Interview: Director and co-author of “Waiting for Drew Peterson”

Recently we got the chance to talk to Scott Goldstein, director; and Amy Speckien, one of the stars and co-author of the satirical play Waiting for Drew Peterson. Read on to get their take on the nature of obsession, D-list celebrity, twinges of guilt, and how they would cast the Lifetime movie based on Fatal Vows.

Justice Café: What attracted to you the story and what about it did you think would make for good satire?

Scott Goldstein: I read a preliminary script that Nancy and Amy sent me where they played women who were obsessed with a fictionalized version of Drew. After some time putting our heads together we decided to use the real Drew as our “Godot”, and as a jumping off point for the social satire. Also, the real story is just straight up nuts!

Amy Speckien: Nancy (Friedrich) had the idea of two sisters who were in love with DP and I immediately liked it. The idea of being in love with him is absurd, so I knew we could do a play under the umbrella of “absurd,” which can be a lot of fun-you can get away with a lot if you’re not playing a realistic character. I guess you could say I was attracted to for actor-type reasons.

Everything about this story makes for good satire. Like many celebrities, he is a celebrity for all the wrong reasons. You don’t have to be a good person to be a celebrity these days. Americans just love celebrities, no matter if they’re talented or smart or good people, and we don’t make fun of ourselves enough for that, in my opinion. Plus, DP is not a HUGE celebrity, he’s kind of D-list, and clearly a murderer. Why would someone choose him to have a crush on? That’s funny to me.

Justice Café: Do you think that the way media covers high profile murders contributes to obsession and fantasy, or have there always been people susceptable to the allure of a man behind bars?

Scott Goldstein: People have always been attracted to outlaws, going all the way back to Barabbas…I mean the crowd was more into him than Jesus. Robin Hood, Guy Fawkes, Bonnie and Clyde. Generally people love these outlaw types because they flaunt the laws of decent society. It’s a chance to imagine living outside the law…However in this case, I have no idea why anyone would be attracted to a man who (allegedly/probably) killed his wives. He’s not a romantic outlaw at all. It’s got to be the mustache.

The media loves it because it’s like the news version of Reality TV. It’s like gaper’s block…everyone always wants to stop and look at the accident…in some ways it’s a measure of our own mortality…like, “man, I’m glad that wasn’t me…and I can’t stop watching”
The media just gives the people what they want and will go to any lengths to get it. Ask Amy Jacobsen…bad day for a swim if you ask me.

Amy Speckien: It seems to me like the media contributes to obsession and fantasy with many celebrities. While women have always been susceptable to the allure of a man behind bars, with the media now, you can see pictures of Drew any time you want. You can see pictures of and interviews with him and his kids. When I saw an interview with him when his kids were sitting next to him, it hit home for me that, wow-this guy is not just a murderer, but also a father. For the right woman, seeing his human side-his house, his kids, etc., might feed her obsession. His “human” side is just so accessible.

Justice Café: How about the Internet? Has it made it easier for people to indulge in romantic fantasies about accused murderers?

Scott Goldstein: Of course because there is no filter whatsoever, so people are free to create their own world. I saw a feature on “Second Life”, and it freaked me out. You can be whoever you want on the internet and create your own reality. In the past delusional people didn’t have the ability to interconnect so easily. It allows the fantasy to be shared and built upon, with absolutely no relation to actual facts. You get arrested for yelling “fire” in a crowded theater, but on the internet you can scream “nuclear meltdown” and gain 20 followers and face no consequences.

Amy Speckien: Yes-I guess the answer above would apply to this.

I’d imagine some women have blogs-I haven’t done the research, but if there are blogs out there, you can look up any old crazy thing and think “hey, I’m not alone. There are people out there like me, which means I’m not crazy!” and the women who love him can get together, bond. If they all think he’s innocent he must be. So, yes. I’d imagine that the internet has made it easier to indulge in romantic fantasies.

Justice Café: I saw that Joel Brodsky has already seen the play. Have you heard from any others involved in the case – prosecution or defense?

Scott Goldstein: No…and I really didn’t want to. I mean c’mon the Shark was a defense attorney in the Family Secrets trial. I was a little weirded out when Joel showed up. One of my friends came into the lobby of the theater and called out my name and I said “shut the f*** up”…I was weirded out. I was even more weirded out that they were so nice to us. He was the nicest guy I’ve ever met who is defending (an alleged) wife killer.

Amy Speckien: No-just Joel Brodsky and another. They liked the play. They were cordial. They said they would get Drew’s autograph for us.

Joseph Hosey, who spent a year with Drew Peterson writing the book Fatal Vows, came. He is also working on the screenplay for the Lifetime movie. He liked the show. He has been supportive.

