
First Look: Olivia Cooke and Robin Wright Face Off in 'The Girlfriend'
Laura lives an exquisite life in London with her son, Daniel (Laurie Davidson), and husband, Howard (Waleed Zuaiter). The three have in an elegant home (plus a vacation property in Spain), and she boasts a fruitful career. But Cherry's arrival, in her high heels and flashy dresses, sends Laura spinning. After an awkward first meeting over dinner, Laura believes Cherry, who hails from a working-class background, is hiding something. Is she with Daniel for the right reasons? Meanwhile Cherry has her own suspicions. Is Laura just out to get her? Amid their snooping and sabotage, things get taken too far.
Naomi Sheldon and Gabbie Asher adapted the book for TV. The cast also includes Tanya Moodie as Isabella, Shalom Brune-Franklin as Brigitte, Karen Henthorn as Tracey, Anna Chancellor as Lilith, Leo Suter as Nicholas, and Francesca Corney as Millie.
Frances remembers beginning to write the story around 2015. 'I was toying with the idea of this thriller about these interlocking two women fighting over this guy, and it's such a universal problem,' she tells ELLE. At the time, her children were young 'and I became a real tiger mother,' and the story evolved from there.
Wright agrees on the universality. 'I think you would ask any mother, and they probably had a little bit of that, where they're like, is she good enough for him?' she says. The project came her way a few years ago during COVID, when Imaginarium Productions reached out for her to possibly direct. (Wright has previously directed episodes of House of Cards, Ozark, Tell Me Lies, as well as the film Land.) 'I read the pilot, and I could see the show just from that one episode,' she remembers. Filming ultimately took place from the end of May to end of September last year.
The team had to move fast, though. With meetings quickly approaching to pitch the series to streamers, they were running out of time to find an actress for Laura's role. 'At the end of the day, I think [they] all were like, 'Why don't you just play Laura?' And I was like, 'Okay,'' Wright says. 'But it worked out great in the end, and then we got Olivia, which was heaven.' Cooke was her top choice for Cherry after watching her in Thoroughbreds, Vanity Fair, and Slow Horses. 'I liked the kind of toughness that she has embedded in her,' Wright adds.
Cooke, on the other hand, had no idea she was favored. 'I thought that I was having to beg, borrow, and steal that part,' she jokes. The House of the Dragon star loves 'an underdog story' and is a fan of Wright's work, hence why she was drawn to The Girlfriend. 'There was something that was so ballsy and confident about Cherry that I just really wanted to play,' she says. The character is 'so daring and cutthroat and sort of Machiavellian, but also just with a heart of gold, in a way.'
Cherry clashes with Laura's seemingly perfect life and tight-knit bond with Daniel. After suffering a personal tragedy in the past, Laura put all her energy into her son. 'He was her buddy until Cherry moved in,' Wright adds. 'It's just almost like the rug got ripped up from under Laura, and she's like, I don't like her. I don't trust her, and I need to get my son away from her.'
And while they're on opposing sides, Cooke believes Laura and Cherry have some things in common. 'I don't think they're that dissimilar, really. There are moments in the show where you're like, oh God, these two people could really be friends. ... I think Cherry, at the start, looks up to Laura and thinks, 'God, what an amazing, just incredibly accomplished woman who I would want to be.''
And in the middle of them both is Daniel. 'Through one lens, you see it as this beautiful thing,' Davidson says of the mother-son relationship. But it's 'hard for someone [else] coming into that. Laura occupies a lot of the same space that a girlfriend [or] a partner would occupy or should occupy. So when Cherry turns up, she's like, 'Where do I fit in?' And that's where some of the problems start.'
To exaggerate the drama, the series is told from Laura and Cherry's two different points of view. 'Halfway through the episodes, you're going to get the other perspective of what actually happened,' Wright says. Often, you'll see the same event portrayed differently depending on who's telling the story. It's not far from real life: Frequently, two people won't remember an incident in the same way. But that meant the actors had to tweak their performances slightly based on how each of the two women would view a scene.
