Christine Molloy hails from Dublin, Ireland, and works with her partner, Joe Lawlor. Between 2003 and 2010, they co-wrote and directed 10 acclaimed short films, including the award-winning “Who Killed Brown Owl” and “Joy.” “Helen,” Molloy and Lawlor’s award-winning debut feature film, premiered at the Edinburgh International Film Festival, screened at more than 50 film festivals worldwide, and was nominated for an Evening Standard Film award and a Guardian First Film award in 2009. Their second feature film, “Mister John,” premiered at the Edinburgh International Film Festival 2013 before its release in the UK and Ireland. In 2016 Molloy and Lawlor co-wrote and directed the feature length documentary “Further Beyond” which had its world premiere at FIDMarseille.

“Rose Plays Julie” will premiere at the 2019 BFI London Film Festival on October 3. The film is co-directed by Joe Lawlor.

W&H: Describe the film for us in your own words.

CM: “Rose Plays Julie” is a psychological thriller about the impact of male violence and abuses of power. It is also a film about righting a wrong. Trying to find some kind of justice. Revenge. But at its heart, it is a story about a mother and daughter. The mother, Ellen, is an actress living in London and Rose is the daughter she gave up for adoption.

Rose is now a third-year veterinary science student who desperately wants to reconcile the two different sides of her identity: the person she is, and the person she could have been if she hadn’t been adopted. In Rose’s mind this reconciliation is only possible if she can meet her birth mother to understand why she was given up.

Having traced her birth mother and confronted her, Rose discovers some very unsettling truths about who she is and this threatens her already fragile sense of her own identity. But undeterred, unwilling to stop and turn away, she is drawn into the dark world of her birth father, Peter.

W&H: What drew you to this story?

CM: Our debut feature film, “Helen,” centered on a young woman who was brought up under the care of the state. At the end of the film she gains access to her personal files. All she really wants to know — so she can go forward with her life — is was she loved? Was she wanted? For our character Helen, the answer was yes. She was loved. She was wanted.

When thinking about “Rose Plays Julie,” we were drawn to developing a story where the answer to the question is no.

When I was a teenager, growing up in Dublin in the ’80s — in Catholic Ireland — I remember walking home with my best friends after an afternoon of blackberry picking. We were only walking because one of our bikes got a puncture and we didn’t have a repair kit to fix it. It was a long walk back along a country road but we talked non-stop all the way to pass the time.

One of the stories I remember from that walk was my friend telling us about her aunty in England who was raped. Following the rape her aunty discovered she was pregnant but made the decision to keep the child. To my teenage Catholic ears this story was disturbing on many levels.

Firstly, the fact that my friends aunty was raped. That alone was shocking enough but that she had a baby as a result of that rape — I don’t think such a scenario had ever entered my head before. It barely made sense to me but, of course, rape is the only violent act against another human being that can lead to the creation of a life. And finally, that she kept the baby. Back then in Ireland, being a single unmarried mother was reason enough to be shunned and vilified. But I couldn’t even begin to imagine what it would be like to be the unmarried mother of a child conceived by rape.

The story stayed with me through the years and I often thought about it before it finally found its way into our thinking when we were developing “Rose Plays Julie.” But we knew that in our story the mother would not hold onto her child.

Our interest in developing a story with a rape at its core was focused on how the rape impacts identity. Of all the horrors of rape, the fact that this violation can lead to the birth of a rape-conceived child is the most unsettling and traumatic to think about. The very identity of the child is wrapped up in an unspeakable violation, and the child is the living proof of that violent act.

It’s important to say that we weren’t ever really interested in backstories or trying to understand why Rose’s father, Peter, did what he did. Or why her mother, Ellen, didn’t report the crime when it happened. Or why Ellen didn’t abort the pregnancy. Instead, there is an odd inevitability to how the wheels and cogs of our story turn — and I see it more like a chemical reaction that, once it has started, there is no going back. The only outcome to the story is the outcome we arrive at.

They were the elements we were drawn to and that led to the development of our film. But of course, the story is only one part of the creative process of filmmaking. The other is the storytelling. That is also something we think about a lot and are very much drawn to. It’s why we love cinema — how it allows stories to be told. It’s what excites us most.

