Flawed Romance of "96": A Critical Examination

 

I recently came across an interview where director Prem Kumar, in conversation with Baradwaj Rangan was asked about his hit film 96, Specifically about the possibility of the characters, Ram and Janu, getting physically intimate. Prem’s response was that while he had not written it that way, he does not feel it would have been wrong had that happened between them. This idea struck me as fundamentally problematic and led me to reconsider the narrative of 96, a film celebrated by many, yet one that normalizes harmful ideas.

The entire film revolves around the emotional connection between two characters, Ram and Janu, who meet years after their school days. However, Janu is married and her husband is very much a part of her life, even if he is not physically present. The movie portrays her emotional closeness with Ram as innocent and beautiful, but it completely overlooks the fact that she has a husband abroad.

This is not just a harmless exploration of lost love. It is the normalization of betrayal, wrapped in a glossy, nostalgic package, Pushing the idea that her past relationship holds more emotional weight than her present one. The idea that it is okay to reconnect and form a deep emotional bond with an old flame, without regard for current commitments is deeply troubling. Imagine the same scenario in real life, someone reconnecting with their past love and acting as if their current relationship does not matter. It would be seen as emotional cheating, not as a nostalgic, heartwarming story.

Janu is painted as a victim of circumstances, as if her emotional struggle with Ram and her past is something beyond her control. But this is far from the truth. Janu is a flawed character who, despite being in a committed marriage, willingly engages in actions overlooking her husband. The movie never addresses the repercussions of these actions, nor does it hold her accountable. Instead, the film brushes it off as part of a larger love story, romanticizing what is essentially betrayal.

The harmful ideas do not stop there. The character of Ram is another major issue. Ram, stuck in his past, is portrayed as a symbol of enduring love. But there is nothing noble about his inability to move on. In reality, this glorification of a person unable to let go of his teenage love feeds into toxic ideas about relationships. Ram’s character represents emotional stagnation and yet the film presents this as something admirable.

This film also simplifies the complexities of adult relationships. Marriage, in real life requires commitment, trust and communication. Yet, the movie almost encourages the idea that it is okay to seek emotional solace outside the marriage if it is with a former lover. That is not nostalgia, that is infidelity, plain and simple. And by presenting it as a heartwarming reunion, the film diminishes the value of trust in a marriage.

The portrayal of Janu’s husband as a distant figure furthers the problem. He exists only to be ignored, both by the script and the audience. It is as if his role as Janu’s spouse is a mere inconvenience to the romanticized narrative. His absence in the film does not erase the betrayal happening behind his back. "96" somehow gets away with it, because it plays on emotions rather than addressing the moral questions it raises.

The film subtly promotes emotional cheating, cloaking it in the allure of nostalgia. It raises serious questions about the filmmaker's perspective. Prem Kumar’s comments in the interview shed light on this mindset. His casual suggestion that physical intimacy between Ram and Janu would not have been wrong reveals a deeper issue, the film is built on the assumption that old, unresolved feelings are somehow more significant than the commitments people make in the present. It signals a disregard for the boundaries and respect that should exist in marriage. This reflects a romanticized, yet flawed, worldview that sees past relationships as eternally open doors, no matter the commitments made since then.

In conclusion, "96" is not a harmless love story. It is a film that, through its nostalgic lens, normalizes emotional cheating, glorifies clinging to the past and diminishes the value of present relationships. It is a narrative that subtly tells audiences that loyalty and trust in marriage are secondary to unresolved feelings from the past. Films have the power to shape perceptions and this film does so in a way that is far from healthy.