PART I: PRE-SCREENING CONTEXT & ADAPTATION
1. SOURCE MATERIAL ANALYSIS
Task:
Compare the fictionalized protagonists (Chandan and Shoaib) with the real-life subjects (Amrit Kumar and Mohammad Saiyub)
When I first watched Homebound (2025), I realized that Neeraj Ghaywan wasn’t just adapting a real story he was reimagining what “dignity” means for those who live on the margins of society. The film is inspired by Basharat Peer’s essay A Friendship, a Pandemic and a Death Beside the Highway, which told the true story of Amrit Kumar and Mohammad Saiyub, two migrant textile workers stranded during the COVID-19 lockdown. But in the film, they become Chandan and Shoaib not factory workers, but aspiring police constables.
This change may seem small, but it completely transforms the film’s message. In Peer’s reportage, the men’s suffering reflects the invisibility of the poor lives forgotten until tragedy strikes. But in Ghaywan’s version, Chandan and Shoaib are not just trying to survive; they are chasing institutional dignity. They believe that by wearing the police uniform, they can rise above caste and religion, and finally stand as equals in a system that has always excluded them.
However, as the film unfolds, their dream of joining the police becomes a cruel reminder of how meritocracy fails the marginalized. Competing with 2.5 million other candidates for just 3,500 positions, their ambition is swallowed by an indifferent system. The very institution they long to serve turns its back on them when the lockdown begins. Their journey home becomes a metaphor a heartbreaking reminder that home and dignity are privileges, not guarantees, in modern India.
By transforming Amrit and Saiyub into Chandan and Shoaib, Homebound shifts from a story of poverty to a story of hope betrayed by the system. Ghaywan doesn’t just show two men walking home; he shows how an entire nation’s promise of fairness collapses when the most loyal citizens are left behind on the roadside.
Discussion Point:
The film changes the protagonists' pre-lockdown employment from textile workers toaspiring police constables. How does this narrative shift alter the film's commentary on "ambition" and"institutional dignity" compared to the original reportage
Ambition and Institutional Dignity A Shift from Survival to Aspiration in Homebound (2025)
In Basharat Peer’s original reportage A Friendship, a Pandemic and a Death Beside the Highway, the two real-life men, Amrit Kumar and Mohammad Saiyub, are textile workers symbols of India’s invisible migrant labor force. Their story is about economic struggle and survival, exposing how the pandemic stripped millions of workers of livelihood and dignity. But in Homebound (2025), Neeraj Ghaywan makes a profound creative choice: he transforms them into aspiring police constables, young men chasing the dream of state employment and respect.
This narrative shift completely changes the emotional and political tone of the story. The film moves from the economics of poverty to the psychology of ambition. Chandan and Shoaib are not just fighting for food and shelter; they are fighting for recognition within the system that has historically excluded them. The police uniform, for them, represents more than a job it is a symbol of institutional dignity, a ticket to legitimacy in a world that doubts their worth because of their caste and religion.
Through this change, Ghaywan adds a layer of tragic irony. The young men dream of serving an institution that does not serve them back. The state, which they hope will give them identity and protection, ultimately abandons them during the lockdown. Their ambition pure and sincere crashes against the walls of systemic inequality. The “uniform” becomes both a dream and a metaphor for conditional citizenship: to be seen as worthy, they must wear the symbols of power they will never truly own.
In contrast, Basharat Peer’s essay highlighted social invisibility how the working class simply vanished from public concern during the pandemic. Ghaywan’s adaptation deepens that message by showing that even those who try to “belong” within institutions face rejection. The result is a film that doesn’t just ask, “Why are the poor forgotten?” but also, “Why must the marginalized prove their dignity through service to the same system that devalues them?”
Thus, the shift from textile workers to police aspirants turns Homebound into a meditation on ambition as vulnerability a dream that reveals, rather than redeems, the inequalities of Indian society.
2. PRODUCTION CONTEXT
Question:
The film lists Martin Scorsese as an Executive Producer. Analyze how his mentorship mighthave influenced the film's "realist" tone and editing, particularly regarding its reception by Western audiences (e.g., Cannes, TIFF) versus domestic Indian audiences
- Martin Scorsese’s Touch Realism and Global Reception in Homebound (2025)
One of the most fascinating aspects of Homebound (2025) is the presence of Martin Scorsese as the Executive Producer. Known for his deep humanism and mastery of realist storytelling, Scorsese’s mentorship gave director Neeraj Ghaywan both creative confidence and an international sensibility. Reports mention that Scorsese personally viewed multiple cuts of the film and guided Ghaywan in preserving its emotional truth rather than over-dramatizing the narrative for mass appeal.
