Exclusive: Maa Behen writer Pooja Tolani on feminist gaze, Triptii Dimri, deleted scenes, and alternate climax

Maa Behen. Pic via Instagram

Until a day before the release of Maa Behen, the Madhuri Dixit, Triptii Dimri and Dharna Durga-starrer dark comedy, director Suresh Triveni joked that if writer Pooja Tolani had her way, she would still be writing and making changes to the script to perfect it. Looking at how well the Netflix film has been received by the audience, the writer's itch is finally at rest.

Even as she continues to receive messages and mentions for the film's feminism and cackling humour, mid-day gets on a call with her to talk about the five-year-long journey she undertook to write Maa Behen, what makes Rekha, Jaya and Sushma special and why the concept of 'women writing women' is a cop out.

Q Before the film released, Suresh Triveni mentioned to us that he had hit a writer's block with Maa Behen and it's when you came on board, the film started to take shape. So, when he met you with the story, what scope did you see in it for the film?

The first thing that I look for when something new comes to me is what's exciting as well as scaring me about it. Suresh sent me a half-written document. What really jumped out at me was the potential of exploring women, who grow up with the lack of a male presence in their lives. That absence can either make you lose your inhibitions or you can go into a shell. That wasn't what the film was about when Suresh sent me the document, but there were some things in it that made me feel that this is the direction that we should take, which was different from what he was trying to do.

Q What was Suresh trying to do?

I think he was also not very sure, probably why the film was stuck. I am not sure but what I do know is that he definitely wanted to go into a space where the women are not perfect and lovely. It was more like a response to Tumhari Sulu (2017) as Sulu (Vidya Balan) was this sweet woman. So, he wanted to write about women, who are flawed. That was something he was always clear about. It was also called something else initially. When he sent to me, it was Maa Behen. And honestly, I joke about it a lot, but it's only half a joke. The moment I read the title Maa Behen, I thought to myself, ‘I am doing this film.'

For me, the three characters became special because they are carrying a chip on their shoulder because there's a lack of man. So, this complex that they grew up with evolved Rekha (Dixit) as this lonely woman. It's not in the script anymore but I had written that she was obsessed with the idea of dying alone. Jaya (Dimri) was obsessed, not consciously though, with the idea of ‘I am a good woman'. She has seen how her mother has been judged throughout, and her response to that has been that she will get married, have a conventional family and have a child and be the perfect bahu. Sushma (Durga) is struggling for identity. She doesn't know who her father is, and she has obviously heard things about it growing up. So, she is constantly looking for a father figure or for some kind of validation for identity. Hence, the (evolution) into being a social media influencer. For attention, she is doing things that she may not necessarily wanting to do.

Q Was the film's humour there in the document that Suresh sent you? Or was it brought in later?

Yes, it was funny. Of course, the kind of jokes and the humour was very different because the intention of that story was different. But it was always meant to be funny. Even though I didn't keep any of those jokes and he was very salty about it (laughs), when I was reading it, I was laughing. It's just that story-wise, there was no space for them. But it was always meant to be a tongue-in-cheek kind of comedy with a dark element to it.

Q The humour for the longest duration of the film is stemmed in how the society views these women. It's only later in the story that we are shown how they actually are. What made you take this route for the screenplay?

The TV anchor treatment was there in Suresh's document, but in a different way. At that point, this TV anchor would become part of a scene. I had really liked that. We hadn't decided from the first day that we would use this device to give us the society's perspective. In the beginning, we used the TV anchor in the flashback. Along the way, we decided that let's give the information of the past but let's do it from the audience's perspective. After two-three drafts, we cracked the end. And then we came back and redid the whole thing for the flip to come because if it is to come in the end, we need to feed in the society's perspective. In the first couple of drafts, we had society's perspective as Mrs Gupta (Geetanjali Kulkarni) talking to a neighbour about these women. But when we did it using the sensational TV anchor, everything fit because we also show Rekha obsessed with this TV show, Khalbali. So, it made sense that the society's view of her is as sensational as Khalbali.

Q One of the things highlighted about Rekha in the film is the way she dresses, especially the sleeveless blouse, which even today raises eyebrows when a woman wears it. How clear were you that this is how she will dress?

The idea for the sleeveless blouse first came from Suresh because he was talking about women, whom he may have known during his childhood and they were talk of the colony because they wore sleeveless blouses. So, he mentioned this to me and we thought why not make Rekha wear it. When we were discussing it, he said, "There's a certain kind of sexuality that women tend to use," and I said, "No." I have always thought of Rekha as someone, who negotiates. "Agar ek smile zyada dene se mujhe sabun ki tikki mil rahi hai toh mujhe toh chahiye na bachhoen ke liye." So, that's fine. But she will obviously not compromise herself because she needs something.

