English TV personality Kim Woodburn dies at 83 after 'short illness'
"It is with immense sadness that we let you know our beloved Kim Woodburn passed away yesterday following a short illness," Woodburn's manager, Craig Johnson-Pass, said in a statement to USA TODAY on June 17.
The statement added, "Kim was an incredibly kind, caring, charismatic and strong person. Her husband Peter is heartbroken at the loss of his soulmate. We are so proud of the amazing things Kim achieved in her life and career."
The statement also asked for "time and privacy" for Woodburn's husband and close friends and said they will not be releasing any further details.
Kim Woodburn was an English television personality known for starring on the reality show "How Clean Is Your House?" The show, which ran from 2003 to 2009 on Channel 4 in the United Kingdom, followed Woodburn and Aggie MacKenzie as they cleaned dirty houses.
Before appearing on the show, Woodburn worked as a house cleaner in the U.K. and U.S., according to BBC.
Born Patricia Mary McKenzie on March 25, 1942, Woodburn had an abusive childhood and left home at the age of 15, she wrote in her 2006 book "Unbeaten."
Her role on "How Clean Is Your House?" earned Woodburn the nickname The Queen of Clean, according to BBC. After the show was canceled, she went on to appear on several other reality shows, including "Celebrity Big Brother" in 2017.
On her Instagram following her death, Woodburn's husband shared a video slideshow of photos of her.
"My wonderful, beautiful, Kim passed away last night. God bless, my love, xx xx," Peter Woodburn wrote.
Fans took to the comments to react to the news; one user called her "a national treasure."
"RIP Kim. You rocked the reality TV world and made us laugh so much throughout the years. Thank you for the laughs," one person wrote.
Another said, "Kim gave us all so much laughter and rare honesty what a gem."
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Vox
8 minutes ago
- Vox
The scandalous literary classic we've never stopped arguing about
is a senior correspondent on the Culture team for Vox, where since 2016 she has covered books, publishing, gender, celebrity analysis, and theater. When Lolita first appeared 70 years ago, in 1955, it was so controversial that no American publisher was willing to touch it. Today, Lolita is hailed as a classic, a masterpiece, one of the great novels of the English language. Yet Lolita also comes with a sense that it is still, perhaps, too controversial to touch. A book about a man who kidnaps and repeatedly rapes his 12-year-old stepdaughter, all told in ravishing rainbow-streaked prose? 'They'd never let you publish that now,' writer after writer has declared. In a development that seems almost too on the nose, it was recently reported that Jeffrey Epstein kept a prized first edition of the novel in his home, under glass. 'I love that book,' someone told me recently when he saw me rereading it. Then: 'Am I still allowed to love that book?' Next Page Book recommendations — both old and new — that are worth your time, from senior correspondent and critic Constance Grady. Email (required) Sign Up By submitting your email, you agree to our Terms and Privacy Notice . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply. We certainly read Lolita very differently than we used to. For decades after its publication, readers both nodded to the horror at the center of the novel but also believed it was a little unsophisticated to dwell only on the assault. In pop culture, Lolita became synonymous with a teenaged seductress who deserves whatever she gets. Today, however, the received wisdom is that Lolita is not a romance but a horror story. In the 70 years since its publication, Lolita — lovely, sensual Lolita; obscene, monstrous Lolita; bleak, tragic Lolita — has become a barometer of sorts for cultural change. Vladimir Nabokov's novel is so multifaceted that it reflects the priorities of its readers back at us, showing us what we value and fear most at any given moment in time. We're still arguing over Lolita today, and our debates mirror the contours of our current culture war: a horror at an abuser's attempt to cover up their abuse; a terror that all that is pleasurable will be moralized into oblivion. What kind of book could plausibly be experienced both as an erotic comic romp in the 1950s and a searing dismantling of rape culture on its 70th birthday? Only ever Lolita. How did they ever publish Lolita? Lolita was born a scandal. Initially, Nabokov planned to publish the novel anonymously, with the only clue to his authorship the presence of a minor nonspeaking character whose name, Vivian