'In Laura's perspective, it needs to look like Daniel is moving away from her completely and is going towards Cherry, and she's trying to hold onto … her son. So in those moments, Daniel would seem like he was just kind of ignoring his mom and moving towards Cherry,' Davidson says. 'And in Cherry's perspective, we probably pushed the sense of him being a bit of a manchild, a bit of a mummy's boy, because that's what she sees. And my job was to try and make sure that these are part of the same person and that there's continuity of character there, so they're not just two completely different people.'
That added a 'tricky' layer to Wright's responsibilities, as both an actor and director on the series. 'When you're in the scene with Laurie or Olivia, I'm looking at that actor going, oh yes, they got that beat, they nailed it, but then you have to remember you have a line. … So, you're looking out of two sides of your brain at the same time.'
Cooke, for one, was amazed to see Wright's brain in action. 'One of our first days was her filming this really emotional scene, and she'd be bringing this really gut-wrenching performance, and then she'd be like, 'Okay, and cut. Okay, we're going to go to a mid shot. What lens is that? Okay, yeah, let's go with that.''
The series also dives into more than just mother-girlfriend rivalry and family dynamics. It also explores wealth disparity, privilege, and the lack of social mobility, as Daniel grew up wealthy and Cherry did not. 'When I was much younger, I remember just wanting to try and change where I came from socially,' Frances says of her experiences that inspired The Girlfriend. 'Classism in our country is so embedded in our daily lives. It sort of feels innate at this point,' says Cooke, who hails from Manchester. And though the series is set in the U.K., there's no doubt it'll resonate across the pond and elsewhere, especially in an era of TV that is obsessed with analyzing the rich (think The White Lotus and Your Friends & Neighbors).
But even if the series doesn't radicalize viewers against the 1 percent, Cooke hopes that, at the very least, audiences can 'sink their teeth into this world for a little bit and have some reprieve.' After all, The Girlfriend boasts plot twists, steamy scenes, jet set-worthy filming locations, and bold wardrobe, on top of all the drama. As for Wright, 'I'm hoping that they get hooked, and they're like, I can't wait to go to episode 2.' If the response is anything like it was for Frances's book, that's likely. The author remembers receiving personal messages from readers debating whether they're 'Team Laura' or 'Team Cherry.' 'That was really exciting,' she says. 'And I'm sure it'll be the same with the TV [version].'
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Los Angeles Times
4 hours ago
- Los Angeles Times
‘The Summer I Turned Pretty' and ‘Love Island' won't stand for cyberbullies. Why is social media so toxic?
'The Summer I Turned Pretty' is the second series in as many months to directly warn its audience about cyberbullying. Posting on its official social media accounts, the Prime Video series issued a 'PSA for the Summer community': 'We have a ZERO tolerance policy for bullying and hate speech. If you engage in any of the following you will be banned.' Fans were cautioned against 'hate speech or bullying,' 'targeting our cast or crew' and 'harassing or doxxing members of the community.' This comes on the heels of 'Love Island USA' releasing similar warnings. Last month, host Ariana Madix called out 'fan' behavior on the series' recap show, 'Aftersun.' 'Don't be contacting people's families. Don't be doxxing people. Don't be going on Islanders' pages and saying rude things,' she said. The show's social accounts subsequently followed up with the message: 'Please just remember they're real people — so let's be kind and spread the love!' So this is where we are. Online discourse has become so toxic that television series are forced to address it in their publicity campaigns. It's difficult to know whether to applaud or weep. Maybe both. Certainly having television creators, and their social media teams, address a decades-long problem directly and proactively is far preferable to the more traditional entertainment industry approach. You know, waiting until some unfortunate actor or contestant is buried under an avalanche of hate speech before appearing shocked and horrified that such a thing could happen among (fill in the blank) fan base. (We will never forget, Kelly Marie Tran!) Whether these warnings will be duplicated or prove effective remains to be seen. Studies suggest that cyberbullies who have their posts removed are less likely to repost and perhaps being called out by shows they watch will give some 'fans' pause before they vent their spleen online. It is still maddening that after years