Sreenivasan is a screenwriter without doubt. Priyadarshan described him as a friend akin to a guru. After hearing the story of Vellanakalude Naadu, Priyan asked Sreeni in exasperation how such a subject could be turned into a film. How could a dry, factual theme dealing with the legal tangles of the contract system be presented as an entertaining movie? Sreeni’s response was his natural, gentle smile. Since he did not have the habit of writing a full script in advance, he would write scene by scene and bring them to the location. Priyadarshan burst out laughing after reading the scenes. The actors laughed too. When the film reached theatres, audiences laughed in unison. Even after three decades, millions continue to laugh watching that film. Changing Malayali tastes have not become a barrier to enjoying Sreenivasan’s films because he was not addressing a particular period. His films were meant for all times.
The path to screenwriting
Sreenivasan made his debut as a screenwriter in 1984 with Priyadarshan’s Odaruthammava Aalariyam, completing four decades in writing. Though his name first appeared in the titles as “Screenplay, dialogues: Sreenivasan” then, he had worked years earlier behind the scenes as a creative contributor and ghostwriter on several films. His journey began with Mela, directed by KG George, where he collaborated on the screenplay based on a story by Sreedharan Champad. Many of Sreeni’s opinions during discussions with George and others were valued. Later, Sreeni himself acknowledged that it was during those days that he gained a clear understanding of the technical, aesthetic and structural aspects of screenwriting, and of how a story transforms into a screenplay.
Collaborating with KG George, regarded as the master craftsman of Malayalam screenwriting, proved beneficial. Sreeni went on to write several films without credit, often tempted by financial necessity. At the time, he had not even considered making screenwriting his profession. Acting was his passion. Despite physical limitations, an indomitable desire to succeed as an actor drove him forward. Early on, however, he received only minor roles, briefly appearing in films like Panchavadi Palam and Angadi.
The turning point came with his progress as a screenwriter. As Priyadarshan became busier as a director, juggling both writing and directing became difficult. Priyan, then based in Chennai, insisted that Sreeni move to Thiruvananthapuram and write his new film, offering him a good role in return. Left with no option, Sreeni picked up the pen. He later joked in his characteristic style:
“I was forcibly thrown into the cauldron of screenwriting by the monster called Priyadarshan.”
Towards Sathyan Anthikad
Odaruthammava Aalariyam was a success. Soon after, when Sibi Malayil planned Mutharamkunnu PO based on a story by Jagadish, Sreeni was again entrusted with the screenplay. Realising that he had to shoulder this responsibility to survive and grow as an actor, Sreeni returned to writing. With Mutharamkunnu PO becoming a hit, films began chasing him. He scripted several major hits of the time, including Boeing Boeing.
Yet this phase was not entirely his cup of tea. Writing slapstick comedies out of compulsion, Sreeni gradually discovered and proved himself. This transformation was facilitated by director Sathyan Anthikad. Sathyan, after watching Mutharamkunnu PO, felt he had found the writer he had been searching for. It was the coming together of two like-minded sensibilities, almost like a historic calling.
The Sathyan Anthikad–Sreenivasan partnership produced films such as Gandhinagar 2nd Street, Sanmanassullavarkku Samadhanam and Nadodikkattu. These were not mere comedies. They blended humour with human crises, vulnerabilities and social realities, retaining deep inner seriousness. With films like Varavelpu, Sandesam, Midhunam and Vellanakalude Naadu, humour became just an outer layer, while the films powerfully exposed social decay and systemic rot, earning wide acceptance.
The writer’s signature
Unlike earlier screenwriters rooted in theatre traditions or literary backgrounds, Sreenivasan’s screenplays had no trace of fantasy. They were pages torn from life itself. His characters never spoke in ornate language. They walked straight from everyday life onto the screen. He carefully marked the boundaries between literature and cinema, crafting dialogues and situations rooted in lived reality.
While this realism reached its fullest form in his collaborations with Sathyan Anthikad, it was equally evident in Priyadarshan’s Vellanakalude Naadu and Midhunam, Kamal’s Paavam Paavam Rajakumaran, and in Sreenivasan’s own directorial works.
Sreenivasan with Ranjikanth. File photo: Manorama archives
Truths wrapped in humour
Sreenivasan’s films combined humour and family relationships on the surface while probing deeply into human and social crises. He consciously sacrificed the actor within him to express certain realities. Though capable of winning awards as a serious actor, he often chose clownish roles in mainstream cinema, using caricature and exaggeration as tools to communicate truths effectively.
Beneath the humour lay sharp social critique. Corruption, trade unionism, unemployment, labour exploitation, bureaucracy, homelessness, and the gap between ideals and lived reality were recurring themes. Yet his films never resorted to slogan-like preaching. Instead, these issues were woven seamlessly into the narrative, allowing audiences to experience rather than be told.
The middle-class chronicler
Sreenivasan was the filmmaker who most powerfully and artistically portrayed middle-class life. His films captured the precarious existence of those balancing aspirations and limitations. Whether in Thalayana Manthram, Midhunam or Varavelpu, he explored the tension between dreams and practicality, emotional needs and economic realities.
Life in Sreenivasan’s cinema is never hopeless. Amid crises and contradictions, there is always a glimmer of hope grounded in realism. His films end not with fairy-tale resolutions but with believable optimism rooted in human resilience.
Cinema and politics
Sreenivasan’s political cinema differed from slogan-driven narratives. His films were character-centric, using personal and family struggles to reflect broader social and political realities. Politics dissolved into the narrative’s core, communicated clearly yet subtly.
His greatest strength as a screenwriter lay in saying less and suggesting more, using natural dialogue and visual storytelling rather than verbose exposition. Even minor characters were carefully etched, often representing entire sections of society.
A lasting legacy
Sreenivasan’s films are neither escapist fantasies nor dry intellectual exercises. Even while addressing serious issues, they remain engaging and accessible. His keen attention to detail, mastery of subtlety, and deep understanding of human contradictions elevated Malayalam cinema.
Most of his characters belonged to the middle class, rarely portraying extremes of wealth or poverty. Through them, he chronicled the anxieties, aspirations, failures and resilience of Kerala society. Decades later, his films remain living documents of twentieth-century Malayali social life, to be read and re-read by future generations.