Darkbloom, anagrammed to Vladimir Nabokov. But Lolita was so characteristic of Nabokov, with its dense wordplay, its butterfly motifs, its musical language, that Nabokov's friends convinced him that everyone would know he wrote it anyway. Four American publishers, likely fearing expensive obscenity lawsuits, turned down Lolita. Nabokov sent the manuscript went off to Paris's Olympia Press, which knew how to publish obscene novels, and there it became an underground cult object: the book too scandalous to be published in the US, the literary novel from the pornographic publisher. In 1958, when it finally came out in the US, it shot to the top of the bestseller lists and transformed Nabokov from an obscure Russian-born writer of tricky novels into a wealthy household name. Not to say that Lolita is not a tricky novel. Lolita is narrated by one Humbert Humbert, a smooth-talking charmer who confesses to us early on that he is sexually obsessed with little girls between the ages of 8 and 14: 'nymphets,' he calls them. His landlady's 12-year-old daughter Dolores Haze — nicknamed Lolita by Humbert — is just one such nymphet, and Humbert is so obsessed with her that he decides to marry her mother in order to have more access to Dolores. After Mrs. Haze dies, Humbert seizes the moment to kidnap Dolores, taking her off on a demented road trip back and forth across America, going from one motel to the next, debauching her all the way. Critics were puzzled by why Nabokov lavished some of his richest, most pleasurable prose on such an appalling story. Humbert is such a strange, unstable figure that the term 'unreliable narrator' was coined in part to describe him. He narrates his depravities in luxuriant, beautiful sentences full of wordplay and neologisms, funny and mordant. He plays constantly for our sympathy: at one moment calling himself a monster, the next swearing he loves Lolita with a deep and undying passion, the next informing us with an air of triumph that it was she who seduced him. You can tell, reading Lolita, that Humbert wants you to like him. It's harder to tell if Nabokov wants you to like Humbert, too. Early critics by and large agreed that Lolita was a masterpiece (with some notable exceptions). But they were puzzled by why Nabokov lavished some of his richest, most pleasurable prose on such an appalling story. How was anyone supposed to read it? One of the most influential early readers who laid the blueprint for how Lolita would be received was legendary literary critic Lionel Trilling. For Trilling, the pleasure of the novel was the point. He was part of a generation of young, au courant critics who carefully prized such pleasure, who took it as a point of pride that they were not dreary old Victorian killjoys who feared every book might corrupt the morals of the young. If it was pleasurable to read Humbert's words, to fall into his point of view and learn to see the world as he did — well then, that was the correct way to read the novel. It didn't mean that you condoned child sex abuse. It meant that you understood allegory. Trilling eventually concluded that Lolita was, in a generic sense, a story about love: following in the literary tradition of courtly love, it was about a forbidden romance so scandalous that it could never end in marriage, like the love between Leo Tolstoy's Anna Karenina, married to another man, and Vronsky. Readers were no longer shocked when novelists broke the taboo of adultery, Trilling reasoned, and so Nabokov had to be extreme with Lolita. 'The breaking of the taboo about the sexual unavailability of very young girls has for us something of the force that a wife's infidelity had for Shakespeare,' Trilling wrote. 'H.H.'s relation with Lolita defies society as scandalously as did Tristan's relation with Iseult, or Vronsky's with Anna. It puts the lovers, as lovers in literature must be put, beyond the pale of society.' Trilling's argument lived on, in an ever-more-flattened form, for the next 50 years or so. It was, in fact, the idea that Lolita was about not love but horror, that the pleasure of Humbert Humbert's prose was not to be trusted, that was the dissenting view. As Lolita entered into popular culture, it was largely understood through the lens of forbidden romance and adolescent lust. 