Back then, we toyed with the idea of making a telefilm. Not exactly a 'serial'; rather a film in many parts; this was at the time that my telefilm 'Uyirthezhunnelpu' was completed. And so I wrote a screenplay on Agnisakshi. But I felt something was amiss then - you see, the entire narrative of Agnisakshi is situated in a memory; it's the stuff of a flashback. And when you make it 'episodic', break it up into many parts - you lose the tautness that connects the past and the present. I realized this even as I wrote the script -that the story simply did not lend itself to an 'episodic' format.

Thus it came about that Agnisakshi had to be a full length end-to-end film - that alone would be a structure true to its narrative. At the time I delved deep into the subject, made enquiries, did some research too. I'd passed on the novel to AV Babu, Dr N B Prasad; they were both drawn to the storyline; attracted to its theme, its inherent strength. And so we decided to make film out of it.

I tend to think that it is essentially the strength, the divinity in Agnisakshi that held such appeal and resulted in the audience liking it.

On casting

Well, casting was always going to be difficult. You see, the narrative happens at two points of time, is set in two ages, two viewpoints really. It's a story of two families, set in different eras. The 'story within a story' begins with Thankam's childhood - Sreevidya plays the grown up Thankam, who's actually looking back in time. While on a pilgrimage to Hardwar, the old woman is thrown into a recollection - here's the movie's starting point, in terms of filmic narrative.

But then, beginning the movie-telling with a young girl, say fifteenish - carrying forth until she reaches old age; and then cut back to her past - this sequence did not seem to be a credible one. The persona the viewer encounters first in the cinema needs to be strong enough, well-etched so to speak, to lead the story. Else, we'd have a weak narrative, based on an ill-defined characterization.

And so we split it into two characters. Here's Shobhana leading the viewer through a sequence, in real-time, of her life. So we see her, first as a young woman, then a sanyasin, and eventually in graceful old age. There's a natural time progression, easier for the viewer to grasp.

When we split the character delineation, we have an emotional intensity that the character conveys, a reaching out to the viewer. Had, in the end, the old woman been played by another actress than Shobhana, the flow would've been upset.

So you see, there were such complex challenges when it came to casting. I found there's only one way out - it's a work of art, on an imaginary plane. We expected a 'willing suspension of disbelief' from the audience. And going by the response we've had I think it's been effective. Of course, looking at rationally, there's this issue of one character played by two women, two actresses - unlike all other characters in the film. This has been brought up by some; but at a purely emotional level, I think this has worked towards keeping the narrative unaffected.