/socialketchup/media/agency_attachments/2025/01/15/2025-01-15t065936648z-magazine-logo-black.png){kind=logo}
/socialketchup/media/media_files/2025/05/29/sk-magazine-450110.png)
Follow Us/socialketchup/media/media_files/2025/05/09/HFXU0fxguaCDvHirmjhT.png)
In an in-depth conversation with Black, White and Gray- Love Kills's director Pushkar Mahabal and producer Hemal A Thakkar, we delve into the mokumentray that has gripped us!
True crime dramas and thrillers have increasingly become the comfort zone we retreat to, offering a strange peace that we are constantly pursuing amid the chaos of our real lives. Otherwise, why else would shows about serial killers captivate us? What is it about murder that makes it so bingeable? It's worth thinking about - why are we so obsessed with this genre that streaming platforms sell like a commodity? Probably it's because when you peel away the neat narrative package, what remains is a disturbing image of us, circling these stories like vultures, digging into dead bodies to extract the drama, perhaps because reality is too bleak to face. This is precisely what Black, White and Gray - Love Kills tries to unearth. It pushes us to confront our growing fixation and romanticisation of rage and violence, rather than love and peace. And it's not just our interpretation! It's something that writer-director Pushkar Mahabal and producer-co-creator Hemal A. Thakkar also agree upon in our conversation!
In this in-depth, spoiler-filled conversation, we dove into the 'why' of every decision they took for the mokumentary and the many challenges they faced in bringing this unconventional show to light. With both creators having strong roots in Indian television, we also talked to them about Indian television's regressiveness and if this show, with its reinvention of bringing both TV and OTT aesthetics together, can help bridge the gap.
Also Read: Is Black, White and Gray – Love Kills the real true crime series that brings much-needed realizations? Let’s dissect!
This is how the conversation went!
The show blends genres, starting as docu-fiction and then evolving into a mockumentary. What motivated you to explore this hybrid of genres? Did the decision come early during the writing process, or was it something that developed later?
Hemal: We started developing this during COVID-19, but I’ll let Pushkar talk about this because it was his idea, and he has the best perspective on this.
Pushkar: I have been watching many documentaries. I love binge-watching them, particularly about people like Jeffrey Dahmer and Ted Bundy, and I used to envy the makers' thinking. When will I get to make something like this? But as much as I admired how these creators could present documentaries, I didn’t feel I could make that, as my skills lie more in fiction, so I thought, "Why not create a fake documentary?" It’s as simple as that. Let me frame it this way: This is the documentary I wanted to watch, but I made it in a fictional way.
That’s an interesting approach. But it’s quite an unconventional show, something that we have never seen before, so was it difficult to get this project greenlit? What were some of the biggest challenges you faced while making this?
Hemal: Developing this during COVID-19 was an advantage. We weren’t under any pressure to pitch the concept right away, as the idea in itself would have been difficult to pitch in the first place, so we developed the script in isolation. And post-pandemic, we decided to create a proof of concept, which Pushkar shot as a five-minute video and then started pitching it. There was still some confusion among the platforms, but when we met Sonyliv, they greenlit it during the first meeting. The challenges during production weren’t as much for me, but they were significant for Pushkar because it's such a concept that required a lot of precision, and managing that level of precision was a tough task for him as a director.
Pushkar: For me, the toughest part was getting the performances right. We were all a bit unsure at first, including the actors, about the rhythm of bringing out the performances, because it can't be so real that it would become boring and flat, but it can't be too theatrically dramatic. So the challenge was finding that sweet spot in the middle between so that the story and commentary come out.
Coming to the actors - the casting for this show dabbles with both familiar and unfamiliar faces. How did you approach this because the resemblance between fictional actors and the real people in documentary is uncanny?
Pushkar: It differed according to every casting choice. In some cases, we cast the actor first and then we cast the fictional version. In others, we locked in the fictional cast first and then found the actor. We made sure they looked similar, not identical, but not too different from each other either. Even when it came to playing characters for each segment, there were slight variations. For example, Raj, the assassin hired, is portrayed as a little more cheerful and smiley, which is different from how Deven played it, which is more in sync with the version of how the boy might have narrated it to the filmmaker. So that distinction came as the fictionalised actors were playing a version of people that these so-called real people were describing.
Hemal: This casting process was unconventional and experimental for all of us. It hadn't been done before, so we didn't have any template to follow. It was tough to discover each actor for fiction and non-fiction, but we had a clear sense of what we didn’t want.
The hotel in the show is named "Welcome Home," which seems like a tribute to both of your earlier works. There are also other small details, like how the main characters aren’t given names and even when locations and other names are mentioned, they feel more like background details. Was this a deliberate choice to avoid focusing on these specifics?
Pushkar: Yes, naming the hotel "Welcome Home" was a homage to our film. And, when we chose not to give the characters names or focus on specific locations, we did so because we wanted to avoid unnecessary conversations that could divert attention from the show’s main focus. So, calling them certain things or focusing too much on names would have taken the show in some random direction we didn't want. I wanted to focus on the fact that the show is about versions of truth and the manipulation of truth, and we didn’t want to get bogged down in anything else. By leaving the characters nameless, we kept the narrative focused on what we intended. Which is why the choice of the UK-based documentary filmmaker is also significant because he provides that distant, neutral, and western gaze to this entire story embedded in Indian aesthetics.