'Lolita' and 'nymphet' both entered the dictionaries to mean a sexually precocious girl. Stanley Kubrick's 1962 film adaptation made iconic the image of Dolores Haze licking a lollipop, sending the camera a piercing, erotically charged gaze over the rim of her heart-shaped sunglasses. The reading would persist unchanged for decades. In 1997, Adrien Lyne's adaptation played out the story in front of a vaseline-smeared lens, misty and nostalgic and lovely. Lana Del Rey would play repeatedly with Lolita imagery in her early career, singing about how romantic it was when she played Lolita to her older boyfriend's Humbert Humbert. It was, in fact, the idea that Lolita was about not love but horror, that the pleasure of Humbert Humbert's prose was not to be trusted, that was the dissenting view. James Mason and Sue Lyon on the set of Lolita, which was released in 1962 and directed by Stanley Kubrick. Seven Arts Production/Sunset Boulevard/Corbis via Getty Images In 1995, literary scholar Elizabeth Patnoe describes finding her classmates angrily, belligerently resistant to the idea that it might be possible to despise Humbert Humbert as an unrepentant child sex offender. The men in the classroom, she says, found Humbert relatable and worthy of compassion, and were shocked when she said she hated him because of what he did to Dolores. One accused her of having 'cheated the text.' At the time, to take a moral reading of Lolita was to be embarrassingly Victorian. It was to deny oneself the pleasure of Nabokov's language for no particular reason. Twenty years later, however, Patnoe's interpretation has picked up steam. It has become, for many readers, the dominant way to read Lolita: by understanding it as a book about the rape of a child, and Humbert as the monster who is trying to fool you. In this reading, the pleasure is a trap. Finding the pain under Lolita There's plenty of evidence within Lolita to suggest that we are meant to be looking beneath Humbert's playful sentences for the pain of Dolores Haze. Even as Humbert insists that it was Dolores who seduced him, he also tells us that Dolores finds her sexual encounters with Humphrey painful, that she cries every night when she thinks that he is asleep, that she hoards her allowance so that she can run away from him. (He steals it back from her, but she runs away from him regardless.) Dolores does seem to have a crush on Humbert when she first meets him, but it vanishes as soon as she is faced with the reality of what exactly he means to do to her. Under a reading that focuses on Dolores and her pain, even the novel's title and Humbert's repeated invocations of 'my Lolita' are an attempt from Humbert to control Dolores as brutally and totally as possible: He has taken even her name from her, and he has made us, his readers, complicit in it. There is also some evidence that Nabokov endorsed this reading of his book. Speaking to the Paris Review for a 1967 issue, Nabokov appeared appalled when his interviewer suggested that Humbert Humbert had a 'touching' quality. 'I would put it differently: Humbert Humbert is a vain and cruel wretch who manages to appear 'touching,'' Nabokov replied. 'That epithet, in its true, tear-iridized sense, can only apply to my poor little girl' — that is to say, Dolores, whose name means sorrow. In the same interview, however, Nabokov vigorously disavowed any moral or didactic reading of his novels. It's hard to know for sure what he made of Humbert's fans as they multiplied across the decades. It wasn't until the mid-2010s that a Dolores-centric reading of Lolita finally began to gain more traction. Related The Great Awokening is transforming America In the New Republic in 2015, Ira Wells tracked the public's eagerness to read Lolita as the story of a sexually appealing young girl against the language that suggested Dolores's tragedy. 'The publication, reception, and cultural re-fashioning of Lolita over the past 60 years is the story of how a twelve-year-old rape victim named Dolores became a dominant archetype for seductive female sexuality in contemporary America,' wrote Wells: 'It is the story of how a girl became a noun.' Probably the most high-profile of these essays came from the feminist critic Rebecca Solnit, in her 2015 LitHub essay 'Men Explain Lolita to Me.' 'A nice liberal man came along and explained to me this book was actually an allegory as though I hadn't thought of that yet,' Solnit wrote. 