Well, it's not like it's been already decided to have long takes for a particular scene. Some scenes may be best established in their real time and space. So that's what guides the approach. And it's not done as a device to save time, or do tricks with the camera or as an exercise in mis en scene. Many a time, there are several scenes I like that are done with short cut shots. So you see, the choice is decided by what the moment, the premise of the scene demands.

..... But what you say is quite opposed to this - that of real time and space.

You can't really simplify it so, Sunil. To create some particular meanings montage how it can be effectively used - Eisenstein has some viewpoints on this. That dramatization of a moment can be done even in a single shot. It is the truth deep inside the shot, divinity that the shot draws its strength from. And not necessarily an assistance from another shot. So it is the factors within the frame, the kinetics of its energy that makes it powerful.

Here how important is an actor's contribution? In the transformation that happens in this space?

Very much, in all my theater education works in cinema, TV - one important factor I value extremely is the contribution of an actor. Actor and co actors arrive at a truth, a reality in a moment. More than shock the audience with a telling I believe in conveying the inner truth, the inner energy of the moment.

So it is really the language of theatre that holds good in all situations?

Almost, theatricality is an attribute of any work of art. Take a painting for example; Shakuntala plucking a thorn from her foot; it is the drama of the moment that captivates the viewer. It sets off echoes within.

Is it the success of Uyirthezhunnelpu that encouraged you to give up theatre and migrate wholly to cinema?

Well, can't say that is the only thing. 'Cause when I was in Drama School even; my projects play too; many said it was more suited to the cinematic medium; with a realistic flavor that's found in cinema. So probably my basic instincts lie in the medium of cinema. Drama is just a means for achieving this.

If that's the case, what would be a school of Drama that has influenced you the most?

I don't know; in our experience; in Kerala's Drama history, aprt from our regional style of drama, a strong infunce of any other school is missing. Like for e.g. Realism, many types of stylization such as Theatre of the absurd or expressionistic theatre - none of these have clearly left a mark on our theatre. Many isolated instances are there; so I cannot say that a particular school has influenced me. But I have been drawn to many works in theatre, such as Anton Chekhov, American realists such as Tennessee Williams, Eugene O' Neil, Ibsen. These are my favorite writers. I guess that's an indication of my taste.

In theatre, we had a trend of Ibsenites once.

Well as an institution I don't think you'd find one. 'Cause to call our professional drama scene 'realistic' would be inappropriate. Not in any way. It's probably the inputs of N Krishna Pillai that have resulted in a 'sukhadita' drama style. That too however, hasn't quite become a school in itself.

Another notable thing I've observed is that even on coming to the visual medium, you've always attempted to draw strength from literature. What is the reason for such an influence?

I am not a storyteller; not capable of creating a story. So my attention is not towards making a story; as a film maker. My efforts are towards visualizing, giving cinematic form to a tale that I'd like for its sincerity, that I would want to tell. So finding a good story does a great job in this. Then I can concentrate on my work. So to get a strong base is essential to a film; as a premise. So we'd identify with works which touch us as real, make me feel a part of the moment - I feel it's a reflection of myself. To make a film out of this has been my effort so far. Sometime later, I might have a story written all by myself; but at the moment I'm not concentrating on that area.