Nikhil Dwivedi recently reflected on his experience working in Mani Ratnam’s 2010 film Raavan, where he shared an unfiltered opinion on why the Abhishek Bachchan, Aishwarya Rai starrer failed to connect with audiences. From calling the narrative “bizarre” to questioning the need to reinterpret age-old mythology, the actor didn’t mince words.
Speaking to a leading publication, Nikhil admitted that the film didn’t help his career in any way. While acknowledging that there were viewers who appreciated it, he felt it was, overall, a poorly made film that left no real impact on him. The actor said, “”Aap unn kam logo mein se hai jinhe woh film pasand aayi. Mere hisaab se bahut kharab film bani thi. Mujhe aisa lagata hai. It’s good ki aapko achi lagi, but the film did nothing for me (You are one of those few people who liked that film. According to me, it was a very badly-made film. It’s good that you liked it, but the film did nothing for me),”
Clarifying that his criticism wasn’t as an actor but as a viewer, Nikhil said that while Raavan was visually breathtaking and among the most beautiful films he had seen, its storytelling fell flat. In his opinion, the narrative was confusing, the execution experimental, and the performances went underutilized. He clarified, “I didn’t mean as an actor, but as an audience, I think it was not a well-made film. It was a beautiful-looking film. Aesthetically, it was one of the finest films. But I think all the actors were wasted, and you just couldn’t understand what the film was all about. He further adds, “The storytelling was very faulty. It was a bizarre form of storytelling. Everybody thought that they would be able to… Maybe they were trying to experiment, but that clearly didn’t work.”
The film reimagined the epic, with Aishwarya Rai’s Ragini (inspired by Sita) forming a bond with Abhishek Bachchan’s Beera (modeled on Raavan), while Vikram’s Dev Pratap (based on Rama) treacherously kills Beera. Commenting on this creative twist, Nikhil said that although every filmmaker has the freedom to reinterpret classics, there’s often an unnecessary attempt to outsmart the original. He questioned why one would alter stories that have lasted for centuries, crafted by masters like Valmiki and Tulsidas, asking whether they truly need “improvement.”
Despite his blunt critique, Nikhil acknowledged Mani Ratnam’s vision and effort. He said it was clear the filmmaker poured immense hard work into the project, but like all experiments in art, sometimes it succeeds and sometimes it doesn’t.