Justice Café: When writing a satire involving an ongoing murder case, especially a local story, do you ever get a twinge when you think of the real people involved?

Scott Goldstein: Absolutely. When I realized that Drew was aware of it, I was totally uncomfortable for a few days. I mean he does know how to kill someone and make it look like an accident (his own words according to hearsay/internet) I also was worried that Stacy or Kathleen’s family would get the wrong idea. I saw a lot of negative comments on the internet, as if they didn’t understand that the play is not pro-Drew. Satire is easily missed. I also got serious twinges of guilt when I thought about Drew’s kids. It’s not their fault, and I really hope that they aren’t hurt. They’ve suffered enough losing their mothers.

Amy Speckien: There are times I feel horrible thinking of Kathleen Savio and Stacy Peterson’s family hearing about this show. I hope they don’t. They could easily get the wrong idea about the show, they could very easily just not want to hear his name at all. And with Drew Peterson being famous for loving attention, it’s horrible to think that we are giving him the attention he loves so much. We did not think of that when we started working on this show. I think it set in for me the day Joel Brodsky contacted our director about wanting to come. I thought “oh, yeah. Drew Peterson would love this. We’re doing a murderer a favor.”
I’ve had some major guilt pangs.

Justice Café: Are you now hooked on the Drew Peterson story like so many others are? Does this experience make you want to write more plays based on true crime stories?

Scott Goldstein: I never get obsessed with cases like this generally, however I am into how the media plays them. We have serious issues in this world and so much time is devoted to this, because bascially people are nosy and like gossip. This is like neighborhood gossip taken to the extreme. This case now will always haunt me though.

Amy Speckien: I’m not really hooked on it that much. I’ve kind of overdosed. I don’t think I’d ever want to write a play based on true crime stories again. I’ve had too many nightmares and waves of guilt over the reality of it.

Justice Café: What kind of source material did you look at when writing the play?

Scott Goldstein: I looked at the internet, that treasure trove of always well documented, factual information. I tried to just look at the facts and think of ways to make them come out of these two characters mouths. Sometimes Amy and Nancy didn’t want to say some of the more awful things, and I would say “it’s true”, and they would say “it’s just too much”. It really is too much sometimes. I really didn’t realize how many Peterson sites, forums and “lovers” were out there until I started to google our pre-opening publicity. Scary as hell.
The actual writing process was a mixture of Nancy and Amy’s original script, improvisation sessions, those facts and fine tuning the jokes.
I asked the girls to watch “Grey Gardens” and try to gain a level of “squalor glamour”, and we discussed “What Ever Happened to Baby Jane”, as well as “Waiting for Godot”.

Amy Speckien: Scott Goldstein, the co-writer director, did a lot of the research. Nancy and I did a lot of the pop-culture and character jokes, and then Scott made sure it was factually accurate. Scott would have to be the one to answer this question.

I read Fatal Vows. I hated the pictures in it. I read some articles online about what kind of women like criminals. A lot of them were missing a father figure or the criminal reminded them of their dad. That’s in the play.

Justice Café: Did you model your sisters on anyone in particular?

Scott Goldstein: Nancy and Amy are true originals, and their characters reflect that. If any one wants to claim it is based on them, go right ahead…I sure as hell wouldn’t.
Also, Big and Little Edie (from Grey Gardens) are inspirations, especially in the way that Little Edie wants to be glamorous and fabulous, and Big Edie is always knocking her down in a real passive-aggressive way.

Amy Speckien: The mother and daughter in Grey Gardens (YIKES) were somewhat of an inspiration, in the way they loved to hate eachother.

Justice Café: Are you aware of the Peterson super-fan that we’ve profiled on our blog?

Scott Goldstein: I learned of her before we opened when I saw a post by her on an online blog. She didn’t inspire us…although I suppose the archetype of the lonely woman who loves the bad boy is timeless. I believe Ted Bundy still has admirers too…It’s a great relationship…you can’t ever fight, and you know you’re safe, because he totally can’t kill you as long as he’s in jail. No arguing over chores or money either…and conjugal sex is pretty damn hot.

Amy Speckien: I am not aware of this super fan. I wish we had known about her.

Our characters are pretty unrealistic-we wanted to make sure they came off as satirical. Nancy’s character doesn’t sleep and mine doesn’t eat. Nancy chases squirrels and my character thinks that only celebrities are allowed to work for Habitat for Humanity…things like that.

Justice Café: A new lifetime movie is in the works with Robe Lowe cast in the role of Drew Peterson. Who would be your dream cast?