of research on the prevalence and dangers of cyberbullying, we are apparently relying on 'Love Island' and 'The Summer I Turned Pretty' as a first line of defense against behavior that has been proved to cause suicide, self-harm and a host of mental illnesses. Obviously, something is very wrong. With the medium and its message. When the internet became widely available, it promised to be an endless library of art and information. Instead, its most popular feature was easy (and often quite unintentional) access to porn. So should we have been surprised when fan sites and social media platforms, built to allow free, unfettered and quite often anonymous discourse, became equally at risk for humanity's less sterling qualities? Should it have been a revelation that certain film and television fans would behave badly when something occurred in their beloved universe that they did not like? Have you ever been to Dodger Stadium? Nothing about the impulses or language of cyberbullying is new. Hate mail has existed since writing was invented —poison pen letters caused a criminal crisis in the early 20th century — and celebrities have always been in danger of the 'build 'em up and tear 'em down' fan flex. What's new (or new-ish) are the platforms that encourage such things. Poison pen letters are illegal. Poisonous posts are part of the social media business plan. Yes, those who hate-post should take personal responsibility and our culture, like our politics, has grown more divisive and, frankly, mean. Social media at best allows and at worst encourages us to post things we might never say to a person standing in front of us. Commentary as blood sport. Looking back, there was such heartbreaking optimism about the role social media would play in art, particularly television. Creators could actively engage with fans in real time and deepen audience commitment. A viral video or a clever Twitter campaign could save marketing departments millions. And celebrities could post their own 'in real life' pictures, potentially thwarting the paparazzi, as well as stories, statements and confessionals, thereby avoiding the need for interviews over which they had far less control. DIY publicity and deeply personal fan engagement — what could go wrong? DIY publicity and deeply personal fan engagement, that's what. Say what you will about the old days when artists had to rely on legacy media for publicity — if readers had something bad to say, they shared it with the publication, which had standards about what letters would be made public. Direct contact with public figures was quite difficult — even fan mail was read and sorted by publicity departments and secretaries. Now most everyone is accessible on one platform or another and there are very few standards. Having leveraged the unpaid labor of millions to create profitable platforms, social media owners are not interested in providing basic consumer protection. Using the most facile definition of free speech — which is the right to voice opinions without government interference or punishment, not the right to post any hateful or incendiary thought you have — Mark Zuckerberg, Elon Musk and other platform owners have consistently refused or pushed back against any demands of meaningful regulation. Instead they rely on other users. The self-policing of social media is real and often effective, but it is far too arbitrary to act as a substitute for media regulation and mob rule is not something we should embrace. The simple answer is 'don't look' — avoid the comments section or get off social media altogether. Which would be great advice if it were not so patently ridiculous. Intentionally or not, we have made social media a powerful force in this country. Particularly in the entertainment industry, where careers are made on YouTube, TikTok influencers are cultural arbiters and the number of one's Instagram followers can determine whether they get the job or not. It's easy to say 'ignore the haters' and virtually impossible for most of us to do. More importantly, it puts the responsibility on the wrong people, like telling a woman to just ignore a boss or colleague who makes crude comments about her appearance. It's been decades since Facebook, X, Instagram, TikTok and all the other platforms could be viewed as simply fun forums on which to share vacation snaps. They deliver the news, shape our politics, market our businesses and create our culture. They are not public spaces; they belong to media companies that are owned and controlled by individuals just like any other media company. So yeah, it's great that 'Love Island' and 'The Summer I Turned Pretty' have taken steps to try to prevent online hate. But their warnings only illuminate the elephant in the room. A billion-dollar industry is failing to protect the very people who built it in the first place.


