Alex Thrawn: Did you get your start writing for the MacGyver TV series in the late 80s?
Rick Drew: The producer, Steve Downing, took it upon himself to look for a local writer to join the staff when they started shooting here. There are lots of US series shooting in Vancouver now, but none of them before or since have taken this initiative. Most series shooting here on location keep their writing staffs in LA. By the third season I was on the show, the staff was based here, and all but one were Canadian writers, in addition to other American freelancers.
Is that a proud experience because all most people recall about the show is those goofy contraptions he came up with?
We were all proud of the series, and remain so. The MacGyverisms were fun to come up with. The best of them came when we did not set up a situation to support a preconceived gimmick, but when we wrote ourselves into a corner and tried to think like MacGyver in order to get out of it. Many of the best ones came out of the location where we happened to be shooting, which is one of the last things to be settled on in pre-production of a given episode. The general rule was always "simple but memorable". Another rule was to avoid anything that could be copied at home. If anything was potentially dangerous, we would leave out an element so it would never work in real life. That being said, we had a science consultant who would always make sure our ideas were within the realm of possibility.
I like how Patty & Selma in The Simpsons are always like, "Don't bother me MacGyver's on." They are in love with him.
That's always fun. It surprises me how often it comes up as a pop culture reference.
You've written, produced, punched up scripts and were a PA. Which do you prefer?
I'm finally writing some movies (like Inhabited) and that's great. I like working on TV series as a writer/producer because I remain involved from idea to production and beyond, working with directors and the creative to put it all together. In movies, the writer is the first thing to be disposed of.
Are you able to make a living from writing? What advice would you give to someone trying to break in to the "writing game"?
I have been making a living as a writer since I was 23, which is (oh god...) 24 years now, primarily in series and syndicated television. As for specific advice, I would say you must "find your own voice". This sounds trite, but it's true. You must have samples of your work available to send to producers in the field you wish to explore. TV spec scripts, movies, etc. Even if you think you've written a movie that will never be made, it may show talent that encourages a producer to develop material with you. Have a range of things that show you can approach various genres and styles of writing. One writer I heard speak at a conference said that you should see yourself not as a writer but as a "chair maker". If you only make one kind of chair or only have one chair to sell, you won't be in the chair business for very long.
When you wrote Inhabited did you have Malcolm McDowell or any other specific actors in mind?
Malcolm was the producers' idea, though I certainly would have tailored the part for him if I dreamed he would ever do it. When you do a little movie like this, you can't count on any real name actors to be interested, so I was very pleased he did.
I looked up information on the Huldre and it seems like what Iver said corresponds to the original legend. Is that what interested you about them enough to use them in a film or was it a new angle on the "monster movie"?
I was approached by the producers to write the movie with the title and the general notion of a movie about "nasty little things invading a family home". I had written an episode of the PSI-Factor TV series called 'Little People'. When researching that, I found the info about the Huldre. Given I had already explored them, I thought it would be fun to revisit the legend. I wish I could agree that mine is a new approach on a monster movie, but it's been done before, and will probably be done many more times.
Were you upset Inhabited went straight to video or was that always to be the case?
I would love to have seen it on the big screen, but it was always intended for a video release. When a movie is made, even a low budget one, you have to spend as much or sometimes a great deal more than the production budget to promote and distribute the film. The company that made Inhabited specializes on movies like this made for the cable, international, and direct to video market.
Were you able to hang out on the set and did you have to do any rewrites?
I stayed involved through the last stages of pre-production. Because the script was so location driven, it was useful for me to revise the script to the specific house that was chosen. I visited the set at the beginning of the 18 day shoot, but did not hang around. David Mamet once said, "A screenwriter on a set is like a plumber on a honeymoon. If you need him, it's great he's there. If you don't..." Even when I produce my own stuff for TV, the only reason to be on set is to solve a problem. The last thing they needed was to have me around to trip over. I do have a cameo of sorts. As Malcolm first arrives at the hospital ward near the beginning of the movie, I'm one of the two orderlies walking out as he enters. After we did the scene, he said: "You missed your moment. I looked right at you so I could ad-lib a greeting." I told him I was just trying to stay out of his way so he could make his entrance! I cannot say I had much interaction with him, but he was certainly charming and very professional.
Do you have any other Malcolm stories from the set?
Not really, no. I only was there briefly, and he was only on the shoot for three days.
I liked Malcolm as the doctor. He makes you feel like he would've been a
great doctor in real life!
He was very convincing. He had a lot of dialogue and technical stuff to spew out
during his long days on set. I was very impressed with his dedication.
Any scenes that you really liked that were cut out?
No, the movie is pretty much as written. On such a low budget, short scheduled production no one has the luxury to shoot anything extra.
I thought it was interesting that Meg wasn't some waify hot babe. Is that they way you saw her?
