Josie Rourke might just be directing her first movie, but “Mary Queen of Scots” is the first of what will be many. It’s a little crazy to say that Mary is the perfect role for Saoirse Ronan because I am certain that — in what is sure to be an extensive career — she will find many characters that seem perfect for her. That’s just how good she is. She’s glorious, she’s regal, she’s vengeful, and so much more in theater director Rourke’s first foray into film.

“Mary Queen of Scots” feels very theatrical, a testament to Rourke, with Mary arriving back in Scotland from France as a young widow with a country to rule. But Mary’s ambition is not just to rule Scotland: she believes she is the rightful heir to England’s throne as well, and constantly challenges her cousin, Queen Elizabeth I (Margot Robbie).

It’s divine to watch two women rule with the men around trying to give them advice and keep up. Inevitably, Mary and Elizabeth are both betrayed, and one of the harshest points of the film is a reminder of how difficult leadership is and how trust at times is transactional — especially for isolated female leaders.

“Mary Queen of Scots” is in theaters now.

This interview has been edited. It was transcribed by Keno Katsuda.

W&H: Congratulations on the success of the film. Why was this story the one you wanted to make your first foray into film?

JR: A couple of reasons, really. Saorise Ronan was attached to it and it was brought to me by Working Title. She was an actor that I was desperate to work with and Working Title is a company I really admire.

I think the other thing was that I’ve told a lot of modern stories as a theater director and directed a lot of classic plays. I’ve been thinking a lot–as I think others have–about women in leadership. I had an intuition about Mary that she’d been done a disservice and that there was a campaign to make sure we didn’t take her seriously as a politician, because we dismissed her as someone who was too emotional or sexual to make sound decisions.

I have a deep belief that in order to live better in the present, we need to tell more truthful stories about our past, and this film was an opportunity to do this with one of the greatest actors of our generation.

W&H: When I was watching the film, it felt very theatrical to me. Was that intentional or more just how you are as a director coming from a theater background?

JR: I think that this film takes place in a theatrical period for a couple of reasons. Shakespeare was writing his plays during the time that these women were reigning, so it’s a key period for theater that I know very well. It’s also a time in history that recognized the significance of the image and presentation.

One of the things that I wanted to show in the movie was what the cost of power was to these figures who continuously had to put themselves on display in order to offer different visions of leadership. I found the familiar metaphor of the public and the private represented as onstage and offstage to be very helpful.

W&H: This film feels simultaneously contemporary and historical. The film is about female strength, but also about the sacrifices these two women have to make in order to become queen.

JR: I think one of those sacrifices is identity.

I was thinking during the American presidential election and I was looking at how people around Hillary Clinton were struggling to figure out how to pitch her. Are we trying to show her as empathetic, someone who is fearless in her militarism, someone who can make choices, or someone who will scold us into being a better country? They simply couldn’t work it out. I don’t know if that was because they were doing their jobs poorly–I think there just aren’t solid paradigms in which women can lead without having to sacrifice some part of their essential and complete identity.

When I talk about patriarchy, I don’t mean just men–I mean a whole system of power.

W&H: What you film actually reveals what we feel on a daily basis. Can we create a world in which women’s leadership is not so reviled and is embraced, particularly because it’s different from male leadership?

JR: I think when we speak about rivalries, it’s often about men, which is a completely different story. It leads into discussions about obsession, brotherhood, challenge, and achievement. When we talk about rivalries with women, it’s all too sadly the end of that story. We don’t delve deeper.

W&H: How were you communicating with Saorise and Margot about what you wanted out of their performances?

JR: I think I work with all actors slightly differently and intuitively. The challenge is considering how I can best work with them to understand their nuances.

W&H: You were really vehement about trying not to create a tableau of all-whiteness in this film. Did you get a lot of pushback?

JR: No, the producers were incredibly supportive. I wanted to do what I do in the theater to be inclusive and cast these roles in imaginings of the past. I think we’re close to a tipping point in representation where that will always be the case.

W&H: I’ve seen some really ridiculous headlines about how this movie is of the #MeToo era. It makes me angry that all movies about women, particularly women in power, seem to have been painted that way. Is that frustrating for you? This doesn’t feel like a #MeToo movie to me.

JR: I’ve noticed this. The thing about #MeToo is that this not a sudden outbreak of sexual misconduct, but something that has been occurring in our workplaces for a long time but has been ignored.

I think what is ironic when people say that this is a #MeToo movie is that they’re experiencing a woman filmmaker helming a period film about women most likely for the first time. If it feels like it’s telling the audience about the experience of being a woman in leadership and in relationships it’s simply because I am a woman. It’s just about shifting the gaze, which I hope is happening more broadly in our cultural space.

W&H: You were the first female artistic director of a major London theater, and now you’re moving on from your position at the Donmar Warehouse. Can you tell us why you felt that it was a good time for you to move on and what your next steps are?

JR: Since I started running the Donmar nearly eight years ago, five directors I’ve worked with have gone to become artistic directors at major institutions, which represented a change in the landscape of British theater. So, in a way I felt that I had completed a key part of my job.

Hopefully I’ll work on films more. I love the medium and I’m incredibly happy to have had the opportunity to begin in it. We’ve seen a massive change in numbers in terms of representation in the theater industry in eight years. It’s highly doable, highly possible. It all comes down to hiring people.