“It’s F***ed Up”: ‘Paul T. Goldman’ Director Jason Woliner Breaks Down the Darkest Parts of the Peacock Show

There’s no doubt that Peacock‘s Paul T. Goldman is a creative triumph. Jason Woliner‘s decade-long quest to bring the bizarre story of Paul T. Goldman to life is a reality-bending tour de force that stretches the limits of empathy. Throughout the six-episode-long series, Woliner not only adapts Goldman’s overly flattering version of his “true” life story, but also interrogates the man behind “Paul T. Goldman”: Paul Finkelman.

In the early ’00s, Finkelman quickly wooed and wed a woman the show calls “Audrey.” Within months, it was apparent that Audrey was duping Paul with her “part-time marriage.” He was the latest in a series of men she had marked as weak, summarily married, and extorted money from. Paul deals with this betrayal by investigating Audrey, her lover Royce “Cadillac” Rocco, and their associates. When he becomes convinced that Audrey and Royce are part of a vast global sex trafficking ring, Paul attempts to reach out to the FBI. When they ignore him, he takes matters into his own hands, penning a novel based on his real life story where he saves the day.

Desperate to see his heroic tale spread far and wide, Paul began a social media campaign to get his works — yes, works — adapted for the screen. Of the countless Hollywood-adjacent folks Paul cold-tweeted, only Jason Woliner bit. Woliner then spent the next decade interviewing Paul, researching his life story, and working to “adapt” Goldman’s work in a way more akin to Nathan Fielder’s The Rehearsal than a fluffy biopic.

While many critics and comedy fans have lauded Paul T. Goldman for its deft dark comedy, cathartic ending, and idiosyncratic leading man, the show still has some loose ends. From Paul’s descent into misogynistic fantasies of violent revenge to unanswered questions about the real Audrey’s tragic family life, Paul T. Goldman might also leave some viewers feeling less than warm and fuzzy after the credits roll. Creator and director Jason Woliner gets that.

“I mean, it’s an important side of it,” Woliner told Decider yesterday. “It’s so hard to navigate this kind of project where parts of it I believe to be really funny, but parts of it are very dark and are about real people’s lives.”

“It was a real challenge to navigate. Trying to honestly include this stuff that I felt responsibly we had to include, but also you know, to do the something like a cartoon dog show, for instance. You know, there’s a lot of sides to it.”

Woliner was incredibly game when Decider drilled him on the darker elements of his project and happy to answer difficult questions about his eponymous subject. He shared how his relationship with Paul has (or hasn’t) changed since the final episode’s premiere on Peacock last weekend, his own personal concerns about abetting Paul’s darker revenge fantasies, and what part of the series he now regrets the most…

**MAJOR SPOILERS FOR ALL SIX EPISODES OF PAUL T. GOLDMAN AHEAD!**

DECIDER: In the finale, we go to the show’s premiere and Paul finally sees what the project is. You have a backstage conversation with him where he seems to have made peace with it. Has he since seen all six episodes? Have you talked to him since last Sunday? Has his opinion changed?

JASON WOLINER: Yes, I’ve spoken with him quite a bit since he’s seen the last one. What we showed at the premiere was the first three episodes and I wanted him to also know what was going to happen in the finale. And so I showed him a few clips of that. So we went backstage and I had a little laptop. We cut that part out, but I was like, “Well, you watch a little bit more to really — I want to be sure you understand that so that you can answer honestly.” So I showed him some stuff in the finale. And he responded exactly, you know, that’s his response in the show. I obviously didn’t ask him to say any of that.

People have had different reads on kind of what that moment meant, which is fine. Which is good. You know, whether or not he actually was believing what he said, whether he was trying to save face, whether he was doing what we saw elsewhere in the show… He would take information and kind of decide on a reality that he could work with and kind of move forward in that direction. I just wanted to put up what happened and you can decide what you take from that moment.

In the days since the sixth one aired, we talked him through everything that was in that episode, including some of the darker stuff that we got into. We had talked him through everything in it before it came out. And I think he’s processing it. We’re still speaking, we seem to be fine. At the same time, what he seems to be most concerned with right now is that there was so much information and evidence that he used in the divorce trial in terms of trying to prove what he was trying to prove about his second wife [Diana], whom we call “Audrey” in the show. And we included as much as we could, that we felt made the case that he was trying to make. There are specific pieces of information: $40,000 in cash deposits, trips to Vegas where she bought Jimmy Choos… Some of it has just been like, “Well, why didn’t you include this?”

I think what happened is now that it’s all out there for the first time in his life, he’s getting literally thousands of people tweeting at him. A lot of them are supporting him and saying that they found it inspiring. That he can absorb new information by the end of it, to be very moving. And also a lot of people are saying, “You’re a piece of shit. I hate you. You’re crazy. You’re crazy. You’re an idiot.”

