Interview by Best Actor & Director Awards – New York
VIP Interview with William R.A. Rush writer and director of the feature film ‘Group’
Today, we introduce William R. A. Rush, writer and director of the feature film Group. In this interview, we focus on William’s unique approach when it comes to working with actors, his personal background and the importance of a “safe spaces” on set. Enjoy!
It was something I was always very passionate about. I pursued a career in law, so filmmaking seemed like something I would never be able to pursue beyond possessing a vast appreciation for the medium. When COVID created the lockdown, time for reflection became a practical necessity. If I was ever going to do something about my passions and make any attempt to pursue them, this was the time.
With a background in law, psychology and art history, how do you think your previous studies have shaped and influenced your approach to the film industry?
All of life is experience, and the more exposure you have to other people, disciplines, subjects, literature and text, the more access you have to the experiences of others. Psychology gave me a great understanding of the mind, the thought processes, people. In my legal career, I have been exposed, in depth, to the criminal justice system (including drug-related crimes), the medical profession and countless others. At times I have had to become fluent in architecture, auto-manufacturing, and so forth. I have also represented families going through divorce, adoptions, deaths in the family, and so forth.
Art was always the passion that allowed me to work in the other fields. The respite for me. How these experiences have influenced my approach is to write with knowledge, a factual basis, research everything, create characters that are real people as opposed to plot devices, avoid tropes or easy writing. I try very hard to write characters and situations that talented actors can truly dive into.
When it comes to directing, I do my best to make sure the visual form matches the realism and honesty of the story, and that the performances of the actors are fostered as deeply as possible.
The director William R. A. Rush with the official poster of ‘Group’ – ogcinpro.com
You are the writer and director of the film Group: when did you first come up with the idea behind the script?
The idea first popped into my head after an interraction with a colleague. This person was in an open state of discontent, hardship, frustration, crisis. Later that evening, I saw a Facebook post from this person and the life presented in that post was not the life of this person. Why did they need to hide their feelings and stresses from their “friends”? What if they were in therapy. would they still hide their true self…the self that needed help…from the therapist trying to treat them?
From there, it grew into the idea of a group therapy session where almost no one is revealing the whole truth, despite an ostensible desire to get better. The idea sort of flowed from there. I consulted with a group therapy leader for weeks, did meticulous research, and finished the script and decided the story was worth shooting.
The chapters and music choices in the film reminded us of Tarantino’s Kill Bill. Who are the directors that inspire you the most?
I could see that! Tarantino is certainy a massive inspiration to me. He writes incredible stories and directs with such signature visual style. Along those writing and visual styles, I love David Lynch and Werner Herzog. But these are singular talents and so unique. Others that inspire me, and more match my visul style are Michael Haneke, Gaspar Noe, the Coen Brothers, Luis Bunuel’s later work, Agnes Varda certainly. I love John Carpenter’s stripped down aesthetic, Godard’s realism, Cronenberg’s visceral and unflinching forcefulness. There are just so many. Bergman and Tarkovsky are the two I look to the most when I simply want to see beauty that, given ten lifetimes I couldn’t match once.
Can you share insights about the balance between improvisation and scripted elements during filming? As a writer/director, do you prefer allowing actors space for improvisation on set, or do you align more with Kubrick’s approach, emphasizing heavy rehearsal before shooting each scene?
I am not a fan of rehearsal. I believe a diligent casting process is the first step of directing an actor. If done properly, then you have a bunch of people almost entirely off-book when they arrive to set. I also believe in calmness, collaboration and openness as opposed to a cold distance. The story is the story, and once finalized I certainly don’t want an actor to deviate from the written character in any way that might betray or alter the story or its meaning. However, the very moment I cast an actor I tell every actor the same thing: “I have cast you for this role. Now the character belongs to you.” I trust them.
The improvisation is rarely, if ever, in the dialogue. Dialogue is just words. Not only does an actor bring those words life, but they bring life and essence to the person who speaks them. Each of these actors did that. The improv is in gestures, facial expressions, a comforting hand to another group member, a muttered comment or sigh, style, posture, whether the character is open or closed, what the character wears (with minimal description from me as their guide). Occasionally, tone and volume are another matter. I like to give a general direction and see how the actor makes it fit the character. It’s collaboration and in my experience it leads to incredible performances.
The other issue about rehearsal is the horrible fear that the best take I ever get will occur in rehearsal, off-camera. Spontenaity will be lost and never found again.
The film addresses delicate themes such as suicide, trauma, violence, depression, and drug addiction among others and the cast does an excellent job portraying these characters authentically. Can you share with us the research and preparation you and the cast undertook before filming?
I purchased several psychological books and manuals. I attended several meetings, viewed several others, with my group therapist consultant (who remains anonymous at their choice for understandable reasons). I drew on my psychological background considerably as well. And I spoke with people about these issues about their thoughts and experiences. I think honesty breeds authenticity and manages to respect the issues being explored.
We enjoyed the character’s stream of consciousness during the therapy group. As they speak, they open a flashback portal while sharing their stories. How did you conceptualize this idea and what message do you aim to communicate to the audience through this creative approach?
