Impressively, Gillian Flynn hasn’t turned into a one-screenplay hit wonder. The former television critic made her name as a novelist, but when she adapted her own novel “Gone Girl” into a movie she earned Golden Globe, WGA and BAFTA Awards nominations, among other honors. 2018 has proved her talent for filmed content wasn’t limited to one thriller.
Earlier this summer she adapted another one of her novels, “Sharp Objects,” into a celebrated HBO mini-series starring Amy Adams and Patricia Clarkson. Earlier this month, she helped bring the classic British TV series “Widows” to the screen in a collaboration with director Steve McQueen. And that’s not all. Next year, she’ll oversee the production of “Utopia,” a conspiracy thriller series adapted from another British series she’s currently writing for Amazon’s Prime Video.
“Widows” may have disappointed at the box office, but a bad release date and wonky marketing strategy aren’t on Flynn’s shoulders. The picture has an 84 on Metacritic and a 91% Fresh on Rotten Tomatoes. And a large part of its critical success is due to the unique working relationship she formed with McQueen.
Flynn jumped on the phone earlier this month to discuss “Widows” along with notably leaving the door slightly ajar for another “Sharp Objects” season down the road. Maybe.
____
Gregory Ellwood: I’ve already talked to Steve but, can you tell me your side of the story? How did you come to work on “Widows”?
Gillian Flynn: Well, I knew that he wanted to do that as his next film, after “12 Years a Slave” [but] he just got in touch with me. I was not familiar with “Widows” not having grown up in Britain. But I love [series creator] Lynda La Plante, so I was already excited about that. I watched it and was immediately drawn in. First, by that idea of entering that usually men-only domain of a heist thriller. That’s usually so aggressively male, a kind of girls stay out sort of vibe and what we could do with that. Then also, why I write mysteries in general. You can use it to talk about so many big issues about society. In this case, we could talk about race. We could talk about gender. We could talk about economic disparity. We could talk about big city issues like corruption and crime and violence. And, attach it to a heist thriller and make a really cool heist thriller that would give people some stuff to talk about when it was all over. I was really excited about that, just all the potential that was there.
I don’t remember how many episodes the British series was, but it was certainly longer than a conventional film. In terms of an overall structure, what was the hardest part in trying to decide what you would keep in and what you would have to take out?
Well, with the original series we knew that we would have the widows and that idea that they were pulling off a crime. So, there was some danger, there was a criminal element after them at the same time. Otherwise, we didn’t feel overly beholden to necessarily keeping so much from the other series. It wasn’t like we were like, “Oh, how are we going to fit this in, and this in, and this in. We have to take all these six hours.” We were taking Lynda La Plante’s brilliant DNA of it and then kind of going from there.
While speaking to Steve he said he never thinks of an actor for a role until after he finishes the screenplay. Is that the same for you? Or, did you have any of these actors in mind while you were working on it?
I didn’t, no, no, not at all. I’m the same way. It’s sort of a dangerous thing to start casting otherwise, you start writing for a person. So, no, I was just writing four cool women.
Alice, Elizabeth’s character, is one of the more complex I’ve seen on screen this year. Was she very close to the original British version?
I do remember she certainly had a beauty pageant background and a mom who was a little unsavory about her looks and was sort of pushing her to use those looks. Obviously, there was no online dating back then so. But, I can’t remember if she was trying to get her to, “You should get a nice boyfriend,” or what.
How about the process of working with Steve? Was it what you expected? Did it work itself out sort of organically?
It did come together kind of organically. We were just swapping drafts. We live in different countries. He’s based in Amsterdam, I’m based in Chicago. He would come in a fair amount to do location scouts here in Chicago, so we would hang out a lot. But, we weren’t hanging out and writing. We would hang out and do research. We did a lot of meetings with every kind of person that you see in the movie, making sure we were getting the city right. So we were meeting with cops and FBI agents, and ex-criminals, and getting to know each other while we were doing that. But then, we were doing our writing separately. We would send each other notes about scenes, “This is working. I don’t think this is quite happening. Maybe we should drop this character entirely.” We would have inspiration from a certain meeting, pop in new lines of dialogue. It was definitely very organic since neither of us comes from a professional screenwriting background. It felt like the way two people who love movies and have come to movies through different routes would. It wasn’t this prescribed way. “I’ll do scene 1, act 2,” that sort of thing.
It wasn’t the USC method of working together, breaking down a script, sort of thing.
Yeah, exactly. It wasn’t like, “I’ll write all the girl part, you write the guy parts.” Thank goodness.
“Sharp Objects” debuted this Summer and developed a very passionate fan base. I have friends who loved it to death. I’ve heard rumors that there will not be a second season, it was just a limited season. I don’t know if that’s really true. In your mind, had you thought of the story, or Amy’s character continuing in another way? Have you thought of even doing another book with her?
Yeah. There is a chance for another season. For me, the characters always go on but there are no plans. We really kind of told the story we wanted to tell.
Did you pay attention to the reaction online? Did you want to see what the people thought, with the mini-series itself?
I would dip in every once in a while because it’s fun to see people’s different theories. I always like to do that. As it was moving through the season to see who different people thought [did it]. That was always fun.
Speaking of “Sharp Objects,” now that you’ve worked in both TV and film, do you have any preferences about either medium?
You know, it’s interesting. I love TV because it gives you that wonderful space to sprawl out in. We were able to really tell the whole book of “Sharp Objects” and not have to make horrific, painful decisions about what to leave out. We had eight glorious episodes, which was just really a privilege and wonderful. I don’t know if I have the stamina to be a day-to-day TV writer and be in that writer’s room. It’s just an intense place to be. There’s a different place for extroverts and I’m, at heart, a novelist. I sometimes like to retreat to my own quiet little basement office and be in my own brain.
Lastly, is “Utopia” happening still?
It sure is, yeah.
Have you guys shot it yet?
No, it’ll start filming next year. Next Spring, yep, next Spring here in Chicago.
As both showrunner and writer do you feel like it’s your baby in a way?
It does, yeah, I feel very strange. Totally my baby, yeah. I wrote all nine episodes and will be a showrunner for the first time, so very excited to own it.
“Widows” is now playing nationwide.