The show's visual grammar is both raw and cinematic, and at times, it reminded me of crime shows like Sansani or Vardaat. Was this an intentional aesthetic, or did it emerge naturally through the combination of television and OTT storytelling?
Pushkar: Like many of us, I’ve grown up watching and consuming a lot of shows like Crime Patrol, Savdhaan India, and all of that. So even if I didn’t intentionally plan it, it unintentionally also creeped up on me because it is somewhere there "the sansikesh news clip" sort of way of telling a crime story. So it might have influenced the way I shot certain scenes, but it’s something that naturally comes through in the content.
Hemal: Aside from crime-related content like Crime Patrol, we've all been consuming so many documentaries and dramas from international sources, too, so it's natural for influences to creep in because we have watched them, in fact, binged them. So that particular visual style that might have been coming off is naturally woven into the storytelling, not deliberately planned.
What about the ending? I didn’t expect it to go that direction. It completely throws you off, bringing us back to the first episode, where the character says, "Everything you're being told is a lie." The ending, with the girl's t-shirt falling, feels like a mind-bending moment, as if another story, another lie, was fed to us. Is this the point of the show - to highlight that often there is no absolute resolution?
Pushkar: Exactly. That’s the show's point: in these sensationalised cases, especially in India, we often never find out what really happened. There is no absolute truth, even though there is a pursuit of it, and the show makes the point that we're always fed a version of the truth. And somewhere, maybe we even know that we are being fed a version of a truth or a neat, packaged story, but we’re forced to live with it and even accept the version we’re given because it's the best. It’s about how we always believe the version of events that’s presented to us.
Is the show commenting on the narrative truths we tell ourselves to stay in our comfort zones of denial and avoid confronting uncomfortable realities?
Hemal: Absolutely, because it's often seen that we don't want to dig deeper, we don't want to go beyond a point. Real crime has become entertainment for us. We get involved in it for ourselves without even properly or sensitively thinking about it. We want to wrap everything up neatly in our heads.
Pushkar: The thing is we’ve gotten so used to it as Sneha said in the last episode that the problem is that people have gotten used to a simple hero and a villain. So we don't have time for nuances, we don't want to get into the nitty-gritty of it. That is what the show comments on: how we’re so accustomed to simple narratives, like clear-cut ones, telling us who the bad guy is and who the good guy is. We just want a story that's easy to follow.
Why do you think there's such a fascination with true crime dramas and crime thrillers? They seem to come out in neatly packaged formats and are almost the go to for streaming platforms.
Hemal: That was one of the most exciting aspects of Pushkar’s idea. Crime dramas are everywhere. Every network is trying to bring something different, but the point is that the market is saturated. The refreshing thing about this concept is that it’s a unique take on crime, something different from the typical crime dramas. The sheer volume of crime content has made it feel boring, and the idea of tackling crime in a new, more thought-provoking way felt necessary.
You mentioned watching documentaries about Ted Bundy and Jeffrey Dahmer, and here too, we have this accused serial killer's version, but do you think serial killers are romanticised in the way they’re presented, particularly in shows and films?
Pushkar: Yes, definitely, we have always been fascinated with serial killers, so much so that they often end up being treated like celebrities. People are fascinated by criminal minds and the darker side of human nature. In fact, when the Ted Bundy and Jeffrey Dahmer cases were happening, people lined up outside the courts to see them, especially young girls and supposed fans of their showed up to show support so there that undeniable crusority and fascination that is attached with these figures that they tend to get romanticized even in reality.
Is that why you’ve included the media as a mass-commercialised vehicle for weaving narratives as a central theme in the show? To show how they shape and feed into the narratives?
Pushkar: Exactly, and media in not so concrete terms like all sorts of media is included as people will end up consuming that media that they tend to be more biased towards, because there is no denying that, no matter the format, the media plays a huge role in creating these narratives. It’s also about how different people consume media. We all tend to gravitate toward media that aligns with our biases, and the show plays with that idea.
Given the unconventional nature of the show, was there a particular source of inspiration or research you drew from?
Pushkar: Honestly, it wasn’t so much about research because I already has watched a lot of documentaries over the years. I didn’t need to do research; I already knew how these stories are edited and presented. I’d watched a lot of criminal interviews to tell Sanjay, the accused boy, how to do it when he is interviewing, balancing the dramatic arcs. So for me I didn't had to research because i was already consuming all of these for all these years. In a sense, watching stuff over the years just helped me shape my approach further, and when it came time to direct, I already had a sense of how to guide the actors through those scenes.
The show is being praised for breaking the mould of true crime dramas and for making a strong social commentary through its storytelling. How do you feel about this reaction? Do you think that reimagining a genre while utilising its tropes is the way forward for storytelling?
Hemal: We’re all very excited and happy with the response. We had discussed internally that this would resonate with the audience, and it’s amazing to see it working. Our hope is that it reaches an even wider audience, and that effort is ongoing.