'It is, and it's also a novel about a big old guy violating a spindly child over and over and over. Then she weeps.' How Lolita survived Me Too The new Lolita takes were becoming mainstream just around the time of the so-called Great Awokening, those days in the late Obama era when it felt urgent and necessary to explore how misogynistic ideologies were encoded into works of art and popular culture. Gamergate and the Fappening ricocheted around the internet. Then in 2017, Me Too exploded into popular consciousness, and Lolita became, abruptly, very urgent indeed. In novels and memoirs of that time, changing the way you read Lolita became a metaphor for changing the way you think about consent. Related Reading Lolita in the wake of the My Dark Vanessa controversy When Me Too went mainstream, America began to reconsider old love stories and jokes, wondering if they were really so funny and romantic after all. (Listen, me too.) Almost immediately, commenters on the right began to declare that the left had, just like those killjoy Victorians, gone too far, become too moralistic: that they were destroying art and eroticism alike out of a desire to keep the world sanitized and safe and — using a word that had become a pejorative rather suddenly — woke. Lolita became a chief exhibit in that argument. Me Too, these commenters declared, was going to come for Lolita, and the book would never have seen the light of day in contemporary publishing. 'What's different today is #MeToo and social media — you can organize outrage at the drop of a hat,' 'If Lolita was offered to me today, I'd never be able to get it past the acquisition team,' publisher Dan Franklin was quoted saying in The Spectator, 'a committee of 30-year-olds, who'd say, 'If you publish this book we will all resign.'' You can find Dolores's voice in its pages quite easily, once you start listening for her. When I look back on meditations on Lolita around this time, however, what I find are a few declarations that Lolita is a misogynistic novel; but a great deal more pieces by readers who went back to Lolita expecting to find it appalling, and instead found it holds up remarkably well. Many of the works of art that were allegedly 'canceled' by the excesses of the woke mob in the wake of Me Too are works whose essence changes entirely when you look at them as stories of sexual assault. If you go digging for the voices of the sexual assault victim in, say, Sixteen Candles, you find nothing. Lolita, however, rewards such a read. You can find Dolores's voice in its pages quite easily, once you start listening for her. 'Perhaps—and at Vegas odds—only Lolita can survive the new cultural revolution,' Caitlin Flanagan wrote in The Atlantic in 2018. 'No one will ever pick up that novel and issue a shocked report about its true contents; no feminist academic will make her reputation by revealing its oppressive nature. Its explicit subject is as abhorrent today as it was upon the book's publication 60-plus years ago.' What becomes much more difficult, in such a reading, is enjoying the music of Nabokov's prose without shame. Who's reading Lolita right? Since 2018, as the Me Too backlash has mounted, the culture war over Lolita has shifted once again. The question is not, now, over whether someone is trying to cancel Lolita. Instead, it's the same as the old one: How do you handle the pleasure of the novel, and how do you handle the horror? What is the correct way to like Lolita? In her 2021 essay collection The Devil's Treasure, Mary Gaitskill wrote defensively that she thought Lolita was about love, and that she was sure saying so would lead censorious readers to hurl her book across the room. 'I don't think it's ideal love, it's twisted love, but that doesn't mean it isn't love. Probably the majority of Americans who know of that book would say: 'Yes, in real life Humbert should go to jail, but he's obviously a fictional character and I'm interested to read about him,'' Gaitskill said to The Guardian. 'That seems simple, but for more intellectual people, or people who are loud on Twitter, I think it's become contentious.' In 2020, writer and comedian Jamie Loftus released her Lolita Podcast, an extensive deep dive into the cultural legacy of Lolita. A central part of Loftus's argument was that our culture had gotten Lolita fundamentally wrong by reading it as the story of the temptress Lolita instead of the victim Dolores. 'I'm now far more aggravated with how [Lolita] was presented to me than by the work itself,' Loftus said. 'For me, a close read of this work reveals that Nabokov is not glorifying the predator. I believe it's our culture that has.' Now, instead of fighting over who's Victorian and who's modern like they did in the 1950s, we seem to be fighting over who is alternately righteous and refreshingly perceptive. Versions of this argument over how to read Lolita continue to play out on social media, where Redditors vigorously debate whether people who read the book as a love story are illiterate edgelords stuck in the past, or if people who read the book as a horror story are virtue-signaling social justice obsessives. The culture wars have a way of making everything they touch look the same. Now, instead of fighting over who's Victorian and who's modern like they did in the 1950s, we seem to be fighting over who is alternately righteous and refreshingly perceptive, who is shrill and moralizing and who is unafraid of petty boundaries. The person who might be most helpful to us here is, of all people, Lionel Trilling. 