The actress added, “I remember about 9 years ago, at a panel discussion, where I was in a debate with a fellow feminist colleague of mine, who advocated that the term ‘women-oriented’ is important. I said, yeah but eventually, I would like stories to be just human-oriented and not have gender attached to it. Currently, it is important to have that because of the dearth of it. It is not a common phenomenon to have women’s stories to be considered as human stories. For some reason, it is called chick flicks. Actually, as much as a woman relates to a man’s story, a man can relate to a woman’s story. At the end of the day, there is only so much that gender keeps us apart.”
Later in the conversation, Parvathy also recalled her early experiences in acting. She said, “So, in the 7-8 years of this job, I only got lover girl roles. It was either falling in love, falling out of love, chasing love, or waiting for love. I was tired of it. I was like, iss ladki ko kuch aur nahi karna? Usko career nahi banani hain ya kisiko maarna nahi hain. Like, why is the dramatic arc of the women either being chosen by a guy, being left by a guy, or yearning for a guy? Now I miss it, like I want romance back, but in the first 8 years, if I kept playing a girl in that specific place in the same way, wouldn’t it be I am doing the same thing in everything?”
“Then I had to lean into the individuality of that character, a lot more than what was in the script. When I did Panimalar in Maryan, it was like very self-affirming, self-assured, like ‘you go do your own thing, but I know you’re mine.’ But I was not like that in real life, and I had to embody a personality and body language like that,” she added.
Comparing her various characters from films like Poo, Charlie, and Ennu Ninte Moideen, Parvathy expressed how it wasn’t about how she looked or what her expressions were, but more about the authenticity and the “love ethics” she had to follow in her roles.