Pushkar: Absolutely, reinvention needs to be done constantly. What we’re doing right now is that we are not doing enough of reinvention. People are afraid to take risks. But it’s only when we do something new with a genre that we understand that there is an ache for that. As with this, it is not just the so-called niche audience but even the general audience extracting the deeper layers of crime thriller, such as the social commentary or genre distinction from the show. It’s interesting how the general audience is also responding positively, so people shouldn’t consider these things niche - audiences are ready for them.
It seems the show has found a balance between making a point and avoiding unnecessary dialogue. How did you navigate the controversial statements in the interviews within the show?
Pushkar: It’s about making a point without feeding into meaningless conversations. When the character is about to make a controversial statement, we deliberately pull back. Like each time, Rao, the hired assassin, is about to give something, but he doesn't, even though Gray, the documentary filmmaker, nudges him to extract these statements, yet we don't go there. Because the thing is that the scene has made its point, and there’s no need to say more, as the camera lingers on them enough without them actually saying it. So you can make social commentary without being offensive or spoon-feeding the audience. And what's interesting is that even people who might not be as exposed to these types of stories or documentaries are getting it, and they’ve responded positively. Some people who have never watched a documentary have told me that it took them two episodes to realise this isn't real, and people who had an experience of watching a documentary all took episodes to figure out this isn't real, it's all fictionalised, it's a mockumentary.
Do you think this is coming in because the show is consumable for a wider audience, and its aesthetics are easier to follow than harder to understand, despite its experimental nature?
Pushkar: Yes, absolutely. No matter how experimental you get, the story still has to be made consumable. You can't be like that to watch this and demand that the audience put so much thought into it; it has to be easy to consume. Even if you don’t spoon-feed the audience, they need to connect with the story; it has to be relatable and believable. The case in the show is very believable because such cases have happened a lot in the past so that people will Google it, and that's why it works.
The title Black, White, and Gray: Love Kills resonates with the character’s statement about how hate is easy to sell. Is that the reason for the title?
Pushkar: Hate is much easier to sell and we see that everywhere in our content. It’s harder to create a comedy, romantic, or slice-of-life film. What the character says is spot on, though she’s more cynical than others. She is distant from the case, which is why she’s the one who’s philosophical about it, while the others are more focused and have their own agendas.
But would you say that this is a commentary on the country's current state of affairs?
Hemal: Not just for the country but for the world in general as well!
Pushkar: It definitely has a commentary on the current climate. The characters in the show all have their own perspectives, Sneha has one, Bobale has one, even Daniel Gray has one, in fact they all have agendas because when you look closely in their interviews that they are not very neutral players which is what Gray puts in the end that none of them were neutral and that is the reality that none of us are neutral whatever we might claim in our public life each one of us no one is neutral.
Both of you have a television background, and there’s a growing discourse that TV has creatively regressed. Do you agree with that viewpoint? How can we change that in the future?
Hemal: I wouldn’t say it’s regressed, but rather limited in making regressive content. We’re often restricted to producing content that’s regressive because many executives have worked under people who’ve created such content. For example, when you ask Pushkar about how the show resonates with the audience, it’s clear that a layered show is reaching beyond a certain audience. This shows that the audience is ready for more; they are ready to consume what we are giving them. The problem is, we limit ourselves to regressive content. The change will come when we decide to stop confining ourselves to that box, but the change is already happening because audiences are moving away from regressive content. Also, I’ve always believed that with TV, it’s not so much about what you’re telling, but how you’re telling it. There needs to be more freedom given to writers. That’s one of the reasons why we’ve lost many talented writers in television. Young people today don’t want to write for TV, despite it offering financial security.
Pushkar: I’ll also add that Black, White, and Gray turned out the way it did because we had complete freedom. I’ve told other creators about this, and their first reaction is, “How did you get to make this?” The show is unconventional, and it addresses a lot of things that otherwise might have been censored. The issue is that many people come with insecurities and prefer rebooting content into a certain mould. This has been happening for years.
What was it like producing this show? Do you think it bridges the gap between TV and streaming?
Hemal: Honestly, producing content like this has become easier when you trust the creators behind it. Once people know about the content and trust the people making it, they start to believe in the process. As a producer, I completely believe that people want fresh, new content with innovative storytelling. But it’s difficult to do so. There are times when too many people get involved and derail the vision. The goal was to keep it small and focused to allow for that creativity to shine through.
Given the ongoing discussions about the industry's creative slump, lack of work, and writers' lack of freedom, what would you want the industry to change going forward to help with storytelling?
Hemal: For me, it’s about not trusting just the past success, but rather the potential. People often make decisions based on past successes, but that’s a flawed approach. The industry needs to trust the potential of ideas and make an effort to understand the pitches, rather than just relying on what’s worked before.
Pushkar: For me, it’s about trust and freedom. I know I got it where I could make a show that calls out people's judgment, that we all tend to get carried away when it comes to such crime thrillers. But Directors and creators need to be given more freedom. I know that’s not very common, but it’s crucial for creativity.
Black, White and Gray- Love Kills is currently streaming on SonyLIV!
For more such stories, follow us on @socialketchupbinge