For me, Rekha didn't wear sleeveless blouses because she believed she would attract attention. She just genuinely feels hot. There was a teacher in my school, who used to always wear sleeveless outfits and she would constantly fan herself and say, "It's so hot." I would think, "Ma'am ko kitni garmi lagti hai!" So, while the idea and the perception of the blouse Suresh brought out from his childhood memory, for me, Rekha used to wear it because use garmi lagti hai.The most fun we had with this idea was when I cracked that the blouse is what she would use to tie Mr Gupta's (Ravi Kishen) mouth! The blouse is the evidence.

I grew up in a slightly conservative family. So, growing up, I never wore sleeveless. It's not that it wasn't allowed but it was discouraged. So, it came a full circle when at the screening of Maa Behen, my mother came wearing a sleeveless blouse because she wanted to be Rekha.

Q One of the most impactful scenes in the film is when a large group of men attack Rekha's house. It's disturbing and heart-wrenching. Could you talk about the choice of dressing them up in all-black raincoats? Was that written in the script itself?

It wasn't written in the script. That was Suresh's idea and I think it's fabulous because it gives the mob one face. All this while we were looking at the society's perspective with Khalbali as the storyteller, but Suresh describes the vandalisation scene as a nightmare. When you remember a traumatic experience, you sometimes don't recall the exact details. You remember the feeling you had at the time. This is why Rekha has blurred the details because you tend to block it out. Anuj Dhawan, the cinematographer on Maa Behen, has done a fabulous job.

Q Where did you get the idea of Rekha, Jaya and Sushma playing Snakes and Ladder after locking themselves up in the room from?

When the back is against the wall, Rekha has this tendency, I feel, of making happiness out of nothing. The three of them grew up with no means and much fear. But her nature is not to mop around. When someone tried to shame her and the daughters by writing nasty things on their wall, she made a game out of it. She told them, "Jao, pen leke aao. Hum dhote hain ise."

There was a scene, which we later cut out, where there was a wedding in the colony and these three weren't invited. But they got ready like they were going for a wedding. She made them dress up, took them to the nearby stall, where they ate Chinese and enjoyed themselves. So, Rekha's response is to fight, survive and block out the unpleasant while focusing on creating a happy moment. In the vandalisation scene, Suresh and I were thinking what she should do. Should she play a game or sing a song? I can't remember how we came up on Snakes and Ladder, but once we did, we were set.

Q Did at that any point while writing the screenplay, did you think that the revenge against Mr Gupta would be to kill him or were you always certain of the climax?

We were very clear that we didn't want them to kill him. I know we played fast and loose with realism in the film but killing him would have felt unconvincing. Secondly, I feel what we were trying to say through the film wouldn't have been achieved by killing him. We did have one draft where we had him dying in an accident while he is on his way to extract revenge from them. But it felt a little halka.

So, we built in the whole massage bit. Rekha also tells her daughters, "Tumhare papa zidd karake chhat pe massage karwate the." It's a tiny detail so people might miss it but whole idea was to show that Sukumar (Jatin Sarna) was so proud of having a good-looking wife that he wanted to show her off to the colony. So, the massage thing became a big thing in the imagination of the colony men. I would imagine that if there were a WhatsApp group of the men from Adarsh Colony, there would be a lot of chatter around her massage.

The minute these women freed themselves from what people will say, they realised they had so much power. That's what we were trying to achieve. I think killing him would have been simplistic. In fact, I love the fact that he will now be living in front of their house with them having an upper hand as they have the video of him receiving a massage from them. So, I liked the idea of Gupta ji living in shame.

Q What also felt real was how Mrs Gupta believes these women when she sees everything and even feels bad for them but she doesn't do anything about it. It's the reality of so many women in society.

Another writer friend of mine said the same thing, "Anyone's first thought would be that now Mrs Gupta will reprimand her husband." I have based Mrs Gupta roughly on women I know, who have a critical way of talking. Unhe pyar se baat karna aata hi nahi hai. And they also fight a lot with their husbands, but patriarchy is so deep-seated that once the husbands raise their voice and the women feel it could disturb the peace at home, they will be the first to step back and won't cross the boundaries of patriarchy.

Of course, the years-long frustration results in shouting, but you know your "place". She is the victim of the same thing. I don't think there's any love in such a relationship. I know in most couples of that age, women hate their husbands. So, Mrs Gupta hates her husband anyway, and it's not that she is doubting Rekha and her daughters. She knows her husband is capable of it, but she will continue to live with it because "log kya kahenge".

