Giving Birth To a Butterfly follows a woman who after having her identity stolen, connects with her son’s pregnant girlfriend as they bond together on a surreal journey and attempt to track down the perpetrators. In the conversation with co-writer Patrick Lawler, he speaks to the ‘alchemy’ of the creative dynamic between him and director Ted Schaefer. The pair co-wrote the film together after a long collaborative relationship resulting in their first feature film which is produced by Dweck Productions. Lawler and Schaefer both speak to the magical realism embedded in the film operating between its meditative ambiguity and real-life crisis of identity theft.

There’s always an element of poetry in our work. There’s always an element of magic realism, etc. I think we both really admire David Lynch, which a number of reviewers have talked about, so we have a kind of tone. But I think, for me, at least, almost all of our work has this kind of poetic element and has all those elements of poetry, but, primarily, it’s something alchemical about it. It’s transformative. One of the reasons I think we selected this film as our first real major film to be produced was because it directly deals with that as a subject, that transformative metamorphosis of the major character.

Read my full interview with Patrick Lawler below.

Listen to the interview here.

Danny Jarabek: Hi, this is Danny Jarabek, here with The Rolling Tape podcast, and I am very excited to have on today, Patrick Lawler. He is the co-writer for Giving Birth to a Butterfly. Patrick, thank you so much for joining me today, and I’m very excited to be talking about this film.

Patrick Lawler: Wow, thank you so much! I’m excited to be talking about the film.

DJ: First of all, congratulations on it. I was a bit fan. It’s right up my alley in terms of the tone and everything you’re doing here with this very surreal story. So, I’d love to give you a chance to just hear from you a little bit about what is the story behind how this came to be. What was your process in writing it? And how did it come to life?

PL: Okay, well, I was thinking about this before because somebody else had asked me this and I thought I gave a really lame answer. So, I wanted to think through this really carefully. This begins about nine years ago. Ted [Schaefer] called me. I was in Boston visiting my daughter and her husband, etc. They hadn’t had any grandkids at that time, or I hadn’t. And Ted calls me out of the blue, Ted Schaefer, the director/co-writer of this, and says, “I want to do a film of a book that you’ve written.” It was called Underground. And I said, “Thanks a lot, Ted, but, you know, that’s poetry.” And he goes, “Yes! Of course!” And then he tells me all these shots that he would use, and I thought, my god, he totally understands the book. And from that point on, we began our collaboration. So, there’s always an element of poetry in our work. There’s always an element of magic realism, etc. I think we both really admire David Lynch, which a number of reviewers have talked about, so we have a kind of tone. But I think, for me, at least, almost all of our work has this kind of poetic element and has all those elements of poetry, but, primarily, it’s something alchemical about it. It’s transformative. One of the reasons I think we selected this film as our first real major film to be produced was because it directly deals with that as a subject, that transformative metamorphosis of the major character.

DJ: I love that description.

PL: So, that’s a long answer—

DJ: No, I love that description.

PL: …to a real simple question. Because it didn’t begin with, “Oh, let’s write a film about this.” It began with a long history. And Ted had experienced something with identity theft in his life, and I, at the same time, had done a conference where I did a presentation on Mina Loy. That’s where the title of the movie comes from, Giving Birth to a Butterfly. So, those kinds of elements came together, but we have a lot of synchronicity in our lives and in our work. It’s a great experience. I love working with Ted. He brings out the best and worst in me.

[laughs]

PL: The best as a writer, the worst because I can imagine characters I would not have ever imagined without Ted being there. Daryl, for one.

DJ: Yeah, I love the way you describe that collaboration because it really comes through in the movie, that alchemy, that synchronicity you speak to in your work together. I know you’ve worked together on a variety of other things, too. You did mention, of course, why you chose this as the first major project you wanted to be produced, but how did it come to life? What was that process like of deciding, like, “Hey, we’ve made a few things, let’s do a feature.” How did you do that? How did you go about that process?

PL: Well, the great thing about my life is I’m primarily a poet and a fiction writer dabbling in a few other literary genres, but I don’t have to think about money. I don’t have to think about investment. I don’t have to think about locations, etc. And Ted has all of this stuff in his mind, all kind of woven together, and he said, “This is the film.” So, he’s looking at how much it would cost, etc. He wanted, I believe, a progression, so we start with this. The next film that I know we both want to do is Dancer in a Box, which is a film noir. Kind of a reverse film noir that takes some of the typical gender roles and reverses those, but it is really exciting. Talk about magic realism and all of the things we do in this film, multiply that by 10. Maybe 100. With great characters and great dialogue. I don’t know where the dialogue comes from.

DJ: I certainly can’t wait.

PL: The great thing is I have these voices in my head.

[laughs]

PL: Ted and I … this is another little story. Ted and I met through our therapist. Okay? Our therapist said, “Ted, I think you might want to get in touch with this guy.” And our therapist said to me, “Here’s somebody you might want to talk to. He’s got some really good ideas.” And we have a big difference in age, and there’s all kinds of differences that we have, but I’ll tell you, our creative process, we are so on target. It’s like fusion. You know? Yeah.

