Patrick Macmanus in “Devil in Disguise”, John Wayne Gacy Show Without Violence

SPOILER ALERT: This story contains spoilers from “Devil in Disguise: John Wayne Gacy,” now streaming on Peacock.

When it comes to true crime TV shows, especially those about serial killers, there is one element common to most series: violence. While some claim to focus on the stories of the victims, they also feature murders, sometimes rendered in gruesome fashion, and a long history of the killer.

When Patrick Macmanus began creating a series about the John Wayne Gacy case, it was the opposite of what he wanted to do. In fact, he refused to do the show unless it was strictly about the victims and did not show any of the actual murders of Gacy’s 33 known victims.

Below, Macmanus reflects on the show’s initial rejection, working closely with GLAAD throughout the process, dealing with the families of five victims, and facing competition — namely Ryan Murphy — in the true crime genre.

You have already directed several detective series, most recently two seasons of “Dr. Dreath”. What attracted you to the crimes of John Wayne Gacy and his victims in particular?

Look, the short answer is that it didn’t appeal to me. I declined several times before saying yes, because I didn’t have the foresight of what it could be. What was right in front of me at that moment was another serial killer story, and I didn’t want to make another circular story. I’m so grateful that Universal and Peacock pushed me. I said I would if I could focus on the victims, the police, the lawyers and the families, and when I told them I didn’t know what that meant. It wasn’t until we got the room up and running that I realized we could make this news. I even pitched it to the studio and asked, “Will you be okay with me doing these stories that have absolutely no connection to John Wayne Gacy except for a little light excrement here and there?” They said yes. I thought they were lying, but they were so supportive from the start.

How do you think the public will react to not show real violence?

I’m really curious how this will turn out. We know that a certain way of telling the story, which relies on something that might be considered a little more salacious or coincidental, works. It attracts people, and I don’t know if a show that doesn’t show murder is going to work – or if it allows itself to slow down and just tell the story of hope or tragedy, or lost dreams, or dreams found, or love, or what it’s like to be a sex worker in Chicago in the ’70s. I don’t know if it’s going to work, but it was definitely worth it.

Can you talk about the research process?

All of our research started with NBC News and the Peacock documentary. They therefore had an extraordinary treasure trove of research at their disposal. We have written various books that have become our go-to source for information and inspiration. And then on top of that, we have Patrick Murphy, who is our private researcher. He has written thousands of pages of research from court documents, interviews, interrogations, and more.

From the beginning, we wanted to do everything possible to reach all living family members and even some living victims. And so a list was put together, the result of many hours of research that I had nothing to do with, trying to look up the home addresses, emails, phone numbers of everyone we could find. We only ended up connecting with five people. We contacted them knowing full well that there was a chance they would be angry or hurt. The goal is not for people to give us their blessing. The goal is for them to be heard and while that wasn’t going to stop us from making the show, I wanted them to be able to tell us what they really thought and guide us as much as they could if they wanted to. I will say that out of the five people we connected, five out of five wished us luck.

You showed no trace of the trial. Have you ever discussed including all of this?

No, I hate trials. “Dr. Death” was an example where I strategically showed the trial, and that was only because we knew from the beginning that it was a trial. in the trial that we would show the surgical operations for the first time. With “Devil in Disguise,” the trial was so well known and so well worn.

The music for this show, produced by Leopold Ross and Nick Chuba, includes 33 tracks, the number of known victims. Whose idea was this?

It was actually a late-night conversation with our composers, where we were trying to figure out how to compose the music for the show in a way that would also honor the victims. A big part of what they do and the reason I work with them again and again is that they are exceptional at their work. I’m not just talking about the music in our shows, but basically understanding the vision of what each of our shows is. I give them all the credit for hearing my ramblings and creating something so special with our score.

I know most of your writers are queer, and you’ve worked closely with GLAAD on this topic as well. How did this process work?