It was a coincidence that the actress (Megan Gallagher) and the character had the same name. She has done movies for Porchlight before. I thought she was great. It's nice to see a real woman who looks great doing such good work, rather than the latest 20 year old bimbo of the month.
Was Kelley's painting a tribute to Malcolm's wife? It is rare to see that spelling which matches hers.
I would be surprised if that was the case. When you clear names for legal reasons (which you always have to do for any sign or name that appears on screen) you generally have a short list to chose from. I suspect it had to do with the director's first name Kelly.
That's what I mean - it was spelled differently than the director's name.
I still doubt it had anything to do with Malcolm.
Was the "Free Andy" sign on the wall in Tyler's room an inside joke?
I have no idea. I suspect it was some kind of inside joke on set. I'll ask the director.
Tyler had a nice cut on his head after the penny jar broke on him, but it seemed to have disappeared for the rest of the film.
The script indicated that he was cut above the hairline, and the blood was to be a trickle down to his forehead. I suggested this for two reasons: One, the family(ish) nature of the film precludes anything too bloody, and two, so it would not be a continuity issue later in the movie. I guess it didn't work out that way...
Was it your idea to put the Lucky Charms cereal in the kitchen as a joke?
Glad you caught that. It was not written in, but we talked about having fun like that wherever possible. For example, there's a sign in the laundry room about "Fairy Soap". I wrote that in because we happened to have the same decoration in our laundry room at home.
Was there a real book that "The Inner Fantasy: Myth and Fairy tales in Early Childhood Development" based on?
The book is totally made up, but there is a famous book, "The Uses of Enchantment: The Meaning and Importance of Fairy Tales" by Bruno Bettleheim which was the inspiration for it. This book was also instrumental in the basis for a strange horror film called The Company of Wolves (1985), by Neil Jordan.
Did you get to keep the prop book of Dr. Werner's? I wondered what the page was that showed an obvious computer screen.
Didn't ever see the book. Not sure if it was a computer screen. It may have been what we call a "burn in", which means it was added in post production rather than having the prop ready on the shooting day. This is sometimes the case if a photo is needed and the actor has not been available for the photo shoot.
Where was Ivar during the fire that killed his parents? They said he had an ironclad alibi, but I wondered what it was.
Never gave it much thought, but he must have been out of town, I guess....
Was having Patricia McCormack as the "bad child" who killed her parents a nod to her role in "The Bad Seed"?
Only by happy coincidence. I thought her performance was very good as well.
It didn't make sense that they were supposed to hurry up and pack and Tyler is wasting time pulling a poster off the wall which gets him captured. I would've preferred him to have been sitting on the bed packing or something.
Good point, but I had to get him up on the bed somehow so the Huldre could do their thing, otherwise you might wonder why he didn't see them coming.
I think it would've been more interesting if they held back on showing the
fairies to make us wonder if Gina was just bad and doing these things on her own
and blaming the fairies to get out of it. Had you tried it that way?
I agree, and I wrote it that way to begin with. The director and the producer
felt we needed to see the creatures sooner for their perceived audience. I never
did think it was a good idea. You're right about why I would have held it back.
On the other hand, it IS a horror movie, and you KNOW there are going to be
monsters. It's a tricky bargain you make with the audience, promising something,
but deciding the best moment to deliver. Always a subjective and delicate
balance. The best rule is usually, "Less is more".
Why wasn't Brad given much if anything to do? It almost seemed like he
wasn't needed at all - could've made it more tense.
The focus of the story was Meg and her daughter. The father's role was more of
an observer; a subjective member of the audience who could follow the events
from the outside. But he did seem superfluous at times.
Were you happy with the effects? They looked very good on a low budget - they
didn't look fake. Especially the shots of the Huldre in the tunnels.
I was very impressed with the effects, especially given the limited time and budget.
Why did it read rather largely "Thanks to SAG" at the end of the credit? I've never seen anything like that before.
No idea. SAG is The Screen Actor's Guild. They may have bent some rules or supplied permits to non-members to be supportive of the low budget, but I have no info about that. Just guessing. More of a producer question.
Do you feel the finished product came very close to your original vision?
Overall, given all the restrictions and limitations of making a movie with so little time and money, I was very pleased with how it came together. In a strange way, low budget films are much harder to make than movies with big budgets. Everyone works longer hours for less money. Everyone involved worked extremely hard to make it all work.
Just so you don't think I'm trashing the film. I'm giving it an 8/10 rating.
Look forward to seeing it - you rate it higher than I would!
Is there anything you want to promote?
Kelly and I are doing another movie. It is a little disaster story called "Combustion", about spontaneous fires impacting on a small California City. Direct to video next year some time.
This entire page © 2003-08 Alex D. Thrawn for www.MalcolmMcDowell.net