This influence is visible in the film’s realist tone long, lingering shots, muted background score, and minimal dialogue that allow silence and body language to speak louder than words. Much like Scorsese’s own films, Homebound refuses cinematic exaggeration. Instead of manipulating emotion, it observes pain with restraint. The result is a film that feels honest, raw, and deeply human. The editing rhythm slow, deliberate, and almost meditative mirrors the characters’ exhaustion during their journey home.
Scorsese’s guidance also seems to have shaped Homebound’s global reception. At festivals like Cannes and TIFF, Western audiences praised its “truthful realism” and the director’s refusal to exoticize poverty. The film’s aesthetic simplicity and social honesty resonated with the global language of human rights and compassion values often celebrated in world cinema. For Western viewers, Homebound offered an authentic glimpse into India’s socio-economic fractures without relying on melodrama or spectacle.
However, its domestic reception was more complex. Indian audiences, accustomed to emotional highs and cinematic escapism, found the film’s quiet realism difficult to engage with. Despite critical acclaim, Homebound struggled commercially a reflection of how serious, issue-based cinema often finds greater appreciation abroad than at home.
Through Scorsese’s mentorship, Neeraj Ghaywan achieved a rare balance crafting a film that is both intimately Indian and universally human. The global recognition of Homebound stands as proof that realism, when rooted in truth, can transcend borders even if it unsettles its own society.
PART II: NARRATIVE STRUCTURE & THEMATIC STUDY
3. THE POLITICS OF THE "UNIFORM"
Analysis:
Analyze why Chandan and Shoaib view the police uniform as a tool for social mobility. Howdoes the film deconstruct the "fragile belief in fairness" within India’s meritocracy when 2.5 million applicants compete for 3,500 seats ?
- The Politics of the Uniform Merit, Mobility, and the Illusion of Fairness
In Homebound (2025), the police uniform is not just a career goal it is a symbol of dignity, belonging, and visibility. For Chandan and Shoaib, two young men from marginalized communities, the uniform represents an escape from inherited shame. Chandan, a Dalit, and Shoaib, a Muslim, live in a world where their names and identities constantly remind them of boundaries they didn’t create. By aspiring to join the police force, they are not merely seeking employment they are seeking social mobility through institutional validation.
The police uniform, in their eyes, is a transformative symbol. It offers the promise of neutral identity a chance to stand above caste and religion, to be seen as “officers” rather than “others.” The state uniform signifies power, protection, and legitimacy, qualities they are denied in their everyday lives. Their ambition is therefore not vanity; it is a form of resistance, an attempt to rewrite their social position within a system that has long excluded them.
However, Neeraj Ghaywan uses this very dream to expose the illusion of fairness within India’s so-called meritocracy. The film opens with the staggering statistic: 2.5 million applicants competing for just 3,500 police vacancies. This number alone deflates the romantic idea that “hard work equals success.” It reveals how the system is structurally tilted where opportunities are few, competition is crushing, and bias silently governs who rises and who remains unseen.
The film’s tone is quietly devastating. Scenes of exam preparation, bureaucratic hurdles, and whispered discrimination show that merit is never a level playing field. Even when Chandan decides to apply under the “General” category to escape caste stigma, it highlights how deep internalized oppression runs how the marginalized must constantly negotiate their identity to even appear “worthy” of equality.
By the time the pandemic hits, the irony becomes complete: the same institution they hoped to serve abandons them. The dream of the uniform collapses into a struggle for survival, proving that mobility without justice is an illusion. Ghaywan thus deconstructs the fragile myth of fairness by showing that, for many in India, ambition is not about rising higher it is about trying to be seen as human within a system that refuses to see them at all.
4. INTERSECTIONALITY: CASTE AND RELIGION
Task:
Identify specific scenes that depict "micro-aggressions" rather than overt violence
- Intersectionality: Caste and Religion Micro-aggressions in Homebound (2025)
Neeraj Ghaywan’s Homebound (2025) approaches the themes of caste and religion not through scenes of explicit violence but through subtle, everyday micro-aggressions that reflect the deeply internalized nature of social discrimination in India. By focusing on small yet significant interactions, the film exposes the quiet forms of cruelty that define caste and religious hierarchies in contemporary society. These moments of subdued hostility communicate how systemic oppression often manifests not through brutality but through gestures of indifference, avoidance, and shame.
Case A:
Chandan applying under the 'General' category instead of 'Reserved'. What does this reveal about the "shame" associated with caste identity?