So what I think has happened is the negativity that’s come his way… And I prepared him for that. I said, “Look, you know, a lot of people I think are gonna be touched by you and see you as a full person with flaws but still deserving of empathy. And I think a lot of people are gonna hate you when we put this all out there.” Even on the Amazon reviews from his book, that was the response. Half of people said, “This guy’s awful,” and half the people said, “This guy’s inspiring.” So I knew he was used to that a little bit, but he’s never seen that on this level.

I think with all the people saying, “You’re a buffoon or you’re crazy,” I have a feeling that he thought, “Oh, if only all of this evidence was in there, I wouldn’t look so crazy.” And I don’t think that’s the case. I think, you know, I did my best to present as fairly as I could his side and then other voices and other information we were able to determine.

If anything, that’s the kind of stuff he’s become a little bit hung up on. But overall, he does seem to be okay. I didn’t want to obviously destroy him from this project. I just wanted to examine every side of it.

Speaking of all the different sides and people potentially having an adverse reaction… I thought he was so charming in the beginning and then I found my opinion changing with certain scenes. One of those scenes early on was when he and Galina reenacted their divorce in front of their teenage son. I was taken aback by the ethics of that or the psychological impact that would have on Johnny. Do you remember why that came up? Was there any concern for Johnny? How would he take that? Because the camera watches him but we don’t hear his take, either then or in the present day.

You know, it happened exactly as it’s depicted in the show. It happens on camera. We were auditioning actresses to play the character based on [Galina], Talia, and then [Paul] offered up, “You know, Galina is not far. We should just call her and see what her opinion of this is.” And so it was the first of what became many kind of miraculous moments that it was like, “Well, yes, this will be something interesting.” Then on camera, you see him, he suggests to her, “Why don’t you do it?”

You know, it was intense to watch it, but it felt like both parents were okay with it. Johnny was 14 or 15 at the time. To watch it on screen, actually, it feels much more kind of unsettling than it did in the room. It was interesting in the room. It was like, “Oh wow, these are two people reenacting their their breakup 10 years later.” But they didn’t have a problem with that.

I tried to be really sensitive about Johnny. When I first met Paul, Johnny was 12 and still living with him and he really wanted Johnny to be in the room [whenever we were shooting]. And I didn’t allow that because I knew we’d be talking about subject matter that I didn’t think was appropriate for a 12-year-old to be around for. Then he really wanted Johnny to be interviewed and I really didn’t want that at the time. So I let him — there’s one shot. [Johnny] sits in front of the camera. Yeah, he answered one question. It was like, “Okay, we’re not going to talk to Johnny about this.” We only spoke to him about it when he was 20. That’s the interview in the final episode. So we came back and I thought at that point, he was able to, you know, decide whether or not he wanted to be part of this.

On the Johnny note, it’s been brought to my attention by another critic that if you find the piece where they are lauding teen Johnny, he described his upbringing as being from a “household of neglect and violence.” Did you know anything about that? The neglect is touched upon, I think, in terms of his father ignoring him for the sake of his stories, but the violence threw me a loop.

Yeah, I don’t think that’s true. And I’m gonna call today and determine that because I did catch that a long time ago. And I asked Paul about it. What I think is they also say in that same article that he was a child of two Russian immigrants. It was from a student paper, I believe? I think it’s just bad reporting, but I do need to verify that. I have no evidence that there was any violence in that household. You know, if there was, obviously, I would have included that in the show. So, yeah, no, I believe that’s just a mistake. But I’m in the process of just covering all my bases and making sure that was just kind of bad reporting.

I just wanted to make sure because, obviously, I was like, “Whoa, is Johnny okay?!“

Oh, yeah. If we had any reason to believe there was violence in that house, I mean, obviously, that would have made this a much different project. I have no evidence from anyone that there was any violence.

[Note: Jason Woliner reached out directly to Decider a few hours after the interview to confirm that there was no violence in John’s childhood: “We reached out to John (Johnny) Finkelman, Paul’s son about that article and just spoke with him – he confirmed what Paul had told me when I first asked him about it. He thinks that it was a mistake / misunderstanding that the reporter who wrote that article had made and confirmed that there was no violence in his childhood. Just wanted to pass that on.”]

I think it’s Episode 4 where Paul fantasizes about “Audrey” dying in the explosion. You have the scene in prison where you want him to face his anger through a more emotional catharsis, to be a little more vulnerable, and he rejects that. At any point did his idea of where his story should lead disturb you? And how did you deal with that?

Yeah, you know, he contacted me. I read his book. Then I read The Chronicles and that’s kind of when I decided it was worth pursuing. That it was so fascinating to me. I was very fascinated by examining every side of him through the material that he wrote and through this process that’s in the show.

I always knew there was some pretty dark stuff [in there] and I knew at its core it was this revenge fantasy. But what I also thought was so interesting is when you read the book, and you read that stuff, and you look at it objectively, it’s very unsettling. Very dark. Then you meet Paul. And everyone on set loved Paul. He was very lovely and light and everyone really did get along. Even though there’s some awkwardness, obviously, everyone without exception got along with him. He’s so like light and buoyant and lovely in person. I thought that was such an interesting contrast of someone who is so just full of light and smiling all the time, to look at this real darkness underneath there and and try to kind of reconcile that.

