Sophia Fuller: Tell us a little bit about yourself; how did you get started in filmmaking?
Ryan Cudahy: This is actually a story I have told quite a bit. I have been passionate about film my entire life. It really started when I was four years old and my dad got a camcorder. I was already really into movies at the time. I had also gotten a reptar wagon toy from Rugrats for Christmas, and I was convinced that if I held the camera in the right way and made the angles just right, it would look exactly like the cartoon. Obviously, it didn’t work but it was a good start. It was around middle school where I realized I really wanted to be a director. I enrolled in a filmmaking course my freshman year of high school and it was really exciting. I decided to make a short film about cows taking their revenge on humans for eating them. It was just a comedy short film but it was significantly worse than other people’s films in the class. I realized if I actually want to do this, I really need to step it up. Instead of just making a bunch of other stuff, I took a break and watched about three hundred movies. I made a list of the movies I had heard of that were the best of all time and then when I was ready to start making short films again, I was able to make some stuff that I was moderately proud of. Then I went on to study at James Madison University for video production for media arts and design. I was struggling with my mental health, which truly plays into what this movie is about, and I decided to take a leave of absence. I always wanted to stick with film and I ended up in a career working as a producer for a very long time with a production company. During COVID, I worked on the TV series called Swagger. Once we came out of quarantine, I worked on the locations team for that. I always wanted to make this film that we just made. It was a very personal project to me and I am really glad we were able to make it and with how it turned out The film is mainly shot in Fredericksburg, Virginia, where I recently just founded the Fredericksburg Film Festival. We just had the first year of that, which was fantastic. That’s kind of my way of sticking with everything.
SF: Watching films is definitely very helpful in finding those inspirations from different places to guide your craft. What inspired you to make Written by Mike?
RC: It’s actually really interesting. I had one very specific reason to write this movie; my therapist told me to. In 2019, I was dealing with a lot in my life and I really didn’t know how to cope with it and get past it. The stuff I was trying wasn’t working and I mentioned that to my therapist. He said, “Well, you’re a screenwriter, write a script about it.” So I did. That’s what Written by Mike became. I wrote it in about two days and revised it for four years. Originally, it was just about one couple, but as I began writing it and planning it, it turned into a lot about my life and my relationships; my mental health and my family, and trials I have seen the people in my lives deal with. That was really important for me to convey that. Frankly, my therapist was a genius because it was super cathartic for me. This last year was especially helpful.
SF: It’s always really cool when directors start bringing in their own personal experiences. Would you say these characters are based on more real-life people or were they more made up?
RC: A lot of people have asked me that. I’d like to say everything is autobiographical to an extent. If you’re writing a script, probably a lot of it is autobiographical, just because you draw off of what you know. There are certain aspects of me in these characters and certain aspects of other people in my life in these characters. I do think it is important to not limit yourself just to normal people because real life is not a film or a novel. Real life is not as interesting. I like to say that this is a therapeutic exercise because this film itself is therapeutic. Seeing this through the lens of not only people in my life but circumstances was really important for me. Being able to combine those two things and make it into a film was very therapeutic.
SF: It seems that every character in the movie deals with their own mental health struggles in each relationship; walk us through the process of developing these characters.
RC: When I originally wrote this it was just to outline the struggles I personally dealt with. A lot of that went into the character of Keller. I really wanted to convey exactly how mental health affects not just Keller, but the other characters as well. It’s a film about two couples and how they deal with family, traumas, and illness at the spark of their relationships. I would argue that while Mike and Lynn’s issues are less focused on mental health and more on physical health and external factors, Keller and Em really do struggle with their mental health. I wanted to examine how people can utilize what they struggled with and empathize with their partner. That was very important to me when developing these characters. I really wanted to examine what works and what does not work in relationships. Based on things I had seen, things I wished had happened, or things I really don’t want to happen, that’s where these characters came from.
SF: Your problems can come from external or internal factors, which you portrayed very well through each of the characters.
RC: You’re right. Honestly, I’m not going to say which couple is which to avoid spoiling, but one couple started out with quite a bit of chaos and toxicity. Even though they clearly loved each other, their relationship was a lot more difficult. Whether it be through any faults of their own, it doesn’t really matter because that’s just how the circumstances began. The other couple arguably deals with harder stuff throughout the film, but they had built such a strong foundation from the start of their relationship. That’s one thing I really hope people take away from this; what does it take to build a successful relationship? I really want these characters to feel lived. I want them to be believable, and I think that they are. A big part of it is that these relationships show what works and doesn’t work in my experience and what I witnessed, and I think it was very important to demonstrate that.
