Bombshell, the story of the women of Fox News standing up to the establishment, has already stirred up a lot of controversy in addition to some Golden Globe nominations. The film, which arrives in theaters on December 13, must walk a fine line of championing unlikely heroines without deifying them. The fast-paced and funny script is aided in this endeavor by some stellar performances from the likes of Charlize Theron, Nicole Kidman and Margot Robbie. But will that be enough to cut through the political tensions Fand stand out as a story of overthrowing injustice? That depends on how open a mind the audience brings to the theater, according to screenwriter Charles Randolph, who spoke to Screen Rant about his process.

I know that you did a lot of research to prepare for Bombshell, and I was surprised by the nuance in these women’s stories. How did you decide in what ways to streamline the narratives and whose stories to center?

What role did the political aspect play for you in the writing process? Because my skepticism was eased by how impartial the screenplay was.

Charles Randolph: I think you probably hesitated because you had a pretty strong sense of who you thought Megyn Kelly was, and that wasn’t necessarily a positive sense of who Megyn Kelly was. So, when I sat down to write, it was clear to me that Megyn as a single lead would never work. Because it would be hard to be wholly invested her.

At the same time, she has the most remarkable example of a bystander problem that I’ve ever seen. Because she is a person who thinks she controls the narrative, but she does not, at Fox. What she learns after her interaction with Trump is that she is complicit by virtue of her silence for the next generation of work, so it’s the story of the bystander who understands their complicity and decides to do something about it. And the reason she’s a great example is because she is the least likely person that we as an audience imagine doing that.

Which is to say, the baggage we bring to the theater is both necessary for making her character turn, but it’s difficult because it’s going to put some people off. So, I wanted her to be our narrative centers - she’s the perspective that drives us through the story; our Dante. But I wanted Gretchen to be the moral center, the person whose choices we can see in their purest terms and heaviest impact. And I wanted this other character, Kayla, to be our emotional center. And that’s in part because having a deeply emotional engagement with someone requires a sort of messiness, complex series of complications, and a certain kind of victimization that would have been very hard to assign to a real person. So, I knew I was going to do different voices and different perspectives from the beginning, and it was really a matter of choosing how many.

I initially had six. I gave Beth Ailes a whole series of monologues; I had you know Rupert [Murdoch]’s oldest daughter, Prudence, was the voice sort of guiding us through the Murdoch family. But you could never see her in the film, because she said her dad wouldn’t let her in the business - so she would never appear onscreen. It was a chorus of women that just became too much, and the studio said, “Look, we got to reduce this down.” And so, we reduced it to those three playing very different roles with three perspectives on this world.

The theme that stood out most to me was that some people don’t recognize or care about injustice until it happens to them, but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t applaud when they do stand up to it.

Charles Randolph: The thing about doing a political movie is that the baggage that people bring is going to help you and hurt you, and you’ve got to figure out how you can do both. And I think you’re probably no different than a lot of people; you think you know exactly what this is going to be, and then it’s not. And then you have this ambivalence, “I don’t want to identify with these people, but I do. I don’t like what she stands for,” or “She didn’t make a good choice, but what do I feel? Oh, no!”

As long as you have an open mind and open heart watching it, that’s fine. What drives me a little crazy are the people who say, “I’m not gonna even engage.” And then I can’t help it. If that’s your take, there’s no way I can help you. But if you do, I think you kind of learn something. But the reason I wanted to do this, is because this is an issue that transcends partisanship, and that’s important to establish with these people. Not only that, it’s great that such a pre-Me Too story of feminist determination came from people who hate the word ‘feminism’ and work at Fox News. That’s great; that’s fantastic. We should be celebrating that fact, because if we let Me Too get politicized, we are screwed. Because we are handing a reason for a lot of people to be just indifferent to it. If we can prove that this is something that happens to conservative women, and it’s got to stop, then we’re gold. The fact that they are the women of FOX is not a bug, it’s a feature.

You spoke personally to many of the women involved during your Bombshell research. Did you encounter any resistance when it came to telling the story, or were most people eager to get it out there?