Scott Goldstein:
Drew Peterson: Dennis Farina or OJ Simpson
Stacy Peterson: Blake Lively or Amanda Bynes
Kathleen Savio: Mary Steenburgen or Anne Archer
Joel Brodsky: F. Murray Abraham or (the sadly deceased) Robert Schimmel
James Glasgow: Sam Elliot or Nick Nolte
(There are a lot of great mustaches involved in this case)

Amy Speckien:
Drew Peterson: Tom Skerrit
Stacy Peterson: Julia Stiles
Kathleen Savio: Julianna Margulies
Joel Brodsky: Dr. Phil

Justice Café: Anything else you want to tell us??

Scott Goldstein: I don’t want to be killed because of this show. Nancy and Amy are fantastic performers and were a joy to create this show with.
The Annoyance is a wonderful place that features some of the hardest working actors, writers and directors that you’ve never heard of, working odd hours and crazy schedules to put shows together in a six week timeline, set them up and break them down for the next one. They don’t do it for the money, we don’t have big sponsors or donors….we do it the hard way.
There are a ton of shows

Amy Speckien: There are no murders re-enacted in this show. It is pure satire, and it’s more about fascination with celebrity culture than Drew Peterson himself. It is a little dark, because we do catch people up on the crimes he committed, but we do it tastefully (we think) and definitely don’t glorify him in the least. It’s like an Onion article come to life. Drew Peterson could have been any celebrity that isn’t a celebrity for doing something good for the world. He could have been Paris Hilton.

I hope people aren’t scared off from this show because they think it is direct re-telling.

You’ve only got three more chances to see waiting for Drew Peterson at the Annoyance theater, so make sure not to miss it!

Waiting for Drew Peterson” is written and performed by Nancy Friedrich (’10 Jeff Award Winner, “The Crucible,” ’09 Jeff Award Nominee, “Dastardly Ficus and Other Tales of Woe and Misery”) and Amy Speckien (Gift Theater, Profiles Theater). Directed by Scott Goldstein (“Bodyslam!” “Tommy’s Place”)

~By commenting you agree to be bound by the rules of this blog. You can contact admins directly by sending an email to petersonstory@gmail.com.~

Advertisements

18 thoughts on “Interview: Director and co-author of “Waiting for Drew Peterson”

  1. Amy said:

    There are times I feel horrible thinking of Kathleen Savio and Stacy Peterson’s family hearing about this show. I hope they don’t. They could easily get the wrong idea about the show, they could very easily just not want to hear his name at all. And with Drew Peterson being famous for loving attention, it’s horrible to think that we are giving him the attention he loves so much. We did not think of that when we started working on this show. I think it set in for me the day Joel Brodsky contacted our director about wanting to come. I thought “oh, yeah. Drew Peterson would love this. We’re doing a murderer a favor.”

    I find it interesting that Joel Brodsky called the director before going to the show. Couldn’t just buy a ticket and attend like anyone else? Was he hoping to be called up on the stage…or just get free admission?

  2. Sorry I find the whole thing distasteful. Couldn’t they have chosen a character already convicted? Like Scott Peterson? He has plenty of female followers on death row

  3. Well, you can’t say it isn’t true to life.

    We do know of at least one woman who thinks she is in love with Drew Peterson, and it’s fascinating to take a look at the phenomenon of obsession over celebrity, especially when the famous person is someone who you would never expect to be the object of anyone’s fantasies.

  4. Anyone who wants to see a preview of how it will look if and when the boys testify in Drew’s trial should just watch some of Cindy Anthony’s testimony from today. She comes off as a frightened family member would will say anything to keep her loved one from taking a fall. Not credible.

  5. I know we don’t discuss the Casey Anthony trial here, but my jaw dropped when I heard her mother’s attempt to place doubt in the prosecution’s case. “I “might” have come home…; I searched chlorophyll and chloroform came up in the search; Some “little” stains were in the trunk of the car when it was purchased; …” Totally a game of words today. You’re right, Facs, family testimony for Drew Peterson will most likely be an attempt to shield him. Then again, there is still a chance Eric will be allowed to testify about the abuse incident he witnessed between Drew & Kathleen.

  6. These 2 women may be “fantastic performers and a joy to work with” but somehow I find this as repulsive as the movie.It just rubs me the wrong way.

  7. I understand how both the play and movie can be disturbing to some. I was and am more disturbed by how Peterson and his lead attorney carried on and made the memories of both the victims nothing but jokes. How the circumstances were used to promote themselves and keep themselves in the forefront. I don’t see the play as hurting the victims. It’s showing what some strange and weird behavior can come from certain individuals who obsess over a creep like Peterson.

    The movie is based on the book written by Joe Hosey, who is familiar to most who read here, and who covered the Peterson saga from the time Kathleen was found dead. Before anyone heard of her, Peterson, Stacy or Brodsky. IMO, a movie based on the facts leading up to the present time is not disrespectful to the victims. I think that it’s one of the few times that the truth of their fates will reach many, rather than the garbage that Peterson and his lead attorney have engaged in.