SF: What do you think sets Written by Mike apart from other films?
RC: I’m glad you asked that because we did a Virginia tour with the movie and had test audiences with people who hadn’t read the script to get fresh eyes on it. Their reactions were very positive, and I am very thankful for that. One thing that was very interesting was that I cared less about gorgeous cinematography and more about intimate shots that show these characters getting along. What I think sets it apart is I wanted that believability and humanism. I am very proud of that in the movie. When the test audiences watched the movie, they were wondering where it was going, in a good way. They weren’t saying I have no idea what’s going on here, they were saying I know these stories connect but I can’t put my finger on how. We had a Q&A at one of our screenings and Matthew Malito, who played Mike, asked the audience, “By show of hands, how many of you got the twist before it happened?” I thought everyone was going to raise their hands, but only one person did. That was pretty consistent with how the screenings went. I’m not going to pretend it’s impossible, but I do feel with romantic dramedy films, you don’t really see those questions and that type of plot point raised a lot. I am proud of the fact that when people watch this movie they think, “Where is this going? I want to keep watching this to understand where this story completes.” If that’s the reaction throughout the movie, then I am very happy with where it ends up.
SF: How would you describe the visual style of Written by Mike?
RC: Very influenced by Richard Linklater. What I love about his movies is he has gorgeous cinematography and camera moves but he never calls attention to it. If you watch a film like Birdman, that filmmaker, I find some of his work to be a little pretentious because it is very clear in Birdman that there are scenes of Michael Keaton like, sixty seconds, walking from one place to the next and the only reason they have that in there is to be, like, look at how cool we are we did this in one shot. That’s the only reason you would have that as part of the movie and I don’t like that. I don’t like when it’s gorgeously visual just for the sake of it. It needs to hit the story right and serve the characters. People always told me the most important aspect of the film is the story; but the most important aspect of the story is the characters. You can forgive a bland plot, but you can’t forgive non-believable characters. I do think that’s why Linklater’s style never calls attention to itself, even though the camera work and movements are beautiful. You are so fully invested in the people that you don’t have time to recognize those things because you just want to keep watching the movie. Other than that, I would say films like Roma by Alfonso Cuarón. I’d say that movie is why cinema should be made. It’s very ambitious to say that is my visual influence, but it really is a very important thing to me. The way he frames and blocks the characters in the shot, whether it be really close up or far away, he knows what he is doing. That was a very important film for me to watch from a visual standpoint.
SF: Mental health is such an important topic touched on in the film; what message do you hope the audience walks away with?
RC: There’s a really good moment in the movie Joker where Arthur writes ‘the worst thing about having a mental illness is that people expect you to behave as if you don’t.” That sums up mental health issues better than anything. The socially correct thing to say about mental health is you support people who have these illnesses, and you do whatever you can to be there for them. That’s what almost everyone says. But until someone with mental health issues makes a mistake or doesn’t act the way that you expect them to, suddenly that is when you learn who the people in your life really are. There are certain characters in this movie that you’ll watch and think they’re horrible or wonder why you would deal with someone like that or not call this out, and the answer is because this is mental illness. It’s not pretty, it’s not always just “I’m sad so please give me a shoulder to cry on.” It is a disease and it’s important that we recognize that before we start judging. It’s important for me to emphasize that in the movie, one of the characters hints at getting treatment or goes to therapy. I have a lot of people who wanted to be there for those struggles and that’s great, but there is a reason the profession of psychiatry exists and it’s important people realize that. You can only be a therapist to a friend to a certain extent and, without a degree, there’s only so much you can do. I really want people to realize that professional help does matter. It is very important that people do what they can and find avenues to get help. Utilize resources in your community. There’s a wonderful mental health wellness center in Virginia called Region 10s. It’s a rehabilitation facility for people with mental health issues and it is a phenomenal service. They are a good example of a resource people should take advantage of if they are struggling. It almost sounds cliché, but it really is important that rather than judging people with these issues, we understand why they are making the decisions that they make. I always say mental illness is a 24/7-mistake-making disease. I have bipolar disorder and sometimes I feel like I’m not a person. That was a line in Written by Mike, where one of the characters said I don’t know how to be a person. It didn’t make sense in the context to some people, but it would make sense to people with mental health issues. These are not things that will just go away if you stop thinking about it; it’s something you actually have to take care of.
