Just a few months after Ram Gopal Varma’s Nishabd, Amitabh Bachchan is back on the screen romancing a younger woman in advertising executive R Balkrishnan’s debut film, Cheeni Kum. However, that’s where the resemblance ends, and if one were to make comparisons, Cheeni Kum is closer in spirit to Jogger’s Park (2003) than it is to Nishabd. Whereas Nishabd was a dark, brooding narrative about an older man obsessing about his daughter’s teenage friend, Cheeni Kum is a lighthearted romantic comedy about a May-December relationship that evolves through repartee and witticisms. The title promises a film sans mush, and for the most part manages to steer clear of the emotionalism that comes with the territory of a controversial subject like this. Therein lays its strength. Whenever it moves away from this path, it falters!
A film with great potential, Cheeni Kum reminds one of the lighthearted romantic comedies of the 1970s, made by Hrishikesh Mukherjee and Basu Chatterji. The plot is simple – 64 year old Buddhadev Gupta, the arrogant, sarcastic, sous-chef of London’s top Indian restaurant and 34 year old Nina Verma, a strong willed, open-minded, level-headed Indian tourist, meet, clash, fall in love and want to get married. The only obstacle is Nina’s father who refuses to accept a son-in-law older than himself. Per the requirements of this genre, a few plot contrivances later, the obstacles are eventually overcome and everyone lives happily ever after.

To carry on the central metaphor of the film -- food and cooking -- Balakrishnan adds a few extra ingredients to add some spice to this primarily frothy concoction -- Budhha’s 90-plus year old wisecracking mother who likes wrestling matches and TV shows like Sex and the City; Buddha’s employees acting as the chorus, commenting on, abetting and analyzing the progress of their short-tempered boss’s love affair. Balkrishnan also throws in a bit of the slapstick in the portrayal of Nina’s father as the retired Delhi-ite, obsessing with cricket and food, living in the lap of luxury, while lauding a Gandhian way of life. My guess is that the director hoped to draw in Paresh Rawal’s Hera Pheri fan base with this character, and going by the audience reaction, he apparently succeeds. He also keeps in mind a segment of the audience who may not approve of purely lightweight cinema, he also decides to throw in a sub-plot about a little girl with a terminal illness, inappropriately named ‘Sexy’, who is Buddha’s only friend and confidante. By making this child blithely speak in deadpan monotones about love and relationships and adult movies she wants to watch before she dies, the director hopes to keep in tune with the ironic tone of his narrative while tugging at the viewer’s heartstrings.
Balakrishnan has a dream cast and crew that help him bring his vision to celluloid reality. The ubiquitous Amitabh Bachchan delivers an energetic performance as the overpowering, egoistic, acerbic restaurateur, swinging between diffidence and arrogance, between self-doubt and confidence in his wooing of Nina. Tabu matches his performance with her natural grace, adding a veiled sensuality to Nina’s straight-shooting banter. It is Nina who aggressively drives the relationship. She plays a game of retreat and withdrawal, exposing the vulnerabilities beneath Buddha’s bluster and swagger and gives him a reason to enjoy life. Despite their age difference, Bachchan and Taboo have great chemistry and make the relationship not only believable, but something to root for.
As for the supporting cast, Paresh Rawal is okay as Nina’s father, but his character is primarily etched as a caricature, and his “satyagraha” against his daughter’s choice of life partner is too long drawn out and drags the film long after it should have ended. Child artist Swini Khara is very good as Sexy, the 9 year old leukemia patient. However, the best component of the film is the 94 year grande dame of Indian cinema -- Zohra Sehgal as Buddha’s mother. She lights up the screen with her presence, the caustic exchanges between mother and son are the highlights of the film, with Ms Sehgal often overshadowing her formidable co-star.

First time director Balkrishnan shows a keen flair for humor and irony. He sets the stage for a great comedy with crisp dialogue and creative situations, but unfortunately he doesn’t really know where to go with his story. He draws good performances, but the characters remain one-dimensional. His lead pair is not really given any history, so it’s a bit difficult to figure out what draws these two people from such disparate stages in life together in the first place and what is it that binds them in a long term relationship. The actors lend conviction to their portrayal, not the writing.
The cinematography is excellent as P.C. Sreeram's camera pans over and zooms into the streets and interiors of London and Delhi, bringing the essential character of both cities to life. Ilaiyaraaja's musical score, that comprises recreating his popular Tamil scores, is effective. The dialogue, to the most part, sparkles with wit. The main weakness lies in the editing. The length of the film really goes against it, and there is a lot of deliberate padding with redundant and repetitive sequences, especially in the second half of the film. The film would have been far more appealing had it done away with an hour’s footage. The melodramatic climax is particularly bad, with some serious hamming by Amitabh and Paresh Rawal. The tragic element regarding the little girl Sexy is also unwarranted and seems to be gratuitously added on to appease audiences who like the cathartic release of emotionalism and pathos. Maybe the director wants to make a profound statement that life is about give and take – to get something you really want, you have to lose something you value greatly! A sound message indeed, but doesn’t really fit into the schema of the totality of this particular film!

However, summing up, Cheeni Kum is a commendable effort by a new director, and is worth watching for several reasons, other than it is a Bachchan film! Like Jogger’s Park, this too is a ground-breaking film because it dares to take a taboo subject, rids itself of stereotypes and humanizes the story. The film essentially caters to an urban, elite audience, and may not have universal appeal. But its strengths are many. It is essentially a well-made, well enacted, entertaining, interesting film that is off the beaten track. Its strength lies in its use of humor and irony to shake people out of their preconceptions about relationships, maybe even taking them a few steps away from conventional value laden and prejudiced judgment calls and a few steps closer to tolerance and acceptance.