Actor, screenwriter, interior designer, anchor, film scholar, acting coach, social activist, and festival curator... Well, Raveendran has spent much of his life moving beyond the boundaries of cinema. Best known for his debut role in the 1980 hit ‘Oru Thalai Ragam’, the actor has built a reputation as a keen observer of society, student of philosophy and spirituality, and a promoter of film literacy through initiatives such as the Kochi Metro Malayalam Short Film Fest. In a wide-ranging interaction with TNIE, Raveendran spoke about cinema, youth culture, reading, spirituality, social change, and the lessons drawn from a life of constant experimentation.
Excerpts
Can you take us back to the beginning? How did ‘Oru Thalai Ragam’ happen?
While studying at the Adyar Film Institute, I was already familiar with many people in the film industry. P Bhanumathi, who owned Bharani Studios and Bharani Pictures, was one of our visiting professors and gave me my first break. Before that, I had done a small role in ‘Aval Appadithan’. Around that time, the ‘Oru Thalai Ragam’ project came to our institute. My teachers were handling the film and felt the character of Madhu suited me. After the shoot, all of us – the director, music composer, and actors were newcomers – waited anxiously for the release.
What was the response on its release?
Initially, nobody wanted to buy the film. Then someone came forward and it went on to create history. The film ran for a year and completed 100 days even in smaller centres. On the morning of the release, Shankar and I were extremely nervous.
By afternoon, we heard the film had clicked with audiences. That evening, when we watched it in a theatre, the reception was overwhelming. We were then taken on a tour across Tamil Nadu for more than a month. Everywhere we went, the response was huge.
How do you compare its success with today’s blockbusters?
The impact of ‘Oru Thalai Ragam’ was far bigger. People didn’t ask whether you had seen the film; they asked how many times you had watched it. I have met someone who had seen it 220 times. I can say the impact the film created was 100 times more than ‘Vaazha II’.
Why did the film connect so strongly with audiences?
Everything was fresh — the cast, the team, the music... It was a love story with a tragic ending, something audiences connected with deeply in that era. All six songs became hits and every character was noticed.
How did life change after the film?
Overnight, I became a star. They positioned me alongside Rajinikanth and Kamal Haasan. My dance, body language, and even the way I smoked or carried books became trends among college students. People would block roads with bicycles just to see me. Until then, I had moved around freely. Suddenly, everything changed.
How do you compare that phase with your popularity after ‘Vaazha II’?
In ‘Vaazha II’, Benny Bro appears only briefly, but people call it the “biopic of a billion bros”. Every friend circle has a Benny Bro. In the same way, every campus those days had someone they associated with my character in ‘Oru Thalai Ragam’. Students even started calling me “Thalaivar”.
What happened when you returned to Kerala?
Production managers were waiting for me. By noon, I had signed several films. I quoted remuneration without much thought because I didn’t know how the industry worked. I made many mistakes. I didn’t climb the ladder step by step. I was pushed straight to the top, and after that, there was only one direction to go, which is down (chuckles).
Were you already developing a serious interest in cinema then?
Yes. At the institute, I was exposed to international cinema through film festivals. Later, a film appreciation course in Pune shaped my understanding of cinema. Watching Kurosawa’s ‘Rashomon’ was a revelation. At the same time, I was acting in commercial films for major banners like AVM, Devar Films, and Sathya Jyothi. It was an entirely new world for me.
Who influenced your growth as a filmmaker and actor?
I stayed for a while with Ajayan, son of Thoppil Bhasi. Through him, I met people like John Abraham and Bharathan. Discussions on cinema were constant. When G Aravindan’s ‘Kanchana Sita’ was released in 1978, everyone was talking about it. Those conversations shaped me. I was exposed to both commercial cinema and serious filmmaking at the same time. Later, I worked with Soumendu Roy, Satyajit Ray’s cinematographer. I took a break from acting and assisted him because I wanted to learn more about cinema. During that period, I also worked on a project about Therukoothu, read extensively, and immersed myself in film studies.
Looking back, what did that phase teach you?
I believe everything has its time. By the late 1980s, a new wave of books and ideas had arrived. I started reading widely and exploring different ways of understanding life and cinema. That journey has continued ever since.
Did you miss cinema during the years you stayed away from it?
