Malayalam cinema

Dileesh Pothan interview: ‘If Maheshinte Prathikaram had flopped, I would have quit filmmaking’

The Malayalam director talks about the making of his back-to-back hits ‘Maheshinte Prathikaram’ and ‘Thondimuthalum Driksakshiyum’.

Outside the venue of a Malayalam film festival in Bengaluru, a smoke break turned into a full-fledged discussion about scene constructions and plot denouement. Malayalam filmmaker Dileesh Pothan held fort, mostly fielding questions about his 2016 debut Maheshinte Prathikaram (Mahesh’s Revenge), which was screened at the festival. Each question ended with a request for a selfie, which Pothan shyly consented to before trying to back away from the crowd gathering around him.

As a director, Pothan is only two films old. His recent outing was the highly appreciated Thondimuthalum Driksakshiyum (The mainour and the eye-witness) and already, he has a growing fan base beyond Kerala. Pothan started out as an assistant director to Simon Kuruvilla during 9 KK Road (2010). Around the same time, he also assisted Aashiq Abu and featured in small roles in such films as Salt N Pepper (2011), 5 Sundarigal (2013), Idukki Gold (2013) and Gangster (2014).

After a long period of struggle, Pothan felt he was ready to be in charge of a project. His assessment was spot on, for Maheshinte Prathikaram was a huge success in 2016 and went on to win a National Film Award that year. Its success spurred Thondimuthalum Driksakshiyum. Both films can be seen as companion pieces, slice-of-life narratives set in small towns that revel in the bizarre, often hilarious happenstances of life.

“The night before Maheshinte Prathikaram’s release, my co-director asked me if I was tense,” Pothan told “I told him just one thing: this film has to run. If this film flops, then my film career is over. I’m the only person from my village who has chosen to become a filmmaker. And I’ve struggled to garner the confidence to make a film. If I fail, then I will become the example that all parents cite while trying to dissuade their children from becoming filmmakers.”

Thondimuthalum Dhriksakshiyum (2017).

Pothan’s father was a distributor’s agent from Kuruppanthara near Manjoor district in Kerala. Pothan would tour the small theatres of the state with his father as a boy. “Often, by the time we’d reach a particular theatre, half of the film would already be over,” Pothan said. “Then I’d stay back and wait for the next show to start and watch the parts I missed. I think, before I had the time to realise it, I was already in love with cinema.”

When Pothan told his parents he wanted to study filmmaking, they said that he should first get a degree in something more stable. So, he studied computer science in Mysore. “I had no interest in computer science but I studied it anyway,” he said. “After the course, I landed in Bengaluru and through a friend, got to work on a bunch of tele-films. This was in 2002. The work I did was quite amateur. But it marked my first tryst with visual media.”

The tele-serial stint in Bengaluru gave him the confidence to explore a future in films. He took a year’s break, got together with friends who were trying their luck in advertising, and embarked on a long period of struggle. “It was a time when I was trying to find myself and the filmmaker in me,” Pothan said. “I contacted filmmakers, worked on short films, television serials and music videos. Gradually, I got to work as an associate director. I must have worked on close to seven films during this phase. All seven were commercial flops.”

This set off another period of introspection for Pothan, who began to feel increasingly depressed about his work. “I felt I had changed as a person and become angrier,” he recalled. “I took another break, and pursued an MA in Theatre in Kalladi Sanskrit University. I was around 30. It was that stint with theatre and the university that changed me as a person. The space that the university offered – with theatre, fine arts, music and dance departments interacting with each other– was quite enriching.”

Back with renewed energy, Pothan tried his luck with filmmaking yet again. He almost kicked off a project with Fahadh Faasil, but he lacked confidence. Everything changed during the course of a night-long conversation a year later. “When I was shooting for Idukki Gold, Syam Puskaran, the writer of the film, and I got talking one night,” Pothan said. “He told me about Thampan Purushan, a man from Puskaran’s town, who was once hit during a brawl. Purushan took an oath that until he hit the guy who thrashed him, he would not wear slippers. But the poor man had to wait a number of years because his opponent had gone off to the Gulf to resume his job. I thought this was a story worth shooting as an exercise or a short film. A few hours into the night, we then got talking about other such characters and situations we knew – a photographer in my town, scenes I remembered from a funeral once, some of our love stories. By the end of the night, we had decided that we had to make a full-fledged film out of all of it.”

Maheshinte Prathikaram (2016).

It took Pothan two years after that night to finalise a proper script. He rented a house in Idukki and developed a final draft, threshing out all the tertiary characters and situations. Once it was ready, there was little doubt that Faasil would play the lead role.