In Case A, the moment where Chandan applies under the ‘General’ category instead of the ‘Reserved’ one is emblematic of the internalized stigma attached to caste identity. This choice, though administrative in nature, reflects his psychological struggle with the “shame of visibility” that accompanies Dalit identity in modern India. His reluctance to claim reservation privileges demonstrates a learned belief that caste acknowledgment equates to inferiority. Ghaywan’s restrained direction—marked by silence, hesitation, and close-up framing—captures the weight of this decision. It becomes a moment of self-erasure, where Chandan sacrifices the right to affirmative action in order to appear “equal” in a system that never truly grants equality. This act reveals how caste oppression persists not only through external discrimination but also through internalized self-denial, shaped by a history of humiliation and exclusion.
Case B:
The workplace scene where an employee refuses a water bottle from Shoaib. Analyze this interaction as a manifestation of "quiet cruelty" and religious othering.
Case B, the scene where a co-worker refuses to accept a water bottle from Shoaib, serves as a quiet but piercing instance of religious othering. There is no overt confrontation; instead, the act of refusal embodies a form of “quiet cruelty” that isolates the individual without open hostility. The gesture exposes how religious prejudice continues to regulate social behavior under the guise of civility. Ghaywan’s use of silence and unbroken camera focus turns an ordinary moment into a powerful statement about the persistence of communal bias. Shoaib’s muted reaction reflects both his habituation to such treatment and the exhaustion of constantly having to negotiate belonging in spaces that view him as perpetually suspect.
Through these understated scenes, Homebound dismantles the illusion that discrimination must be loud or violent to be real. The film reveals that systemic prejudice operates through invisibility, sustained by everyday gestures that go unquestioned. Ghaywan thus redefines the idea of social violence, suggesting that it often resides in what is unsaid in the silences, hesitations, and polite exclusions that quietly strip individuals of their dignity.
5. THE PANDEMIC AS NARRATIVE DEVICE
Critique:
Does the introduction of the COVID-19 lockdown feel like a "convenient twist" or an inevitable exposure of pre-existing "slow violence"? Discuss how the film uses the pandemic to transform the genrefrom a drama of ambition to a survival thriller.
The Pandemic as Narrative Device From Ambition to Survival
The introduction of the COVID-19 lockdown in Homebound (2025) marks a decisive tonal and thematic shift in the film, transforming it from a narrative of aspiration into one of despair and endurance. While some critics have argued that the pandemic functions as a “convenient twist,” Neeraj Ghaywan uses it instead as an inevitable exposure of pre-existing “slow violence” a violence embedded in India’s social and economic structures long before the global health crisis began. The pandemic does not create new injustices; it merely amplifies the systemic inequalities already shaping the protagonists’ lives.
In the first half, the film operates as a drama of ambition, following Chandan and Shoaib’s pursuit of dignity through institutional belonging. Their dream of becoming police constables embodies faith in meritocracy and the belief that personal effort can overcome structural barriers. The narrative is driven by quiet hope and discipline images of exam preparation, friendship, and the promise of social mobility. However, the onset of the lockdown dismantles this fragile optimism. As transportation halts and livelihoods collapse, the protagonists’ journey shifts from one of upward mobility to physical survival, exposing how ambition itself is a privilege contingent upon social stability.
The pandemic becomes a narrative catalyst that unveils the “slow violence” of caste, class, and religious inequality forms of oppression that accumulate gradually through neglect rather than through direct aggression. Stranded on highways, walking home in exhaustion, and facing bureaucratic indifference, Chandan and Shoaib experience abandonment not as a sudden tragedy but as the logical outcome of systemic apathy. The film’s aesthetic transformation from the structured interiors of exam halls to the desolate expanse of rural highways visually underscores this descent from order to chaos, from belonging to alienation.
Furthermore, Ghaywan’s restrained direction and the subdued sound design heighten the sense of stillness and futility that defines the pandemic experience. The silence of the roads mirrors the moral silence of the nation that watches yet does not intervene. This shift from the language of ambition to the grammar of survival reveals that the pandemic, in Homebound, is not a narrative interruption but a truth-telling moment a mirror reflecting what has always existed beneath the illusion of progress and meritocracy.
Ultimately, the COVID-19 lockdown in Homebound functions as both a plot device and a metaphor. It collapses the characters’ dreams into the stark reality of exclusion, demonstrating that survival, for the marginalized, is itself an act of resistance. The film’s transformation from a drama of hope to a survival thriller captures the essence of Ghaywan’s critique: that dignity in modern India is not lost in a moment of crisis it is denied every day, slowly, silently, and systemically.