Q She is the most trapped character in the story.

We introduce her, with her sleeping very peacefully. Many times I have seen that women of this age, when their husbands are travelling, sleep better. So, Mrs Gupta is happy not having him sleep by her side. She is sleeping in a blissful stance. There was a line we had in another scene, but we had to cut it because the scene was getting long. She is cribbing and saying, "Ek toh jabse ye gaye hain, humko neend itna achha aaraha hai." She is trapped in that marriage.

Q How did you arrive at the last scene where Rekha, Jaya and Sushma are dancing on the street?

That was Suresh's idea. He wanted to end the film on a high. He wanted them to be free birds. Initially, the whole sequence was longer where they step out, dance and have Chinese at the nearby stall. But we cut it because the dance turned out to be so beautiful, we thought to leave it there.

Q Since the film released, the internet has been gushing over Triptii, especially for that one scene where she runs after her husband with the slipper in her hand. "Triptii Dimri has redeemed herself with Maa Behen after doing Animal," is what many tweets read. Do you find this chatter amusing?

It's not surprising because the internet is capable of surprising us so much more than this! At the same time, I would say Triptii is secure in her skin. I am sure she knows her politics and on which side her feminism falls. I wasn't expecting a comparison between this and Animal. Is there one?

Q Yes, in context to Triptii's characters in both the films.

As an actor, I feel, she is going to do what feels correct and honest to her at that point and what the story is going to ask from her. If she is going to do a certain genre of films, she will have to commit to that genre just like a writer would. If tomorrow, I am going to write a high-octane, testosterone-heavy action film, I will also commit to the genre and write accordingly. I feel she is having fun. She is experimenting. Something will work for her, something won't. The internet will always have an opinion.

Triptii is sure-footed and full of grace. That's what I love most about her. She is so gracious and kind. There's no sense of "I am a star and treat me like it." Her eyes are on the ball, and that's what matters.

Q There has been a discourse over the years about the female gaze. Yes, male writers can write feminist stories, but a female gaze can bring a lived-in experience to characters and stories. Suresh has mostly written films with well-rounded women in the centre so there's no doubt about his capabilities, but I feel you would have brought to Maa Behen a perspective of not just a woman, but even how a woman views other women. So, hypothetically, do you think if a man had written Maa Behen, it wouldn't have been the screenplay that it is today?

That's a tricky question. But I feel it would depend on who the man was. I would use this phrase very differently than what it means-- 'Not All Men' (laughs). Some can. I think I brought in a lot of lived-in experience. I could put myself in the position of being a Rekha or a Jaya or even a Mrs Gupta and feel how they would feel, which I feel even the most well-intentioned man couldn't catch. But that's how good collaborations work because I bring in what the other person can't and vice versa.

Like Rekha's outburst in the end, where she says, "Nobody will believe me but I got scared," I haven't been in the exact same position but I know what that fear feels like, which I think a man could imagine but not feel what it would feel like. He may or may not be able to bring that line at that very moment.

But that doesn't mean that only women can write women and men shouldn't be writing women because if men don't attempt to understand what women would be going through, then us making this kind of cinema is pointless. I feel we are very quick to say that because this was written by a woman, it's good and it's not good because it's written by a man. Everybody needs to put themselves in that place and do a little bit of thinking and hard work.

I must say that I do bring a gaze, but there have been a couple of times when I haven't thought of something and Suresh has said, "But wouldn't she be thinking this?" and I felt, "I should have said that, but I never thought of it." More than man and woman, what matters is who is willing to apply themselves as writers to feel what the characters are feeling. You don't need to be a murderer to write about one. Gender responsibility is not only women's. Some people are using "Women should only write women characters," because that excuses men from making the effort to understand. So, it's a cop out. Men should write women and do a bloody good job at it.

While women writing women from the perspective of representation is a very different thing, because that means women should be having more seats at the table, but to say that only women can write women is like throwing baby out of the bathwater.

This happened with me once. I was offered to write a show that had four male characters. Whatever I was sent was an interesting piece of writing but I wasn't interested in the world because it dealt with the backdrop of a business environment. But they were keen to have me on board because they wanted to change one character into a woman. I asked them why because those were four very good characters. Had they mentioned representation (in the writer's room), I would have still understood, but they said, "There would be more colour on the poster if one of them were a woman." I thought if that's how you are trying to sell it to me, you are barking at the wrong tree (laughs).