W&H: What do you want people to think about when they are leaving the theater?

CM: We have very much failed as a society with regard to rape. How it is understood. How it is dealt with by the powers that be. How it is reacted to and talked about. It was only last year that in a high-profile rape case in Cork, Ireland, a teenage girl’s underwear — “a thong with a lace front” — was used as evidence against her in a rape trial. We know we have a long way to go.

When people leave the theater after “Rose Plays Julie.” I’d like them to think about rape through a different lens. In our film the rape is a given. The facts of it aren’t under question. This man raped this woman and the rape resulted in a pregnancy. What we’ve tried to focus on is the devastating impact of the act, how it persists through the years, and how it impacts on the identities of everyone caught up in it.

I hope that is what comes across when people come to see the film.

W&H: What was the biggest challenge in making the film?

CM: As myself and Joe Lawlor, the co-director of “Rose Plays Julie,” also write, the biggest challenge is always going from the script development stage to actual production. It can take time. You are very much in the slow lane. Development is glacial. At least, in our experience it is! When we started the development back in 2013 our daughter was still in primary school. Now that we are about to premiere our film she has already started Sixth Form. That is a lot of life and a lot of living that has happened during the time it has taken to make our film — and that’s not to mention Brexit, or Trump, or #MeToo.

Holding on and not giving up despite setbacks and disappointments can be the biggest challenge, but if you manage to do that and the ducks eventually line up, it’s all worth it in the end.

W&H: How did you get your film funded? Share some insights into how you got the film made.

CM: “Rose Plays Julie” is a co-production between our UK company, Desperate Optimists Productions, and the Irish company Samson Films. It was developed with Screen Ireland and the BFI. The production was funded by Screen Ireland with support from the BFI, the Irish broadcaster RTE, and Section 481, and equity support from our post-production houses in London, Splice, and Fonic.

W&H: What inspired you to become a filmmaker?

CM: It was no particular thing that inspired me. I guess I’ve always loved film. I left Ireland in 1987 to move to the UK to study theater. Along with my husband and co-director, we spent most of the ’90s devising and touring theater shows. However, our passion was always film. At some stage we were going to move into filmmaking — it was always just a matter of time.

W&H: What’s the best advice you’ve received?

CM: Always sleep on a big decision. Particularly if it’s a difficult decision. And don’t burn bridges. Ever. It’s always good to have a way back.

W&H: What advice do you have for other female directors?

CM: Try to always make the film you want to make and the way you want to make it. Surround yourself with people who want to help you in that endeavor. There are enough challenges in making a film without having to go into battle with your own crew or cast.

I also believe that female directors can set a new tone. And I truly believe they will and that it will be for the better.

W&H: Name your favorite woman-directed film and why.

CM: Barbara Loden’s “Wanda,” anything by Claire Denis, and Kathryn Bigelow’s ‘The Loveless” are among them. But the film I’ll use this opportunity to plug is “My 20th Century” by Hungarian writer-director Ildikó Enyedi. I came across this film on MUBI. It was screened to coincide with the release of Enyedi’s stunning “On Body and Soul.” But even having seen “On Body and Soul,” nothing could have prepared me for the utter brilliance of “My 20th Century.”

The soaring ambition of the film is a thing to behold and admire but it is also so beautiful and unique, rich and layered. The fact that it has more or less been forgotten about says so much to me. I love film, and I’m friends with many film lovers and we talk a lot about film, but none of us knew this film even existed. I believe that if a man had made it, we’d know all about it.

W&H: What differences have you noticed in the industry since the #MeToo and #TimesUp movements launched?

CM: It’s impossible now to have a lineup of films at a festival where female directors are underrepresented without the festival being called to account. This year’s Official Competition lineup at the London Film Festival has 60 percent female directed or co-directed films, which is fantastic. We need to arrive at a place where that isn’t newsworthy. The Turner prize has long moved on. The Booker prize has long moved on. The film industry, still dragging its heels, has to step up too. That’s all there is to it.