'For me one of the attractions of Lolita is its ambiguity of tone … and its ambiguity of intention, its ability to arouse uneasiness, to throw the reader off balance, to require him to change his stance and shift his position and move on,' Trilling wrote, in the same 1958 essay in which he declared that Lolita is about love. 'Lolita gives us no chance to settle and sink roots. Perhaps it is the curious moral mobility it urges on us that accounts for its remarkable ability to represent certain aspects of American life.' Lolita was written by a Russian, but it is about America, the whole vast beautiful seedy map of it, which Humbert and Dolores criss-cross again and again over their horrible year together. It is Lolita's ability to change shape before our eyes, to shift, to mutate, to show us who we are in every era, that makes it such a purely American novel. The more we read Lolita, the more it has to show us about who we are.
Tom's Guide
10 minutes ago
- Tom's Guide
Today's Wordle answer is tough — here's why August 20's puzzle could break people's streaks
If you're a Wordle player then you may want to brace yourself for today's puzzle. Every so often, a word comes along that tests players and, more often than not, can end up breaking a lot of people's streaks. Today could be one of those days. Here on Tom's Guide we run a daily Wordle hints and answers page, which you can check out for some helpful hints. If you're really struggling, I'll give you the answer here too — but I'll put it further down the article underneath a spoiler warning. Our in-house Wordle expert checks his progress on every puzzle through the New York Times' WordleBot. The in-game AI helper analyzes the game after you've played it and does the same for every other player. That gives you an idea of how tough people are finding the puzzle and Wordle #1,523 (August 20) is a doozy. According to the 'bot, the average player completes today's puzzle in 4.5 moves in easy mode, or 4.4 if playing by hard rules. If you're new to Wordle, you get six guesses to figure out the daily word. One of the toughest Wordle puzzles was #454 all the way back in September 2022 — that one had a score of 6.3. I took a quick poll of our regular Wordle players here at Tom's Guide and the general average was most people got it in five guesses. So, not enough to break their streaks but a little close for comfort. You can read their thoughts below. So, what makes today's answer so difficult? To discuss it, we're going to need to reveal the answer — so stop reading now if you haven't done it yet and don't want it spoiled... Get instant access to breaking news, the hottest reviews, great deals and helpful tips. I'm going to assume you heeded the warning ahead and know the answer to today's puzzle is "Llama" Any time we get a word with a repeated letter, it's harder to guess. You may have tried a word with a single L and got the yellow tile, meaning the letter is in the word but in the wrong place. There's a chance you waste valuable turns trying to place the single L before realizing there's a second. And you also don't find many five-letter words that start with L in the first place. Furthermore, the word llama is a pretty unique one. It doesn't contain any of the common letters that make for a good Wordle starting guess, like E, T, A or R. If you want to get really word-nerdy, then there are only a handful of words in English that even start with a double L besides llama. Did you know, for instance, that a llano is the name for an open, grassy plain in the U.S. southwest? At least most people will actually know what a llama is. On previous occasions, Wordle has served up an answer that most people may not even know is a word. One memorable example is Wordle #1,385, which was "krill" — small, shrimp-like crustaceans that are a crucial part of the ocean food chain. While none of the letters in today's Wordle are that unusual, there are two repeats, which made it very hard for me to get in the groove. We've got a few seasoned players on the Tom's Guide team, so I asked for their thoughts on today's puzzle. Millie Fender, Managing Editor, Homes: "While none of the letters in today's Wordle are that unusual, there are two repeats, which made it very hard for me to get in the groove." Richard Priday, Assistant Phones Editor: "I haven't done a Wordle in months, but hearing it was tricky made me want to try again. After