Why should I? After ‘Pappayude Swantham Appoos’, I became active in my family’s cement business. Someone once asked me what the connection was between cement and cinema. I said both begin with the letter ‘C’ (laughs). I wanted to give my full attention to the business and learn marketing, a field I knew nothing about. I was an actor, but I was also curious. That curiosity pushed me into business. I wanted to experience another side of life. My growth was horizontal rather than confined to one field.
Was business a conscious career shift?
Not really. The family business became a platform to explore my talents. We used traditional art forms and local cultural elements in marketing campaigns for brands like Tata and Birla. The campaigns worked well and taught me a lot about communication and creativity.
As an actor, are you satisfied with your career?
What attracted me to acting was performance. I never approached it as a serious craft in the way someone like Naseeruddin Shah did. I was drawn more to performers like MGR and Shatrughan Sinha. The one thing I pursued seriously was film studies. I spent countless hours learning about cinema. That knowledge helped me in many ways. We were among the first to start a visual-effects unit in India. It also led me to develop ideas such as visual literacy pedagogy.
Have you achieved your goal as a performer?
That’s for others to judge. What interests me is that Gen Alpha recognises me after ‘Vaazha II’. They connect with Benny Bro. That connection matters more than anything else.
What did return to cinema mean to you?
The comeback was not just about acting. Around the time, I launched the Kochi Metro Short Film Fest with Mohanlal as the chairman. I realised that fame could be used to build platforms and create opportunities. Now, I use the popularity of ‘Vaazha II’ to connect with Gen Z and Gen Alpha. That interaction is more important to me than screen time.
Why is connecting with younger generations important to you?
Because they listen. I believe one of Kerala’s biggest problems today is that we are trapped by preconceived ideas. Whenever I read something, I try to experiment with it in life. In the 1980s, a foreign traveller I met in Chennai gifted me ‘The Tao of Physics’. It encouraged me to look at the world differently. I also attended Buddhist meditation classes and read extensively on spirituality, mythology, history, and modern thought. Those influences helped me combine eastern and modern ideas. My journey has always been about exploration.
How do you view your success today?
Don’t measure my success through films alone. Understand how I lived. From ‘Idukki Gold’ to Benny Bro in ‘Vaazha II’, every phase has connected me with a different generation. It has been a marathon, not a sprint.
How are you using the success of ‘Vaazha II’?
For film studies. Recently, I suggested a student sports film festival to P T Usha. Cinema has enormous power to inspire social change. It isn’t merely entertainment. The first leaders who recognised cinema’s power used it to educate people. We often underestimate what films can do.
What is the relevance of film studies in the age of reels and social media?
Film studies are more important than ever. Kerala once had a strong film society culture. Filmmakers like Adoor Gopalakrishnan, Aravindan, Pavithran and K P Kumaran opened windows to world cinema. When I joined the film school, I knew only about MGR films. Exposure to world cinema transformed my thinking. That culture has weakened over the years. If we revive film studies, Kerala can become a gateway to future cinema, which will increasingly combine storytelling, technology, and artificial intelligence.
The government has announced new initiatives for cinema. What would you like to see?
I’m interested in the idea of the Orange Economy — the creative economy built around cinema, art, fashion, and culture. Kerala may never become a major industrial state, but it has enormous potential in the creative sectors. That is where our strength lies.
Have you discussed these ideas with the chief minister?
Not yet. He has told me that we can sit down and discuss such proposals after the budget. Kerala has tremendous potential. People often look only at my stardom, but my journey was never limited to that. Whenever I encounter a new subject, I immerse myself in it. That curiosity has shaped my life more than fame ever did.
Today, filmmakers often complain that good films don’t find an audience. Do you agree?
Not really. Today, there are many platforms. You can release a film in theatres, on YouTube, or online. A good film will find its audience. We are living in the information age. Opportunities are far greater than before.
What then should be the focus?
We should focus on helping filmmakers turn their work into an economic opportunity. That’s what I mean by the Orange Economy. Kerala has talented filmmakers. There is creativity and there is an audience. What they need is support and film education.
Why do you stress on film education so much?
Because talent alone is not enough. Take a camera assistant, for instance. Most of them dream of becoming cinematographers one day. But opportunities are limited and many get stuck doing routine work. Training and exposure can help them move forward.
You interact regularly with students. What do you see in them?
I have visited nearly 200 campuses. I see enormous talent among young people. They are eager to learn and experiment. We need to create pathways for them to grow.
You often speak about the diaspora. Why?