“We needed a strong actor who could bring out the simple nuances of a character like Mahesh,” said Pothan. “At the same time, this actor had to be someone who would not overshadow the narrative itself. We needed someone who can lift the subtlest moments of the narrative but meld well into that universe too. Fahadh had also become a friend by then because I had known him through some of my other projects. I think one needs a certain rapport with one’s actor in order to communicate what one has in mind. I had that with Fahadh.”

In both Maheshinte Prathikaram and its successor Thondimuthalum Driksakshiyum, Pothan creates scenes that hold within them a unique balance. No actor dominates over another, and there is harmony even in the most chaotic moments.

“Whether it is a frame or a scene, there needs to be what I call a centre of attraction, an aspect that I want my audience to focus on in that scene,” Pothan explained. “As a director, my job is to ensure the attention goes to that right spot. And I cannot do this on my own of course. I need every department in filmmaking – right from the actors, the make-up, the set and the cinematography to work towards taking the viewer’s attention to that centre together. I discuss every scene with all the key technicians and get their opinions on how they view the scene. That’s how a film should be made. Everyone in the team should feel the film.”

The making of Thondimuthalum Dhriksaakshiyum.

In Thondimuthalum Driksakshiyum, a newly-wed couple tries to get a gold chain mortgaged to use the money to start a new life. Things go awry when a thief (Faasil) steals the chain and swallows it.

Does it bother Pothan that the two films have been called exceedingly similar to each other, especially in style? “I think now, after two films, I will be in a position to point out the flaws in my approach whether it is with style or the genre,” the filmmaker said. “It wasn’t a conscious decision to make these as companion films. When Sajeev Pazhoor told me the story for Thondimuthalum Driksakshiyum, I saw a film in my mind. I wanted to make that.”

His debut’s success made him realise that there was an audience for his narrative approach. “I decided to take advantage of that and reduce those elements that are considered commercial,” Pothan said. “I introduced more silences in the second film. It was a drier film. I didn’t try to make everyone laugh in every single scene. I reduced those entertainment value aspects that one is compelled to add. I realised that people are watching my films with a lot of concentration, noticing all the finer details.”

Pothan prefers talking about a scene with his actors rather than making them memorise the script or the dialogue. And he prefers shooting in the order in which the scenes are written. “Call it cheap thrills or whatever, but I try to keep the anticipation of the audience in mind while moving from one scene to another,” he said. “So, I insist that my crew also keeps alive their curiosity as if they are watching the film as they are shooting for it. That’s the only way to create fulfilling scenes, I feel.”

Does a director need expertise in all departments of filmmaking? “I have to be honest with you, I’m colour blind,” said Pothan. “When a song plays, I can’t even tap my feet to the beats correctly. All that a director needs is a vision.”

Dileesh Pothan. Picture credit: Archana Nathan.
Dileesh Pothan. Picture credit: Archana Nathan.
We welcome your comments at
Sponsored Content BY 

Behind the garb of wealth and success, white collar criminals are hiding in plain sight

Understanding the forces that motivate leaders to become fraudsters.

Most con artists are very easy to like; the ones that belong to the corporate society, even more so. The Jordan Belforts of the world are confident, sharp and can smooth-talk their way into convincing people to bend at their will. For years, Harshad Mehta, a practiced con-artist, employed all-of-the-above to earn the sobriquet “big bull” on Dalaal Street. In 1992, the stockbroker used the pump and dump technique, explained later, to falsely inflate the Sensex from 1,194 points to 4,467. It was only after the scam that journalist Sucheta Dalal, acting on a tip-off, broke the story exposing how he fraudulently dipped into the banking system to finance a boom that manipulated the stock market.


In her book ‘The confidence game’, Maria Konnikova observes that con artists are expert storytellers - “When a story is plausible, we often assume it’s true.” Harshad Mehta’s story was an endearing rags-to-riches tale in which an insurance agent turned stockbroker flourished based on his skill and knowledge of the market. For years, he gave hope to marketmen that they too could one day live in a 15,000 sq.ft. posh apartment with a swimming pool in upmarket Worli.