When we were on set shooting the boat exploding was when it really hit. There’s a very real angle of this story which is me enabling this man to film a revenge fantasy against a woman who humiliated him. So yeah, I mean, absolutely, there’s a disturbing side of it. And I tried to include that in the show and acknowledge that and include my own feeling of conflict in enabling as opposed to exposing. It was something I had to kind of deal with and grapple with the whole time and, you know try to include that in the show. At least as a way of acknowledging I understand what’s going on here. Hopefully, you wouldn’t watch this and think I’m just helping this person live out these very dark fantasies without examining it and acknowledging what’s going on.

In the last episode, you confront him about the letter he sent to “Audrey” or Diana’s parents. How did you find that letter if he’s so convinced he covered his tracks? And then the one thing I was not sure or clear about was the timeline between the letter being sent and the tragic murder-suicide of her parents. Are they at all related? Because I was a little bit like, “Hoo, I don’t know if there’s a causality here that’s being hinted at or not.“

I believe they’re not related at all. Probably one regret right now about the show is I did not make the gap more clear. That letter was sent in 2008. The parents died in 2015, when Paul was fully out of out of their lives. I don’t believe there’s any activity between Paul and Diana after 2008. So it’s a seven year gap.

There was a lot we discovered about the parents and about [“Audrey”/Diana] that did not make it into the show. That was a very fraught relationship. There’s a lot of drama there. There’s so much more going on that I didn’t feel like it was my place. To put it in would have been to attack Diana and I didn’t feel like — after letting Paul have his side so much — it didn’t feel like it was appropriate for me to pile on with things about her life that we found out.

We did our best to at least paint the picture Paul’s not crazy. He didn’t make this whole thing up. She did have this pattern of husbands and boyfriends and lots of stuff that was very ugly and, you know, very, very toxic. That did extend to the parents as far as we could determine in terms of talking to the people that knew them and people that wouldn’t go on camera. It could have been its own documentary to go into that. So leaving that stuff out in terms of their fraught relationship, and some other elements… It felt appropriate to not get into that.

At the same time, now I realize it does leave you with the question: Did that letter have anything to do with them dying? I don’t believe it had anything to do with that. I think Paul was kind of a blip in this family. Tragically, a family with a lot of drama in it. A lot of financial things and a lot of rough, rough stuff.

And how did you find the letter?

We got the police reports of everything. And they did send that letter in to be like, “Look what this guy is doing. He’s got to stop this.” Obviously, they knew it was Paul immediately. I think we pulled, I think there’s 600 pages of documents. Again, because I do believe he was following her. There was something that came up as a domestic violence thing, but I think it’s just because that’s the category, there was no stalking laws at the time, specifically. You know, he had these private eyes. Then he admitted he was helping the private eyes and he would follow her around. But there was no violence as far as we can tell. There was nothing like that. And he did stop.

All that stuff is alluded to. We tried to balance that yes, he went overboard. He was following her. He was a man obsessed. He sent this letter to her parents. It’s fucked up. He shouldn’t have done this. And whether or not you watch this and think that him admitting he went too far, I’m not saying you need to feel like he’s redeemed. I’m just trying to present… Yeah, I believe that he went off the deep end in terms of that behavior. You know, it was all submitted to the police. Nothing came of it. Whatever reason you think nothing came of it — whether it’s that ultimately they just told him to knock it off and he did, or it’s because society is slanted in favor of men — you can decide why that stuff was not pursued. It’s a very complex story.

I have only one minute and a million questions, but one lighter thing was when Paul pulled you in to be on-camera. There’s the shot of actor Jake Regal, who is supposed to be playing you onscreen, sitting in your directors’ chair watching the edits. Where did that come from? I mean, that’s one of the most funny things in the show.

Yeah, they cut to him sitting. I mean, that was all real. Paul wanted me to do it. I didn’t want to do it. We got Jake and Paul kept firing Jake. That was all real. And poor Jake. Jake was such a good sport.

But, um, yeah, I don’t think I asked him to sit in my chair. (Laughs) But there was the point where it was just, like, Jake was there and I think he just sat down on my chair, if I remember correctly. But it is a funny shot that we get to where it just feels like everything is completely gone off the rails.

And what’s next for you? Because Paul T. Goldman was like a ten-plus year project. Is there anything on your horizon?

I have a few things I’m working on. Nothing’s announce-able yet, but I believe it will be as different as this as you could possibly imagine. I don’t know. Right now I’m just taking a few weeks. I’m still cleaning up my office and we’re hoping to release a few deleted scenes and then, yeah, just figure out kind of what’s next.

This interview has been condensed and edited for clarity.

If you or someone you know are experiencing suicidal thoughts, call the Suicide and Crisis Lifeline 24 hours a day, 7 days a week at 988.