PART III: CHARACTER & PERFORMANCE ANALYSIS
6. SOMATIC PERFORMANCE (BODY LANGUAGE)
Observation:
Reviewers have noted that actor Vishal Jethwa (Chandan) physically "shrinks" during interactions with authority figures. Analyze how Jethwa uses physicality to portray the internalized trauma of the Dalit experience, particularly in the scene where he is asked his full name
Somatic Performance (Body Language) Embodying the Dalit Experience
Actor Vishal Jethwa’s portrayal of Chandan in Homebound (2025) is a masterclass in somatic performance, where the body becomes the site of emotional, psychological, and social expression. Rather than relying on verbal cues, Jethwa communicates Chandan’s internalized trauma through physical restraint, posture, and gesture, crafting a performance that reflects the deep scars of caste-based oppression.
1. Physical Shrinking as Psychological Submission
Reviewers have noted how Jethwa physically “shrinks” in the presence of authority figures a recurring visual motif that symbolizes Chandan’s learned behavior of deference. His slightly bent shoulders, lowered gaze, and hesitant movements reveal a lifetime of conditioning to appear non-threatening and submissive. This bodily contraction signifies the internalization of caste hierarchy, where social inferiority manifests as physical withdrawal. In scenes involving police officers or exam supervisors, his discomfort is palpable: even before he is spoken to, his body anticipates rejection.
2. The Scene of the “Full Name” — Identity and Exposure
One of the most powerful moments occurs when Chandan is asked to state his full name. What might seem like a routine administrative question becomes a moment of existential crisis. Jethwa’s body tightens; his voice falters; his eyes briefly avoid contact. This hesitation encapsulates the fear of being recognized as Dalit, of having one’s social identity weaponized against one’s dignity. The pause before he answers is not silence but a performance of anxiety a physical echo of historical trauma. Through this single moment, Jethwa transforms an ordinary act of self-identification into a commentary on the violence of visibility.
3. Gesture and Stillness as Emotional Vocabulary
Jethwa’s performance relies heavily on micro-movements rather than overt emotional display. His restrained body language the quiet folding of hands, the inward collapse of posture, the avoidance of eye contact reflects an internal struggle between desire and denial. Even in moments of companionship with Shoaib, Chandan’s gestures remain measured, as if the body itself has forgotten how to occupy space freely. This physical reserve communicates the psychic toll of generational marginalization, turning stillness into a powerful narrative tool.
4. The Politics of the Body
Ghaywan’s direction emphasizes the politics of Chandan’s body how it becomes a living text of caste experience. Each act of shrinking, pausing, or self-effacement visually narrates the story of systemic subjugation. The camera’s close framing enhances this reading: Chandan is often shot from above or within confined spaces, visually reinforcing his social compression. His physicality thus becomes both an index of oppression and a medium of resistance, as the audience becomes aware of how deeply social trauma has been inscribed upon the body.
5. From Internalized Fear to Tragic Realization
As the film progresses, Chandan’s body reflects a gradual erosion of hope. The initial tension of ambition gives way to physical exhaustion, symbolizing his transformation from an individual striving for recognition to one struggling for survival. His shrinking frame, by the film’s end, becomes a metaphor for the erasure of dignity under systemic apathy. Through this somatic evolution, Jethwa not only humanizes Chandan but also universalizes the Dalit condition a body trained to endure humiliation silently.
Vishal Jethwa’s somatic performance transcends dialogue to reveal the embodied trauma of caste identity. His controlled physicality, marked by subtle shrinking and hesitations, communicates the unspoken weight of social exclusion. The scene where he is asked his full name stands as a microcosm of the Dalit experience the body negotiating between fear and self-assertion, presence and erasure. Ghaywan and Jethwa together demonstrate that in Homebound (2025), the struggle for dignity is not only intellectual or emotional it is profoundly bodily.
7. THE "OTHERED" CITIZEN
Observation:
Analyze Ishaan Khatter’s (Shoaib) portrayal of "simmering angst." How does his characterarc from rejecting a job in Dubai to seeking a government position in India reflect the complex relationship between minority communities and the concept of "home"?
- The “Othered” Citizen - Shoaib’s Search for Belonging and the Politics of Home
Ishaan Khatter’s portrayal of Shoaib in Homebound (2025) embodies the quiet turmoil of a man caught between aspiration and alienation, between his love for the homeland and the realization that the nation does not fully accept him. Through Shoaib, Neeraj Ghaywan examines the condition of the “othered” citizen one whose identity is always under suspicion, whose loyalty must constantly be proven. Khatter’s performance captures this tension through restrained emotion and a simmering undercurrent of anxiety that speaks to the broader experience of India’s minority communities.
