From Bollywood’s finest — Shah Rukh Khan, Aamir Khan — to South Indian legends like Kamal Haasan, cinematographer Ravi K. Chandran has framed some of Indian cinema’s most iconic moments. With a filmography that boasts visual landmarks like Dil Chahta Hai, Kannathil Muthamittal, Ghajini, and My Name Is Khan, Ravi’s work has defined how a generation sees cinema.

Just when we thought his legacy couldn’t get more illustrious, Ravi is back behind the lens for one of Indian cinema’s most anticipated collaborations — Kamal Haasan and Mani Ratnam reuniting 37 years after their cult classic Nayakan. Though Ravi is tight-lipped about the details of Thug Life, his enthusiasm is unmistakable. We managed to coax a few nuggets out of him — hints of scale, mood, and magic. Here’s what he shared.

You’ve created timeless work like Dil Chahta Hai and collaborated with Aamir Khan on three films. We heard he consulted you before Ghajini’s Hindi remake, and you were the first onboard. How has your relationship with Aamir been, and can we expect another collaboration?
Yeah, this was around the time I was shooting Fanaa. Pradeep Ram Singh Rawat was showing the film to him, and he said, “I’m going to watch it.” I told him, “Yeah, you should definitely watch it.” Later he came back and said, “They want me to act in it.” I asked, “Who’s directing it?” He said, “AR Murugadoss.” I said, “Oh, he’s good.” Then he asked me, “Should I do it? It’s an action film.” I told him, “It’s a different kind of film—you should go for it.” And then he said, “If you do it, I’ll do it. You come and shoot it.”

Aamir works very differently—he takes long gaps between films, and he spends a lot of time on each one. Even Taare Zameen Par took a while to make. So, he doesn’t just accept projects quickly. Now, if a director wants me to work on a film, sometimes they call me directly. And if a director calls, I’m usually happy to do it. But if an actor recommends a cinematographer, there’s a risk—it can feel like the director is being pressured. That’s why I’ve never taken up a film just because an actor recommended me. If the actor mentions my name and the director is genuinely on board, then I’d love to do it. Otherwise, I’d rather not take it up just on an actor’s suggestion.

In Kannathil Muthamittal’s climax, mise-en-scène—lighting, framing, and camera movement—heightens emotion. How much does the cinematographer shape this? Do they collaborate on blocking and mood, or mainly execute the director’s vision?”
When we shot that scene, it was actually in Chennai, but it had to look like we were shooting in Sri Lanka. We started filming, and the scene had a lot of character. We didn’t want to go wide—we needed to really focus on their faces. Mani Sir choreographed the entire scene himself. I had a great camera dolly operator and a solid focus puller, which was crucial because I was shooting on a telephoto lens. The timing had to be perfect. Like, when the kid calls, the camera has to move up and go over the shoulder—all within these very tight, compact frames. It shouldn’t feel jarring to the audience. It needed to feel smooth and effortless. That’s why the whole thing was choreographed so precisely by Mani sir.

It’s always interesting to shoot with Mani Ratnam sir because he constantly surprises me with his shot division. When I read a scene, I’ll imagine it one way. But when I get to the set and see how he’s composed it—how he positions the actors—it’s completely different from what I imagined. It always brings a fresh perspective to the film. That’s why, if you look at all his films, they stand out. Unlike most directors, he uses unique camera movements and actor choreography. His staging is always very interesting.

You’ve said Bhansali prefers controlled sets, while Mani Ratnam embraces nature’s unpredictability. After 20+ years of collaboration, how has your creative relationship evolved, and how was working with him this time?
He shoots a film with the same pace, same energy—nothing has changed. He doesn’t waste time on set. The moment you walk in, he’s ready with the shots. He knows exactly what’s next, and then the next. So, there’s hardly any time to just hang around or get into unnecessary conversations. You don’t get time to chill on set—you’re fully on the job. In the evening, though, he’s completely different—relaxed, happy, chatting with everyone. But on set, he’s all about the work. I’m the same way, so it’s easy for me to work with him. Age, health—none of that has made a difference. I worked with him way back in 1984 as an assistant when my brother was the cinematographer, and honestly, from then to now, nothing about his working style has changed.

Mani Ratnam sir once said that you don’t even need to move the camera—just keep a tight shot on Kamal Haasan, and that’s enough. This is your first film, framing Kamal Haasan sir. How would you describe him as a performer through the lens? Could you share any interesting moments or observations from the set?
I can’t really say much right now… it’s like trying to talk about Ilaiyaraaja’s music or A.R. Rahman’s music. What can you say? Everyone already knows he’s a great actor. I’d been waiting to work with him on a full film for a long time, and finally, that happened. But about this film specifically, I can’t speak just yet. When you shoot Kamal sir, there’s never a false note. He’s technically so precise—his eyes always find the light, no matter where it is. So, his emotions come through so clearly on camera. It’s honestly a joy to place the camera in front of him.

This marks your third collaboration with Mani Ratnam sir. Mani sir and Kamal sir are reuniting after their legendary collaboration in Nayakan. Back then, it was P.C. Sreeram behind the camera. Did you feel any pressure stepping into that legacy? What was your state of mind when you were brought on board?
It’s very difficult to replace or step into someone else’s style of working. However, here, the film is completely different from this one. The period, the mood, everything is different. So, I didn’t think too much about that. Same way, when I did Kannathil Muthamittal, I didn’t worry about how people might judge me or compare. If I start thinking like that, I can’t be free in my work. So honestly, I never thought about it—not until you asked me just now. This isn’t the same film. It’s not a remake; it’s not part two—it’s a completely fresh film. It has its own story, its own colour, its own time and feel. Everything about it is different.

Going by your filmography, you have worked in films that have mostly stood the test of time and eventually turned into classics. So, what goes through your head before signing a film?
I always try to work with different directors, for the most part. Except for Mani Sir, Rajiv Menon, and Sanjay Leela Bhansali, I don’t usually repeat working with the same director across many films. Like with Murugadoss, I did two films. With Shankar, just one. So, I make a conscious effort to work with different directors whenever I get the opportunity. For me, working with different people is a kind of learning. Every film becomes a new experience.

After capturing the moving images for more than three decades, what is that one genre that you want to work on?
I have very rarely done period films. In fact, I’ve hardly done them. But whenever I get the opportunity—like Black, I did that. Paheli too. There are many Indian films in that space. I really liked Padmaavat—the way it was shot was beautiful. Internationally, there are so many period films I admire. Schindler’s List, Saving Private Ryan, Gladiator—obviously. There are just so many great ones out there.

Artist co-ordinator: Barath NS.