Bollywood Movie of the Week: Love Aaj Kal

Love Aaj Kal (2009)

(I think this means "Love Today Tomorrow?" Or "Love Today Yesterday?" or BOTH? "Kal" can mean either, depending on context . . . It is weird when one has learned enough Hindi from watching movies to be able to translate titles. And, to be able to eavesdrop on people at the farmers' market.)

Directed by: Imtiaz Ali

Starring: Saif Ali Khan (Jai), Deepika Padukone (Meera), Rishi Kapoor (Veer Singh)

Link to "Chor Bazari" promo (they no likee the embedding)

A dual love story -- most Bollywood films tend to give you two-for-one, and that's the twofer for this movie: one set in 1965-ish Delhi (Dilli?), one set in today-land (2009 London). It's a counterpoint between the undying flame of a provincial love at first sight, and the murky uncertainty of cosmopolitan dating and sleeping around. Jai and Meera must part to pursue their careers, with perhaps the most amicable breakup in film history -- but the cafe owner where they're hosting their breakup party shamelessly butts in with embarrassing questions and his own love story, and this new strange friendship kicks off the real plot that follows.

The beginning of the film is an interesting editing technique -- a whirlwind fast-forward through the first two years of a relationship, before we even get to the credits. Like the dual love story in the rest of the film, they don't hit you over the head with the convention, but let you figure out what's going on. As the characters might say: Practical. The past/present stories flow together without a lot of fanfare; it's pretty easy to figure out, so why should they make a big fuss for you? You're a smart person.

And the stories speak to each other nicely without a giant sappy parallel-story-fest. I mean, they're sort of parallel, but again, not so you'd be bludgeoned by it. AND, past-guy and future-guy are played by the same actor, BUT that's really hard to tell, and they do seem like two totally different people (to me, at least), so that's a nice touch as well. Subtle.

I was also struck by the colors in the film; overall the film is less sappy/sentimental than it is poignant, and that color palette just twists your heartstrings. The present is in vibrant bright colors, while the past is always tinged with that reddish sandstone color like that faded photo of your mom as a baby that always makes you want to cry. The casting is brilliant; Harleen (love interest in the past) is so adorably awkward, and all the people in the past with their "real-people" looks are just so earnest, especially as compared to the catty plastic Londoners. That group of young Veer and friends with their turbans and fitted 70s short-sleeve button-downs and high-waisted 70s pants, riding their bikes after the girl in the rickshaw . . . . Awwwwwwww! (Go casting, costumes, and art direction; nice job, guys!)

Not a film that was built around the songs; most of them are in voiceover, and the two dance numbers are a bit oddly thrown in (especially the party anthem du jour "Twist") -- but sometimes you just gotta have a "Broadway Melody" moment, right? The music is enjoyable throughout, whether shoehorned in or not.

And I have to say: what's up with all the San Francisco imagery on the marketing materials? Not to give anything away, but they didn't exactly spend a whole lotta time there. (It looks like they were filming REALLY near Union Square for virtually all the shots. How did I miss this filming process? I spent all of last year in Union Square, practically!)(And why is there a giant institute "Golden Gate Inc." that builds bridges if the Golden Gate is already BUILT? hwwwwhwwwAAAAA?)

Anyway. And I did enjoy the treatment of relationships; both extremes (undying love at first sight vs "good morning, what was your name again?") are seen by the characters as kind of silly in the light of day, and the relationships between the leads -- Jai, Meera, AND Veer Singh -- are fresh and teasing and honest; they are playful with each other and not overly precious. I'm always a fan of love interests poking each other on the arm. Some great banter, too: improvisors take note. Nice teasing each other, and some very funny emotional babbling.

The film glides along at a stately pace, with no *major* moments of urgency or surprise or hilarity -- but that creates an inexorable tug towards the dual resolution(s), that keeps you going "AwwWWWWWWWW!" throughout, which is my favorite sound to make an audience make, personally. And I'm a sucker for a pretty film. Did I mention how pretty it is? Ooof. All those shots of that train in the 60s train station, and Young-Veer riding the train. And Harleen on the balcony at night, brilliantly lit in the darkness. Awwwwwwww!

So: overall, good job, film. (Why is it that the people acting in English, especially the non-Indians, always act like zombies in these films? I'm talking to you, weird Frenchy Swiss girl.)

(Can you tell? I'm a film lover AND a heckler. It's possible for me to be having a great time watching a film, at the same time that I'm also picking on the costumes and pointing out continuity errors and hilarious extras. To notice is to enjoy, I say.)

Verdict: Adorable. This film makes you want to hug it. (awwwwww!)