using my usual starting word, and then trying to find another vowel with my second attempt, I then moved to figuring out the first letter that would fit with the L in the second slot. After then, considering that tricky wordles often have a repeated letter, I was able to guess a word that revealed this was the case. And after putting it in the right spot, there was little else I could guess for my fifth, successful word." Martin Shore, Staff Writer, Streaming: "I managed to get today's answer in 2. I knew going in today's answer was apparently a tough one, so I used a starter words with lots of vowels, and with one green letter locked in in the middle position, I thought back to one of Wordle's tricks (double letters, hint hint) and then the answer just sort of came to me." Erin Bashford, Staff Writer, Reviews: "I got it in 4 today, which is my most common successful guess. I went for my usual plan of a vowel-heavy first guess, then I tried to knock out as many common consonant combinations as possible in guess two. Usually, from then on, my Wordle tactic involves "looking at the letters and hoping something sticks out". Thankfully, after a lucky third guess, my very scientific Wordle tactic came in clutch again." As you'd expect, plenty of players have taken to social media to comment on today's answer. On Twitter, #Wordle1523 began trending as people shared how they'd fared with the puzzle. Ha ha ha ha ha. I see some disappointment and even anger at today's word. Not too hard, once you figure out this isn't an every day word. It''s on the original short list.#Wordle1523 3/6*⬜⬜🟩⬜⬜⬜🟩🟩⬜⬜only 4 and 3 already been used.🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩 20, 2025 Wordle 1,523 6/6Phew! Nasty one 😆 #dailywordleclub #wordle1523🟨⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜🟩🟩⬜⬜⬜🟩🟩⬜⬜⬜🟩🟩⬜⬜⬜🟩🟩⬜🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩August 20, 2025 Are we at the stage where all of the easy words have been used? Time: 1:46.#Wordle1523 4/6⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜🟩⬜🟩⬜⬜⬜⬜🟨⬜⬜🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩August 20, 2025 It's not hard to see why we've been given a difficult answer — Wordle has been running for a few years now and most of the easy words have been used up. Did you find it tough? Did you lose your streak? Let us know in the comments below.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
New BBC thriller The Guest celebrates women 'being messy, angry and ugly'
Eve Myles and Gabrielle Creevy tell Yahoo UK about the BBC thriller's realistic depiction of women, and why a lot of women portrayed in TV are unrecognisable. Women, more often than not, aren't given the space to be messy onscreen, that's why BBC series The Guest deserves to be a cause for celebration, co-stars Eve Myles and Gabrielle Creevy tell Yahoo UK. Myles admits she hardly recognises the women portrayed in TV and film because they aren't representative of real life, but The Guest hopes to change that. The four-part series follows cleaner Ria (Creevy) who is taken under the wing by her wealthy employer Fran (Myles), who is captivating and unapologetic in equal measure. Fran is a woman who does what she wants and encourages others, like Ria, to do the same instead of limiting themselves to what society expects of them. As an intense friendship grows between them things take a dark turn, Ria becomes embroiled in a psychological game where nothing is as it seems and she must question everything and everyone, including her new employer. "It's great to see women, and play women, and celebrate their flaws and to celebrate what is deemed to be unfeminine, whatever the hell that means," Myles admits. "It's about voice, it's about presence, it's about being seen and being heard. It's about opinions, it's about friendship and love. "And, playing these types of women, it's about how the most unlikely of relationships can spark up because they need each other. They need something from each other, and yet in needing something from each other, what do they take from each other and never get back? "[We're] playing women that we recognise certain elements of and truly understand, because there are a lot of women on television who are played and I don't recognise them, I don't understand them, I don't see them. So, trying to find a real place for these women in our society is key to our show." "I think we can be afraid of that sometimes," Creevy adds of the show's exploration of women who push against societal expectations by being messy. "And I think what's really refreshing about their relationship is that they allow each other to be that. "I think being