I rarely like the audience to “be ahead of” the characters, but here, where the characters weren’t being honest, it was a necessity so the audience knew. There are, of course, numerous ways to show this. We could have had very little group meeting footage and shot many flashbacks. But that would be too easy, and the voiceover necessary would detract from the performances. Showing the truth, not only as they spoke their version of events but literally with it behind them as they do so, felt the best way to let the audience know what was going on while also showcasing what really makes the film great, which is the performances.
The film includes numerous references to current political situations and events. What motivated this choice?
National and global politics are thrown into our faces via a twenty-four hour news cycle with literally tens of thousands of news channels, papers, website, blogs, reporters, etc., every day. To avoid being affected by the political landscape today would require a Walden-esque odyssey to somewhere unreachable by cell service. Sadly, I think political events and turmoil are as unavoidable to people now as not noticing that your parents are fighting when you’re a child. The national mood and news of the day will reach you, whether you want it to or not, and it will impact you.
You are a performance-oriented director. How did you work with the actors and how did you ensure a supporting atmosphere between takes on set?
This is a fantastic question. Firstly, our sets are light. I do not believe in maintaining a bleak and angry atmosphere to achieve such emotions during takes. These are incredible actors who can deliver. I already know everyone on set cares, they’re doing their best, they want to be great, they want to achieve, so they will. Cameras are set, sound is speeding, everyone is ready.
Miranda Jean Larson is a true renaissance woman. She’s the brilliant editor of this film, she directed the second unit, and she is a truly remarkable actress. She came up with the idea of an onset safe space and brought it to our producer, Xxena N. Rush, who loved the idea. We set up several areas for this and each actor was told about it and any time they needed, they could go, unwind, be alone, yell at me, whatever they needed.
What actually happened was that this cast was so supportive and loving of each other and uplifting and encouraging that no one used it. I can assure you, the most emotional of scenes (which varies depending on who you ask) ended with a CUT, and the set became party. Tommy Malek (“Tommy”) would dance, since, joke. Don Scribner (“Dan”) would go to a room and play guitar to sort of keep a distance (he is a brilliantmusicia – it is his songs you here during the end credits). Chris Rivera (“Ricky”) could not totally abandon “Ricky” between takes and provided us endless amusement. Susan Ly (“Kaye”), Tricia Buerke (“Tricia”) and Heaven Nikitenko (“Jackie”) were always bubbly and fun and sweet and encouraging and funny and Haulston Mann (“Haulston”), Nicolas Sullivan (“Sullie”) and Michael Lake (“Mike”) were always there to make sure I was good.
I know I am leaving people out but everyone was amazing. I love this cast. Truly love them. I would work with every one of them again repeatedly.
What were the most challenging scenes to film technically and emotionally?
Honestly, scene 1 of the group set and scene 1 of the projections were the most challenging. The initial setup of each. They took place at different locations, miles apart. Getting everything the way it needed to be was the most challenging technically. After that we shot chronologically, which is obviously rare. But that meant we kept moving. Most background scenes were shot in advance. I shot the bulk, but wrote each scene out and gave the actors the option to shoot their own, which I then edited, degraded, and sent to Miranda for final editing. So we were a well-prepped, well-oiled machine so to speak.
Emotionally, there was scene I would rather not single out. Each of these characters is written as realistically as possible. You don’t know which character any given audience member will identify with. Someone close to the production was on set, and during a particular scene the character’s story really elicited a strong reaction from this person and she had to leave set for a bit.
In the whirlwind of directing, the focus of the scene and performance, I sometimes…often…forget the dialogue in the moment. I focus on what we’re filming. I should have known that this character’s story might cause an emotional reaction from this visitor, and I was absolutely crushed that I had forgot. Actors Chris Rivera and Joe Montoya calmed me down after the scene since I was so distraught about forgetting how real these stories are. I was too sucked into the film in that moment. That is the job, of course, but so is mindfulness of everyone around. My small mental lapse caused intense emotions. I ran and apologized to them and they apologized to me. No one was mad. No one did anything wrong. I absolutely LOVE this person. I simply didn’t foresee it in that moment.
The switch from colors to b/w coincides with the major plot twist, a device often used in movies to indicate a shift in the story. In this case, however, the audience expects a character shift and instead, the plot takes an unexpected turn (We won’t spoil the end). Was this your goal? If not, what was the idea behind this choice?
Without spoiling it, this moment comes after a slow and steady push-in on two characters. As trust builds from one to the other, that character comes to a decision. The character’s world is yes/no, do/don’t, or black/white. It is this moment where it comes down to two choices for this character and they are listening to this other character, who they have grown to trust. Whatever advice they receive will determine their actions in that moment.
Can you name three directors and/or three movies that made you choose to become a filmmaker?
The E.T., Melancholia and Cache are the movies.
Tarantino, Haneke and Lynch are the directors.
What do you think are the toughest aspects of making a film today?
When it comes to getting started, no one shows you the door. You have to find your own, unless you know somebody. That makes it tough. I hope I can succeed in this endeavor so that I can help aspiring writers and filmmakers find their way it.
What’s next for you? What are you working on right now?
We are completing post-production on our second feature, “Immersion”. I anticipate it will be ready by mid May. We are pre-production on a third feature, “Fetish”, which looks to begin shooting in fall. And I am working on funding for my award-winning feature script, “Sweetener”. If all goes well, I will shoot “Sweetener” in 2025.