    At the very least, I don’t think the movie is disrespectful. I think and hope it will show what I perceive Peterson to be. A controlling, manipulating, mean-assed, self-serving creep.

  8. I have no problem with the idea of public figures as part of a fictional work or performance. Take a play/movie like “Come Back to the Five and Dime, Jimmy Dean, Jimmy Dean”. In that play also the public figure is not depicted but merely something that a character obsesses over and lets define them.

    The subject of this play is not Drew Peterson. He only figures in the story inasmuch as the actual characters use their idea of him as a catalyst for their thoughts and actions. As Amy said, the public persona could have been Paris Hilton or some other person whose public bad behavior makes them an unlikely subject for adulation. The fact that this person is also an accused murderer only makes the sisters’ obsession more bizarre, which is of course, was the intent.

    And as I’ve mentioned upthread, it’s not as if this sort of obsession has no basis in reality. We know that it is reality-based because we’ve seen it first hand and have also laughed at it while simultaneously shaking our heads. If you find it repulsive then perhaps your reaction is based more on your feelings about the subject of the play, since you don’t say that you have actually seen the play…and if you haven’t seen the play then you are really in no position to offer a critique.

    Like it or not, the “character” of Drew Peterson is now part of our popular culture. If the man repulses you that’s probably a good thing but God help us on the day that artists decide to confine their output to paintings of kittens and rainbows because they don’t want to risk making people uncomfortable.

  9. I agree with Rescue that a TV movie based on Fatal Vows will not hurt the families. Although I do agree with others that the telling of the story might be premature (but then when DO you tell the story?), I also think it will be a good counterpoint to the frequent self-serving letters being sent to the media by Drew Peterson and distributed by his publicity people.

  10. If I was a member of Kathleen or Stacy’s family I can totally see having no interest in, or even an active dislike of, popular culture spin-offs of what for them is a painful reality. I respect that completely.

    As for the rest of us…if you want to talk about repulsive, I think it would be pretty hard to beat some of the things I’ve seen written on forums and message boards regarding the people involved in this case (as well as unrelated parties), and yet some people who claim not to like plays, books or movies about the case were happy to participate. 😉

  11. I’ve been following the Casey Anthony trial, as many have, and have sometimes watched the evening talking heads show. I believe it was yesterday, on Issues with Jane Valez-Mitchell, that I saw Steve Greenberg giving some legal commentary. Second time I saw him do that. He was referred to as one of Drew Peterson’s attorneys.

    Recently, Joe Lopez was giving legal commentary about the Blagojevich trial.

    How about that? Less time than big cheese Brodsky on Drew Peterson’s case, and they’re the ones being asked for their legal opinions on other high profile cases. Drew Peterson’s lawyers. Karma baby. Karma.

  12. This was a while ago but…

    Judge attacks “Shark”; lawyer cut from mob case
    Thursday, March 17, 2011

    Chicago mob boss Frank “The Breeze” Calabrese Sr., sentenced to life in prison for seven gangland slayings in the 2007 Operation Family Secrets case, has lost his well-known criminal defense lawyer Joe Lopez.

    Mr. Lopez, known in legal circles-and even on his email address as the “Shark”-was booted off the case by the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals in a harshly-worded order that was reaffirmed late Thursday….Caplin told the court that due to economic strains, he could not put the brief ahead of paid work. Judge Easterbrook called the men “unprofessional” and as a result relieved Lopez and Calplin as appellate lawyers on the case. Both men will be ineligible for future federal court case appointments and will be placed on a list of lawyers who, when handling paid appeals, will not be allowed more than two extensions of time to file openings….

    http://abclocal.go.com/wls/story?section=news/iteam&id=8019012

  13. 7/1/2011 9:27 AM
    Why suburban murder cases go cold
    What cold case investigators really do and what they’re after

    …Liane Jackson, spokeswoman for the Cook County sheriff’s office, said time isn’t the main factor in why a murder case turns cold.
    Instead, she said, it’s when all of the leads run dry, whether that happens in a month or in 30 years.
    “A cold case isn’t about age; it’s about running out of information to follow and we just hit a wall,” Jackson said. “Cold cases are extremely difficult to solve at that point. It’s a matter of revisiting information on a regular basis and hoping fresh information or new tips develop that leads to an arrest.”…

    http://dailyherald.com/article/20110701/news/707019920/

  14. Having not seen the show, I realize I have no right to comment:however, I do keep thinking of Archie Bunker…totally the star of the show, and yet the writers and producers made him wrong in everything he thought and did-and boy, was it evident. I only hope that also comes through, here, through Scott and the two sisters. I’m hoping the Cales’ would feel differently if they but saw it.

Comments are closed.