their music you realise that, once again, the label is flawed and applied with a lazy attitude. Why mention this? Well, it turns out we’ve been looking for James’ heir apparent in the wrong artform. We’ve so zoned in on music that we’ve not noticed that another Celtic son of Cornwall is rewriting an art form with that highwire balancing act between chaos and beauty. That artist is writer, director and composer Mark Jenkin who over his last two feature films has announced himself as an idiosyncratic voice who is creating his very own language within the world of cinema. Jenkin’s films are often centred around coastal towns or islands and whilst they are experimental or even unsettling, there is always a big heart at the centre of the narrative. A heart that cares about family, tradition, culture, and the pull of ‘home’. Even during the horror of 2022’s brilliant Enys Men you were anchored by the vulnerability and determination of its main protagonist.
This month sees the release of Jenkin’s latest feature film, Rose of Nevada, which is set in a fractured and diminished Cornish coastal town. One day the fishing boat of the film’s title arrives back in harbour after being missing for thirty years. The boat is unoccupied. And frankly that is all the information you are going to get because to discuss any more plot would be unfair on you and disrespectful to Jenkin and the team behind the film. You the viewer should be the one who decides what it is about because thematically there are so many wonderful threads to pull on. This writer’s opinions on what it is about have ranged from a theme of sacrifice for the good of a community to the conflict within when part of you wants to run away from your roots whilst the other half longs to stay and be a lifelong part of its tapestry. Is it about Brexit? Could be. Is it about our own relationships with time and our curation of memory? Could be. Is it about both the positives and negatives of nostalgia? Could be. As a side note, anyone in their mid-40s, like me, who came of age in the 1990s will certainly find moments of warm recognition. Is the film about ghosts and how they haunt families? Could be…I think you get the point.
The elements that make the film so well balanced between chaos and calm are many. It is there in the differing performances between the brilliant two lead actors George MacKay and Callum Turner. It is there in the sound design which fluctuates from being unbearably harsh and metallic, to lulling and warm. It is there in the editing where short, sharp close ups on seemingly unimportant factors are counterbalanced with shots that are held for just that little bit too long. For a film set around the sea, it is apt that it can make you feel like you’re rolling on a stomach churning storm one minute, or a calming low tide the next. Dialogue can be front and centre or blurred and buried under static. One shot is bathed in harsh sunlight whilst the next can be drowned in interior shadows.
Rose of Nevada is Mark Jenkin’s most ambitious film to date yet he has not lost a single iota of innovation, singularity of vision or his gift for telling the most human of stories. It is a film that will tell you different things each time you see it and whilst there are moments that can confuse or beguile, there is so much empathy and love that it can leave you crying tears of emotional understanding. It is chaotic. It is beautiful. It is life……
Rose of Nevada is released on the 24th April.
Mark Jenkin Instagram | Threads
Released through the BFI – Instagram | Facebook
Review by Simon Tucker
Keep up to date with all new content on Joyzine via our
Facebook | Bluesky | Instagram | Threads | Mailing List
Related
-
New York28 minutes agoGotti Grandson Is Sentenced to 15 Months for Covid Relief Fraud
-
Detroit, MI58 minutes agoWhy a Detroit family’s $300 brick repair job turned into a fraud investigation
-
San Francisco, CA1 hour agoSea lion pup found in San Francisco’s Outer Sunset malnourished but ‘feisty’
-
Dallas, TX1 hour agoDallas Cowboys 2026 NFL Draft debate heats up
-
Miami, FL1 hour agoMan arrested in Miami for alleged sexual battery on 10-year-old girl – WSVN 7News | Miami News, Weather, Sports | Fort Lauderdale
-
Boston, MA1 hour agoFormer BYU star Clayton Young crushes lifetime best in Boston — on short notice
-
Denver, CO2 hours agoColorado boasts two of the best coffee shops in the Americas, according to new ranking
-
Seattle, WA2 hours agoDelta flight from Seoul to Atlanta diverted to Seattle after report of suspicious package