Because our diaspora is one of India’s strongest communities. We should connect our media and entertainment industry with them. Instead of losing talent and stories elsewhere, we should help people create content where they live and bring those stories to the world.
What kind of stories do you think deserve more attention?
Migration is one of the biggest stories of our time. It isn’t just an economic issue; it is also a cultural one. When people move from one country to another, they face questions of identity, belonging, and adaptation. Recently, a film on migration won recognition at Cannes. That shows how universal and relevant these stories are. Our diaspora has countless such stories waiting to be told.
What makes a film connect with audiences?
A film succeeds when it emotionally hooks viewers. Studios like Pixar understood this very well and built their storytelling around it. When I worked with AVM, I realised successful production houses often specialised in certain genres. Some focused on devotional films, understood the audience thoroughly, and knew exactly when to enter the market. That clarity helped them succeed consistently.
Is specialisation important in filmmaking?
Yes. Understanding your audience and your subject is important. Success is not accidental. The more deeply you understand a genre, the better your chances of making it work.
There’s a lot of debate about stardom and star salaries. Are stars still central to a film’s success?
The situation has changed completely. Look at ‘Manjummel Boys’. Who was the star there? I don’t think star salaries alone determine a film’s success or failure. Stars have their own market, but even a star-led film has to be good. If it isn’t, audiences will reject it.
Then, are stars overrated?
Not at all. If a story genuinely requires a star, cast one. But nobody is forcing filmmakers to do so. Many films without stars have succeeded, while several star vehicles have failed. Ultimately, audiences respond to good storytelling.
Has audience taste changed?
Absolutely. Viewers today are open to different forms of storytelling. They are willing to embrace new ideas and narratives. If you make a commercial entertainer, it will be judged by box office performance. If you make an arthouse film, it belongs to a different market with different expectations.
Can arthouse cinema and commercial success go together?
Sometimes. But if your primary focus is artistic expression, ideology, or experimentation, you shouldn’t expect the same returns as a mass entertainer. Every kind of cinema has its own audience and market.
You often speak about film literacy. Why is it important?
Better film literacy leads to better conversations about cinema. When people study films seriously, the questions they ask also change. I have spent a lot of time working on visual literacy. Cinema should be studied, not merely consumed.
Does criticism too needs to improve?
Definitely. We need stronger critics and more informed discussions. When the media, film scholars, and audiences engage with cinema at a deeper level, the industry grows. That’s how we create a healthier film culture and move to the next stage of cinematic development.
AMMA has witnessed several controversies and internal disputes in recent years. What’s your view on the issues within the organisation?
I don’t want to comment on matters I’m not directly involved in. Many of these issues concern individuals and groups within the organisation and it would be unfair for me to make judgments without knowing all the facts. AMMA is a large organisation with people from different generations and backgrounds. Differences of opinion are natural. I prefer not to take sides in such matters.
When you demanded a leadership change, was this the kind of response you expected?
No. My view was different. If Mohanlal and Mammootty are absent, it will hurt AMMA. Their stardom generated enormous revenue for the organisation. There are two aspects here: intellectual growth and economic growth. When Mohanlal and Mammootty were present, everyone had a sense of respect and discipline. People listened to one another. Today, no one is willing to listen to anyone else. I see these issues as the result of immaturity.
AMMA and other film bodies have expressed concern over drug abuse. How serious is the issue?
The concern is valid. The problem is not limited to cinema; it exists across society. In fact, I believe drug abuse is far more widespread outside the film industry than within it.
There are allegations that drug abuse is prevalent in the film industry...
I don’t know much about those circles because I haven’t interacted with them closely. From what I have seen, only a small section of people in cinema are involved.
Why do you think many actors stay away from drugs?
Today’s actors are very conscious about their health and careers. People like Mohanlal and Mammootty deserve respect for maintaining their discipline and energy over decades. They know where to draw the line. The younger generation is no different. Actors understand that substance abuse can destroy both their careers and personal lives.
So, is the perception about the industry exaggerated?
To an extent, yes. Look at actors such as Prithviraj, Asif Ali, or Kunchacko Boban. They are focused on fitness and professionalism. Most leading actors are careful about how they conduct themselves.
Have you been involved in anti-drugs campaigns?
Yes. In 2014, we organised a major anti-drugs bike rally with around 900 participants. Even then, we warned that drug abuse was becoming a serious threat.