Early in the development process of the series, even before the writers’ room, I knew that there would be a part of the story that would deal with the latent homophobia that ran through the investigation of John Wayne Gacy. It was very important to me that GLAAD became a partner. They agreed to take a look at our plans and advise us on the scripts. At that time, they did not agree to become formal advisors because they wanted to see the final product before we could formalize our partnership, which I completely understood. But I have to tell you, I don’t think I was nervous about anything in this process, other than waiting for GLAAD to watch the cuts. I remember exactly where I was when I got the call from GLAAD telling me that they were ready to become official, public partners of the show. That’s the thing I’m most proud of about this whole process: They gave us what we needed to know to tell this story in a way that was fair, real, and respectful.

Let’s move on to formatting. Each episode focuses on the story of a different victim, but I found it interesting that the last two episodes were the stories of David Cram and Jeffrey Rignall, both survivors. How did you come to this decision?

There was no method to this madness as far as story order was concerned, except for Johnny Szyc in episode 2, as we connected the high school ring to the story. David Cram’s story is a difficult one, as there are many conspiracy theories about his complicity in Gacy’s life. It was so conflicting that we chose not to explore it outside of times when [prosecutor William] Kunkle questioned him. But we thought it was important to do the grooming story towards the end. It just felt like it fit properly.

And then in the finale, you told the story of Jeffrey Rignall.

Before there was a writers room, when I was doing my research on my own, I knew Rignall would be the final story. I knew this for two reasons. No. 1, this was truly the only story that could adequately summarize the systemic negligence and failure of the police department. It was a story that fully encompassed that. The second reason is very nuanced, and I don’t know if everyone will understand it because it is never stated straight away. Because Jeffrey was in a band, he was very bohemian and sexually free. He lived his life to the fullest. He was so full of life and love. For John Wayne Gacy, people tried to explain what he did because he came from an alcoholic and abusive father. They may try to explain it away because he was struggling with his identity.

One of the things we wanted to make very clear to the public is that millions of people struggle under the influence of an abusive parent. And there are millions of people who have struggled with their identity in the face of cultural, systemic, educational, family prejudice. But none of them killed 33 people. So, by showing this life so free in every way – and which would probably still be judged today – we were affirming that this queer person was simply living life to the fullest and had nothing to do with debauchery.

In the finale, we only see Gacy in one scene, in the car, smoking with Rignall. Was it a conscious decision not to show him?

Very good, but it didn’t start like that. We have about 23 minutes of footage of Gacy from scenes that we shot – the script originally was about the day of his execution, and we had Gacy everywhere. While editing, I woke up one Sunday morning and had this feeling that this was wrong. I called an editor, Ryan Denmark, and asked him if he had cut Gacy out to show me. I said, “I feel like this is our last chance to tell the audience that Gacy is not the center of the story.” He edited it and we watched it together on Zoom. We got to the end and I looked at him and said, “What do you think?” He said, “This is exactly how it should be.” » And I agree. Then I was afraid to tell Chernus. He looked at it and totally understood it. He asked me, “Was my performance bad?” I was like, “No, no, no, your performance is great, but do you understand? He says, “Yeah, I understand.” That scene on the answering machine? It’s so good.

Are you planning to watch any other upcoming shows about serial killers? Do you monitor your competitors?

I understand why you put it that way, but I would never call them competitors. It’s not just a predefined line. I have always believed that art, whether it is television, cinema, dance, painting or theater, is subjective. And there is no objectivity in art. I’m a fan of a lot of other people’s work. I will say it bluntly. I’m a huge fan of Ryan Murphy. I’ve been following him since the “Nip/Tuck” days. What Ryan does is he always swings for the fences, and whether he hits it every time or not has to be determined by subjectivity. But more than anything, what Ryan did early on was he was one of the very first creators and showrunners to really open up the aperture of television and allow people who didn’t typically look like they belonged on television or didn’t come from a particular background onto television, and he deserves a lot of credit for what he did for television. And so that’s a long-winded way of saying that I will most definitely be listening and checking out what he’s done, because, for the sake of subjectivity, whether you like it or not, I’m still intrigued by what he’s doing.

This interview has been edited and condensed.