DJ: That’s really cool to hear.

PL: It’s exciting. And I’m a professor, so I work with people much younger than Ted all the time. There isn’t a disconnect there, I know that.

DJ: Yeah. So, talking a little bit about Giving Birth to a Butterfly specifically, what I love about the movie is it sort of operates in this dreamlike world, but it’s also grounded in these very real-life crises that you can feel. It starts in a very grounded sense, too. The economic struggle which turns into identity theft which turns into online scamming. These are situations that you could theoretically find yourself in.

PL: Yeah.

DJ: But it’s also operating and using that through the lens and through the platform of that magical realism that you speak to. So, how did you blend that in the writing?

PL: I think we emphasized even more of those cultural economic issues in the initial script. We pared it down a little bit because we knew the two characters that we needed to really focus on. But Daryl, of course, is a very damaged individual and a damaging individual. Daryl and his son. They have real issues. In some ways, I think, all of the characters are drowning in some way – in their dreams, in their delusions, etc. I think all of our scripts, in some ways, have a very grounded, almost grittiness about them, too, but always emerging in something more compelling spiritually, exploring things in a spiritual sort of way but also in a magic realism sort of way.

DJ: Yeah. And another thing that I think really shines through in the writing is how every character, you can very much feel an identity with them. And identity is a big component of what is being explored, not just as a plot point, of course, with the identity theft, but just in this more compelling, ethereal sense of identity and ego. And all of these characters seem to be exploring that and living in their own perception of what that identity is for themselves. Even feeling, at times, like they’re bleeding together. However you managed to write that is certainly compelling, but can you speak to that idea a little bit?

PL: In some ways, the characters themselves, even though they have strong individual identities, and they all are pursuing, in many ways, their own dreams, and sometimes very much against other characters, we think of them as emerging as almost a single character. A group of butterflies is called a “kaleidoscope,” right? And I think, in some ways, all of the characters emerge as part of each other so that you can’t imagine Diana and then not imagine a Daryl. And you can’t imagine a Daryl without their two children. And then the pregnant girlfriend. All of that emerges as kind of a kaleidoscope. I know one thing, that we really thought about the Diana character. That was very crucial to what we wanted, but the others kind of emerged. Drew, for example. He’s imagined wanting to be the father of a child that is not yours because you’ve never had a good example of a father. I mean, it’s sad. There’s a lot of heartbreak in a lot of their choices. And though Daryl can be really a negative character, you can understand the damage that he’s gone through. Right? I mean, that’s what we wanted. We wanted real characters. We wanted characters that had lived lives and that had exposed their flaws and their weaknesses. It’s an exciting process. It’s great working with Ted, and then you see those characters emerge through the acting, and we had, I think, some phenomenal acting.

DJ: 100%

PL: I was there for some of it, and I had the major scene as the grapefruit, orange guy. It was one of my most amazing scenes. I should’ve won an award for it, but they just ignored it.

[laughs]

DJ: They didn’t get it.

PL: They just didn’t get it. They just didn’t get it. But Ted, it was a brilliant move to have the camera move around that car while this serious discussion is going on and pick up me as the fruit was flying all over the place. And they kept saying, “Cut. Do it again.” Do you know how old I am?

[laughs]

DJ: Well, one final question for you before we wrap up.

PL: Yeah.

DJ: One thing I sort of picked up on, and I’m curious what the intentionality with this was, is there seems to be an ongoing motif of animals throughout the film.

PL: Yes.

DJ: Of course, related to the title most obviously, but then the figurine of the three-legged horse. Is it? Is it a three-legged horse?

PL: Three-legged deer.

DJ: Deer. Right, right.

PL: That’s a very significant animal, too.

DJ: Yeah. So, I’m curious to hear from you, what was the inspiration? What was the meaning behind that idea?

PL: There are, I think, a number of artsy references from poetry to the Ibsen play to the painting of Freida, etc., that represents culture, etc. But on the other hand, it’s nature, the more natural way. And that’s what I think Diana needs to embrace, is her more natural inclusion of her opposite and herself, to incorporate that together. So, I think it’s a contrast, and in some ways, nature is kind of damaged in the film. The deer has three legs as opposed to four. The animals at the pet shop are in cages, and the butterfly sanctuary is closed, so they have to find the more natural way of dealing with their own disconnect.

DJ: Yeah, absolutely. And thank you so much for chatting with me today. I really appreciated getting to hear a little bit more about this movie, which I was a big fan of—

PL: Thank you.

DJ: …and I definitely want to revisit and see again after talking to you. Revisit sme of these ideas and themes that we discussed. So, I really appreciate the insight and thank you so much for your time.

PL: Thank you! Thank you so much. And now I say goodbye.

DJ: All right. Bye!

PL: Bye! Thank you again.

This interview has been edited for clarity and brevity.

Transcription by Tova Benson-Tilsen, Transcriber/Proofreader (tictactova@gmail.com)