One such marketman was Ketan Parekh who took over Dalaal Street after the arrest of Harshad Mehta. Ketan Parekh kept a low profile and broke character only to celebrate milestones such as reaching Rs. 100 crore in net worth, for which he threw a lavish bash with a star-studded guest-list to show off his wealth and connections. Ketan Parekh, a trainee in Harshad Mehta’s company, used the same infamous pump-and-dump scheme to make his riches. In that, he first used false bank documents to buy high stakes in shares that would inflate the stock prices of certain companies. The rise in stock prices lured in other institutional investors, further increasing the price of the stock. Once the price was high, Ketan dumped these stocks making huge profits and causing the stock market to take a tumble since it was propped up on misleading share prices. Ketan Parekh was later implicated in the 2001 securities scam and is serving a 14-years SEBI ban. The tactics employed by Harshad Mehta and Ketan Parekh were similar, in that they found a loophole in the system and took advantage of it to accumulate an obscene amount of wealth.


Call it greed, addiction or smarts, the 1992 and 2001 Securities Scams, for the first time, revealed the magnitude of white collar crimes in India. To fill the gaps exposed through these scams, the Securities Laws Act 1995 widened SEBI’s jurisdiction and allowed it to regulate depositories, FIIs, venture capital funds and credit-rating agencies. SEBI further received greater autonomy to penalise capital market violations with a fine of Rs 10 lakhs.

Despite an empowered regulatory body, the next white-collar crime struck India’s capital market with a massive blow. In a confession letter, Ramalinga Raju, ex-chairman of Satyam Computers convicted of criminal conspiracy and financial fraud, disclosed that Satyam’s balance sheets were cooked up to show an excess of revenues amounting to Rs. 7,000 crore. This accounting fraud allowed the chairman to keep the share prices of the company high. The deception, once revealed to unsuspecting board members and shareholders, made the company’s stock prices crash, with the investors losing as much as Rs. 14,000 crores. The crash of India’s fourth largest software services company is often likened to the bankruptcy of Enron - both companies achieved dizzying heights but collapsed to the ground taking their shareholders with them. Ramalinga Raju wrote in his letter “it was like riding a tiger, not knowing how to get off without being eaten”, implying that even after the realisation of consequences of the crime, it was impossible for him to rectify it.

It is theorised that white-collar crimes like these are highly rationalised. The motivation for the crime can be linked to the strain theory developed by Robert K Merton who stated that society puts pressure on individuals to achieve socially accepted goals (the importance of money, social status etc.). Not having the means to achieve those goals leads individuals to commit crimes.

Take the case of the executive who spent nine years in McKinsey as managing director and thereafter on the corporate and non-profit boards of Goldman Sachs, Procter & Gamble, American Airlines, and Harvard Business School. Rajat Gupta was a figure of success. Furthermore, his commitment to philanthropy added an additional layer of credibility to his image. He created the American India Foundation which brought in millions of dollars in philanthropic contributions from NRIs to development programs across the country. Rajat Gupta’s descent started during the investigation on Raj Rajaratnam, a Sri-Lankan hedge fund manager accused of insider trading. Convicted for leaking confidential information about Warren Buffet’s sizeable investment plans for Goldman Sachs to Raj Rajaratnam, Rajat Gupta was found guilty of conspiracy and three counts of securities fraud. Safe to say, Mr. Gupta’s philanthropic work did not sway the jury.


The people discussed above have one thing in common - each one of them was well respected and celebrated for their industry prowess and social standing, but got sucked down a path of non-violent crime. The question remains - Why are individuals at successful positions willing to risk it all? The book Why They Do It: Inside the mind of the White-Collar Criminal based on a research by Eugene Soltes reveals a startling insight. Soltes spoke to fifty white collar criminals to understand their motivations behind the crimes. Like most of us, Soltes expected the workings of a calculated and greedy mind behind the crimes, something that could separate them from regular people. However, the results were surprisingly unnerving. According to the research, most of the executives who committed crimes made decisions the way we all do–on the basis of their intuitions and gut feelings. They often didn’t realise the consequences of their action and got caught in the flow of making more money.


The arena of white collar crimes is full of commanding players with large and complex personalities. Billions, starring Damien Lewis and Paul Giamatti, captures the undercurrents of Wall Street and delivers a high-octane ‘ruthless attorney vs wealthy kingpin’ drama. The show looks at the fine line between success and fraud in the stock market. Bobby Axelrod, the hedge fund kingpin, skilfully walks on this fine line like a tightrope walker, making it difficult for Chuck Rhoades, a US attorney, to build a case against him.

If financial drama is your thing, then block your weekend for Billions. You can catch it on Hotstar Premium, a platform that offers a wide collection of popular and Emmy-winning shows such as Game of Thrones, Modern Family and This Is Us, in addition to live sports coverage, and movies. To subscribe, click here.

This article was produced by the Scroll marketing team on behalf of Hotstar and not by the Scroll editorial team.