messy, being angry, being... ugly is a weird word, but I feel like being ugly is really exciting to play because you just sometimes feel afraid of it. But it's who we are, really. We are human beings, and we are allowed to feel like that, and I think that this relationship is that. "I think that's what Fran does for Ria, because she just doesn't feel like she's being seen, so Fran allows her to let go, essentially. And I think that's why she keeps coming back to her because she allows her to see all parts of herself." It was the strength of the characters and the writing on the page that the actors fell in love with, with the pair sharing how easy it was for them to join a project like The Guest. Creevey admits that when she received the script, she "couldn't stop turning the pages" because of how absorbed she became by the story's twists and surprises. She adds, "I just love a thriller like I love a Netflix thriller, so that's it for me." Myles first experienced The Guest under unique circumstances: "about 40 minutes before" she was set to take her daughters to see Taylor Swift in concert in Cardiff. "I had glitter all on one eye and the Taylor Swift shirt's on with all out hair like Taylor Swift, and my kids are all excited and Taylor Swift was playing in the kitchen and everything," she says, but the prospect of reading the first script by Matthew Barry was so enticing she couldn't help but keep thinking about it all the way through the show. "I'm like, this is an incredibly special scene, there's a very strong chemistry, I need to read the script, but we need to see Taylor Swift. I went to Taylor Swift and all I thought about — and Taylor Swift don't get me wrong, was incredible, — but all I could think of, my entire brain was going 'The Guest, The Guest, The Guest'. I've got to get back and read this. "So we go home and put my children in bed and read it, and I knew I was doing it before we'd had any conversations. It was intoxicating and intriguing and different and challenging. And I needed to do it." With such a strong connection to Taylor Swift in Myles' mind, Yahoo can't help but ask what song she'd choose from the pop star to describe The Guest. Her answer, perhaps unsurprisingly given the nature of the psychological thriller genre, was Look What You Made Me Do. With a show of this nature, it was important that the actors supported each other through it, but luckily, the stars became fast friends on set. It was an example of an instant connection that helped enhance the performance and take it further than they thought. Creevy explains: "We just kind of clicked, and that lent itself really into the show. We had conversations, but it's tricky because they're very complicated women, and it's a complicated relationship, but they were never really conversations that were like scene by scene; we didn't really talk in detail about it, we kind of just went with it. "Even before I met Eve, I knew I was going to trust her, like I've seen her work and I'm a fan, and I know I can trust her. Every take was really exciting, and that's what you want, really, when you're working with someone. Especially with a thriller, you want to be on your toes, and that's what it kind of felt like." Myles adds that they had a fine balancing act of embodying their characters while also not giving too much away to the audience too early: "With a thriller, you can only, and you should only, play what's on the page. "Because if you transcend the last scene in the last episode, you've spoiled it for everybody, and there's nothing going on, there's nothing dangerous, and there's nothing delicious and saucy to play in that moment. But if you play what's on the page, it maintains that element of surprise. Whether it's right or whether it's wrong, we're all hiding something in this show, and it's a thriller, so the subtext is all over it, but you have to bury all of that to surprise the audience." And there are certainly a lot of surprises in store for viewers, which we would be remiss to reveal too soon. But Myles and Creevy are adept at teasing without giving too much away, as the latter admits she "didn't expect" what takes place in the show. "I just don't think you can say that it's going to be one thing because it actually turns out to be another," she explains. Myles concurs, as she adds: "I think they can absolutely expect the unexpected, but really enjoy the journey on the way and be surprised and shocked. And I would hope that the viewers who watch this have a different, or some, understanding of both of these women that wasn't there at the beginning but do definitely have at the end." The Guest premieres on BBC One this Autumn.