New York Post
4 hours ago
- New York Post
Here's how to watch Judge Judy's new true crime courtroom drama for free
New York Post may be compensated and/or receive an affiliate commission if you click or buy through our links. Featured pricing is subject to change. Court is back in session. Judge Judy Sheindlin is returning to Prime Video with a new series that tackles true crime; all eight episodes of 'Justice on Trial' are now streaming. 'Justice on Trial' puts the American court system on trial. Judge Sheindlin and her expert legal team recreate trials from notorious cases in American history where the letter of the law dictates that 'justice' doesn't always feel 'just.' Fast-paced recreations of the crimes are mixed with recreated trials, where Judge Sheindlin acts as the lower court judge, while her 'Tribunal Justice' judges Tanya Acker, Patricia DiMango, and Adam Levy preside over all appeals court cases. Real-life veteran trial lawyers Daniel Mentzer and Larry Bakman also appear. 'Justice on Trial' release date: All eight episodes of 'Justice on Trial' Season 1 are now streaming on Prime Video. The series came out on July 21. 'Justice on Trial': How to watch for free 'Justice on Trial' is an Amazon Original, meaning you'll need an Amazon Prime membership with a Prime Video subscription to tune in. Not a Prime member yet? No problem — you can still watch 'Justice on Trial' for free! Amazon Prime comes with a 30-day free trial before payment begins. After one month, the subscription costs $14.99/month or $139/year. There are ways to save, too. All 18-24-year-olds, regardless of student status, are eligible for a discounted Prime for Young Adults membership with age verification. After a six-month free trial, you'll pay 50% off the standard Prime monthly price — just $7.49/month — for up to six years. 'Justice on Trial' episode guide: The season has eight episodes, each one focusing on a different crime. Here's a list of all the episodes, plus a little bit about what to expect from each one. Episode 1: 'What Happens in My House (The Matter of Terrence K.)' – When a foreign diplomat invoked immunity to shield himself from child abuse charges after brutally beating his son, the case ultimately pitted the interests of the U.S. Government against the rights of an abused child. When a foreign diplomat invoked immunity to shield himself from child abuse charges after brutally beating his son, the case ultimately pitted the interests of the U.S. Government against the rights of an abused child. Episode 2: 'Burying Rights (Ohio v. Dixon)' – Archie Dixon confessed to brutally murdering his roommate and burying him alive to profit from selling his car. The case focuses on whether police tactics crossed the line between lawful interrogation and coercion. If the pursuit of truth becomes a violation of justice, will a confessed killer be set free? Archie Dixon confessed to brutally murdering his roommate and burying him alive to profit from selling his car. The case focuses on whether police tactics crossed the line between lawful interrogation and coercion. If the pursuit of truth becomes a violation of justice, will a confessed killer be set free? Episode 3: ' Sixteen to Life: Part 1 (People v. Deskovic) ' – As a teenager, Jeffrey Deskovic stood trial for the tragic assault and murder of his high school classmate. Judge Judy Sheindlin and her expert legal team recreate the courtroom battle, revealing questionable police interrogation tactics that led to Deskovic being coerced into a false confession. Will Deskovic's questionable confession be enough to convict him of murder? As a teenager, Jeffrey Deskovic stood trial for the tragic assault and murder of his high school classmate. Judge Judy Sheindlin and her expert legal team recreate the courtroom battle, revealing questionable police interrogation tactics that led to Deskovic being coerced into a false confession. Will Deskovic's questionable confession be enough to convict him of murder? Episode 4: ' Sixteen to Life: Part 2 (Deskovic v. Putnam County) ' – After being exonerated of assault and murder following 16 years in prison, Jeffrey Deskovic fights back with a civil suit. Judge Judy Sheindlin and her expert legal team recreate this trial to examine the limits of police and prosecutor liability in wrongful conviction cases. Did law enforcement's tactics used to convict Deskovic make them liable for monetary damages, or criminal prosecution? After being exonerated of assault and murder following 16 years in prison, Jeffrey Deskovic fights back with a civil suit. Judge Judy Sheindlin and her expert legal team recreate this trial to examine the limits of police and prosecutor liability in wrongful conviction cases. Did law enforcement's tactics used to convict Deskovic make them liable for monetary damages, or criminal prosecution? Episode 5: ' For the Defendant (Gideon v. Wainwright) ' – Forced to defend himself in court due to Florida law after he was accused of burglarizing a pool hall in 1963, Clarence Gideon was found guilty. While in prison, his successful appeal to the Supreme Court effectively created the Public Defender system we have today. Now