Charles Randolph: Absolutely. And it’s in part because they don’t have the ideological framework that allows them to see it, because they’re in institutions whose norms are so aggressive that they’re not allowed to see it. What Gretchen Carlson did is a big deal, and I say that as someone who realizes that Gretchen Carlson is a problematic person on some level. But she did a remarkable thing, and good on her.

One part of Bombshell that I found really interesting was the character of Jess, played by Kate McKinnon, who was possibly the only Democrat in the film. Was she based on a real person or an amalgamation of people? And why did you decide to include the closeted Democrat side of the story?

Charles Randolph: It varies from person to person. We spoke with maybe 20 people. No one knows what you’re doing when you’re talking to them, so they don’t know what the movie is going to be. They have no idea if they’re in it or not; they have no idea if it’s going to focus on just Roger of if it’s going to be Beth’s story. I mean, they don’t know. Because you’re just doing research, they don’t have the framework of the film in their heads.

Most people were pretty open and wanting to make sure that we got it right. They were fairly generous. That being said, this is news employees. I think it will come as no surprise to you, they are pretty ambitious people who are good at cultivating and curating a public image. They obviously have their pride, and that’s a good thing. So, I would say, on the whole, they were almost exclusively helpful. I am obviously a little saddened by the fact that I couldn’t talk to everyone. And I wouldn’t talk to some people who had NDAs, because I didn’t want to put their NDAs at risk knowing I would never use their story. Also, you’ll get this as a journalist, there’s nothing more depressing than sitting down and having someone pour their heart out, in tears, and you have to know that you can’t use that. It’s just too depressing to go through.

There are people’s stories, which are beautiful and powerful like Julie Roginsky’s, that just didn’t find a way in. And then some of them, you’re just meeting to check, like Juliet Huddy. I mention these two women because they’ve been talking to press. I just met Juliet and was like, “We have you say this line in this scene. Is that true?” And she’s like, “No, that’s not true.” Good, it’s out. So, part of it was just checking some things.

As far as casting, at what point did you know that you wanted Charlize as Megyn?

Charles Randolph: She’s wholly made up, but I think she’s another example of what happens in our culture. I just love her character so much. She’s this person who is desperate for connection; desperate to to be able to be herself and yet never will. And Kayla, of course, understands at a certain point that Jess will never be herself. That’s the thing that motivates Kayla to make the choices she makes. It’s not just her experience, as heartbreaking as it is, it’s also seeing this person that she cares about. Seeing that her friend will never have the courage to stand up and be herself, and that’s the institution we’re talking about.

Finally, what can you tell me about your next project?

Charles Randolph: It was all part of the initial instinct. I think in the pitch we said, “Okay, picture Charlize as Megyn Kelly,” so it was always in the pitch. Sometimes what happens is you pitch it and you’re not sure, then you’re writing it and you’re tortured.

I was having dinner with McKay in New York while he was directing the pilot for Succession, I think, and I mentioned I was thinking about Charlize. He agreed, of course. But when I said I wasn’t sure, he was like, “What do you mean you’re not sure? It’s Charlize! Are you an idiot?” Once he was so enthusiastic, I’m like, “McKay’s right. It is no brainer, isn’t it?”

So, when I finished the script in May-ish, we had two to three months of elaborate legal stuff we had to go through and parse. It went to Denver & Delilah Production in, I want to say in September, and they had jumped on board and were excited. Charlize was like, “Yes, it’s great. But I’m scared.”

So, it was one of those things. And, of course, she met with Jay Roach and they found a way that, collectively, the three of us could make this work.

Do you know what the timeline for that is?

Charles Randolph: Right now, I’m writing the John D. Rockefeller story with David Russell, which is about the cost of economic inequality and extreme wealth, for De Niro to star it.

More: 10 Things We Learned From The Bombshell Trailer

Charles Randolph: We’re in it right now. I mean, hopefully soon-ish, but you never know. I think they’re going to go off and do [Killers of the Flower Moon], the David Grann book with Robert De Niro and Leonardo DiCaprio. But I would imagine, if it does go, it would be in the next year.

  • Bombshell Release Date: 2019-12-20