SF: It’s really nice that your film reaches so many different audiences, people with mental health issues can resonate with it on a different level, which can be very inspiring. Were there any challenges you faced during production?
RC: I pitched the script around Hollywood a lot and people really liked it, but it came down to me not having big-name actors or a certain amount of money. After a while, I was fortunate enough to find an old boss of mine who owns a restaurant in Culpeper, James Lawhorn. He is our executive producer. He read the script, loved it, and funded most of it. For us, it was a huge budget. We only had so many resources because of that. Fortunately, because we shot mostly in Fredericksburg, Virginia, where I worked for the city at the time, I met a lot of local business owners and people who were willing to help us out. We utilized that network and had a lot of people donating their houses, locations, or money to advertise their businesses in the film. Navigating all of that is difficult, but they made it a lot easier. We only had so much time to shoot the film. We had twelve days overall. That makes it difficult when you’re trying to shoot a feature film. The most difficult thing that happened was when we were on a roll during the last weekend with all of the college scenes in one of the houses. The second-to-last scene—where Mike first meets Lynn—we are doing great and lighting it. Then we realized we completely messed up the angling for the entire scene. Our brains were fried at that point and it took us two and a half hours to figure out how to shoot it. I’ll never forget how understanding the three actors were. They were great to work with, in general. We cranked it out and got the last scene done and then went back to the Airbnb to party. That’s one of my favorite parts of the production process. The challenges are one thing, but when you bring in a group of people like that who just become a family.
SF: That definitely helps a lot with the process, if everyone gets along and works together very well. What advice would you give to young filmmakers and scholars who are looking to pursue similar careers?
RC: That’s a really good question. I have two things to say about that. One of them is: be ambitious, but know your limits. By that I mean, take risks but also recognize what you are capable of. I know a lot of aspiring filmmakers who definitely bite off more than they can chew. The first one being me. A lot of people say this is my first feature film, and I don’t correct them, but I should. I made my first feature film when I was twenty years old in college. It was a very personal story to me and I shot it for $1000. Do not look it up, it is garbage. It was important for me at the time to make it, but it’s a good example of how I was in no way ready for it. It did make me better on one hand and made me more equipped for other films I did, but at the same time, if you’re not ready for it, you’re not delivering as much as people want. I really encourage people in college to make films and create stuff, but if you are going to school for film production, listen to your professors. The other one I like to say is it’s not the camera, it’s the eye. I mean that in two ways. I learned after I left school, you can get the best camera in the world, but if you don’t have the right lenses for it, it doesn’t matter. I say a lens is more important than the body of the camera itself. Some of the best short films were shot on iPhones or camcorders and some of the worst I’ve seen were shot with the nicest cameras out there. When I say it’s not the camera, it’s the eye, I also mean you have to have good craftsmanship and a good eye. I’m not trying to put anybody down, but it is important to recognize you need to learn that eye. The best thing you can do for both is do what you need to do well, especially in school. You’ll have time down the line to make many movies and hone your craft; but the best way for you to do that is by doing what people who have more experience tell you to do. Do the work. Don’t just try to impress or get ahead. Just do your job as best as you can and you’ll be known as the person who is reliable, rather than the person who is trying to be the director at age twenty-six. It’s really important to build connections and a portfolio by doing the work you were asked to do. Then you will succeed.
SF: What’s next for you?
RC: I’m figuring that out. I’ve sworn off film for a while. I don’t have any projects coming up, but like I said, I started the Fredericksburg Film Festival and you can bet we are doing that again. It was so much fun and it went great. There is so much potential there. I really felt in my stride. I highly recommend any filmmakers reading this, our submissions go live soon, so definitely submit. Other than that, I’ve got some ideas rolling around in my head, so we’ll see. For right now, I’m just excited to get this thing out there. We will be screening at the Richmond film festival on Sunday, September 29, at 4:15pm. We’re still figuring out dates, but we’ll probably be distributing on streaming services and the YouTube channel for Green Apple Entertainment in mid to late October. So keep an eye out for that. I highly recommend people to follow us on social media @writtenbymike. You’ll learn everything you need to know.
This interview was edited for length and clarity.
Visit Written by Mike on Facebook and Instagram.
Author Biography
Sophia Fuller is a University of North Carolina Charlotte student majoring in both communications and film production with a minor in film studies. She has a passion for all things film-related and is currently interning with Film Matters.