armed with a savvy attorney, would Gideon win his freedom? Forced to defend himself in court due to Florida law after he was accused of burglarizing a pool hall in 1963, Clarence Gideon was found guilty. While in prison, his successful appeal to the Supreme Court effectively created the Public Defender system we have today. Now armed with a savvy attorney, would Gideon win his freedom? Episode 6: ' Killer, but not a Liar (People v. Turriago) ' – Troopers stopped Leonardo Turriago for a speeding violation on the New York State Thruway, which led police to a grim discovery in the back of his truck: a decomposing body locked in a steamer trunk. But was the search of the truck legal? Troopers stopped Leonardo Turriago for a speeding violation on the New York State Thruway, which led police to a grim discovery in the back of his truck: a decomposing body locked in a steamer trunk. But was the search of the truck legal? Episode 7: ' Hell Goes on Forever (Snyder v. Phelps) ' – Is inflammatory speech protected under the 1st Amendment? A grieving father witnessed the Westboro Baptist Church's protest with hateful signs and slogans at his son's military funeral, forcing a legal showdown over free speech. Is inflammatory speech protected under the 1st Amendment? A grieving father witnessed the Westboro Baptist Church's protest with hateful signs and slogans at his son's military funeral, forcing a legal showdown over free speech. Episode 8: 'Scopes Monkey Trial (State of TN v. Scopes)' – To mark the 100th Anniversary of the famous Scopes Monkey Trial, Judge Judy Sheindlin and her expert legal team recreate this landmark case. In 1925, John Scopes challenged a Tennessee law prohibiting the teaching of Darwin's theory of evolution. The iconic case tested the legal boundaries in teaching science versus religion, and, ultimately, the limits of government control over the classroom. Why Trust Post Wanted by the New York Post This article was written by Angela Tricarico, Commerce Writer/Reporter for Post Wanted Shopping and New York Post's streaming property, Decider. Angela keeps readers up to date with cord-cutter-friendly deals, and information on how to watch your favorite sports teams, TV shows, and movies on every streaming service. Not only does Angela test and compare the streaming services she writes about to ensure readers are getting the best prices, but she's also a superfan specializing in the intersection of shopping, tech, sports, and pop culture. Prior to joining Decider and The New York Post in 2023, she wrote about streaming and consumer tech at Insider Reviews
Yahoo
6 hours ago
- Yahoo
WWE star Roman Reigns shuts down 6th kid rumors during hiatus
The post WWE star Roman Reigns shuts down 6th kid rumors during hiatus appeared first on ClutchPoints. Before making his epic return during Monday Night RAW on July 14, 2025, there were reports that WWE's Roman Reigns had his sixth kid while on hiatus. However, the 'Only Tribal Chief' has debunked those rumors. He took to TikTok to address the rumors. The caption of his post read, 'Five and done,' indicating he will not have another kid anytime soon. He also wrote, 'Addressing the rumors…' over the video. 'I'm done,' Reigns said. 'They [said] I was trying to catch up to Jacob [Fatu] or something? Five and done. I've done my job. I procreated. No more.' Reigns then fired back at those who called his hiatus a 'vacation.' He reassured them that he was still working when he wasn't seen in WWE. 'It wasn't a vacation! It was school 'til June, and then we started tutoring. Don't feel bad for me. Don't ever feel bad for me,' he responded. So, it does not appear those rumors are true. Reigns appears to be back in WWE for the long haul after his three-month hiatus. Expect to see a lot more of him leading into SummerSlam. How many kids does WWE Superstar Roman Reigns have? Reigns has five kids with his wife, Galina Becker. Their first daughter was born in December 2007. They then had two sets of twin boys in 2016 and 2020. His WWE career started in 2010 when he signed with their developmental brand, Florida Championship Wrestling (FCW). Reigns previously aspired to be an NFL player, going undrafted in the 2007 NFL Draft. After brief stints with the Minnesota Vikings and Jacksonville Jaguars, Reigns played a season in the Canadian Football League (CFL). He debuted in WWE in 2012 as part of the Shield with Seth Rollins and Dean Ambrose. They remained together until Rollins turned on his stablemates in 2014. Once he became a singles star, WWE never looked back with Reigns as their top star. They pushed him when the audience rejected him. After his return in 2020 after taking a hiatus due to the COVID-19 pandemic, Reigns reinvented his character. He debuted the 'Tribal Chief' persona that he still uses today. During his 'Tribal Chief' run, he had a 1,316-day reign as Universal Champion. Along the way, he won the WWE Championship, unifying the titles. He eventually lost them to Cody Rhodes at WrestleMania 40. Related: WWE star Drew McIntyre trolls SummerSlam foes with viral Coldplay meme Related: UFC legend reveals Brock Lesnar's 'banned' WWE status Solve the daily Crossword