1. Simmering Angst and Emotional Containment
Khatter’s portrayal of Shoaib is defined by “simmering angst” an emotion that never erupts into open anger but lingers beneath his calm surface. His stillness, measured tone, and thoughtful silences suggest a man who has learned to contain frustration in order to survive. Ghaywan directs Khatter to underplay his emotions, allowing the audience to sense the depth of unease that comes from being perpetually mistrusted. This subdued energy creates a haunting realism: Shoaib’s politeness is not submission but a form of self-defense in a society that reads assertion by minorities as aggression.
2. From Global Opportunity to Local Aspiration
The arc of Shoaib’s character rejecting a job in Dubai to seek a government position in India and is both deeply personal and politically symbolic. His decision represents a conscious choice to belong within the nation rather than escape it. The police exam symbolizes his faith in India’s institutions, his desire to serve and protect the country that is his home. Yet this patriotic aspiration is undercut by the cruel irony that the very system he wishes to join views him with suspicion. Through this, Ghaywan exposes the paradox of minority belonging: to love one’s nation while knowing the nation’s love is conditional.
3. The Fragility of “Home” for the Minority Citizen
Shoaib’s journey redefines the meaning of “home.” For him, home is not merely a physical space but an emotional and moral claim to acceptance. His refusal to leave for Dubai often seen as an escape route for disenfranchised youth becomes a moral statement: a declaration that his identity as an Indian Muslim deserves acknowledgment without compromise. However, as the film progresses and the state abandons him during the lockdown, Shoaib realizes that home, too, can become a site of exclusion. The homeland that once promised security now mirrors his alienation. Ghaywan thus presents “home” as an unsettled metaphor both a place of belonging and of rejection.
4. Performance as Political Expression
Khatter’s performance communicates this conflict through body language and gaze. His eyes often linger on official symbols flags, uniforms, or checkpoints with a mix of longing and quiet resentment. His calm posture masks a storm of uncertainty, reflecting how marginalized citizens must constantly negotiate visibility. The restrained physicality of his performance underscores that minority existence in India is performative a constant act of appearing loyal, careful, and grateful in order to be accepted.
5. The Politics of Hope and Disillusionment
By the end of the film, Shoaib’s faith in the system collapses, but not his humanity. His “simmering angst” evolves into a kind of tragic clarity the understanding that belonging cannot be earned through obedience or institutional validation. His journey from an aspirant constable to a stranded migrant symbolizes the failure of the social contract: the state that promises equality denies it in practice. Shoaib’s disillusionment thus becomes a microcosm of the broader crisis of citizenship in modern India, where home is both sacred and uncertain for those marked as different.
In conclusion, Ishaan Khatter’s portrayal of Shoaib captures the paradox of the “othered” citizen the longing to belong within a nation that continually distances itself from him. Through restrained expression and emotional control, Khatter conveys a deeply internalized pain that mirrors the lived reality of many marginalized individuals. His arc from rejecting foreign opportunity to seeking dignity within a flawed homeland transforms Homebound (2025) into a profound reflection on identity, belonging, and the fragile promise of home.
8. GENDERED PERSPECTIVES
Critique:
Evaluate the role of Sudha Bharti (Janhvi Kapoor). Some critics argue she is a "narrative device" rather than a fully lived person. Do you agree, or does she represent a necessary counterpoint of educational empowerment and privilege?
- Gendered Perspectives — Sudha Bharti’s Role
In Homebound (2025), Sudha Bharti (Janhvi Kapoor) functions as both a narrative counterpoint and a subtle commentary on privilege. Some critics argue she is a “narrative device,” included mainly to support the male protagonists’ journeys. While it is true that her personal arc is less developed than Chandan’s or Shoaib’s, her role is meaningful in highlighting the contrast between empowerment through education and the structural limitations faced by marginalized communities.
Sudha represents educational privilege and social mobility. Unlike Chandan and Shoaib, she can navigate institutions with confidence and security, illustrating how access to education and resources can shield individuals from systemic hardships. At the same time, her interactions with the protagonists reveal her awareness of inequality she recognizes their struggles but remains somewhat removed from their lived realities. This tension underscores how privilege provides both opportunity and distance from the marginalized, making her character a lens through which the audience can reflect on inequality.
Through Sudha, Ghaywan emphasizes that dignity and empowerment are unevenly distributed across caste, class, and gender. She is a reminder that some citizens navigate the same society with relative ease, while others must struggle for basic recognition. In this way, Sudha Bharti is more than a narrative accessory; she embodies the intersection of gender, education, and social privilege, broadening the film’s social critique beyond caste and religion.
PART IV: CINEMATIC LANGUAGE
9. VISUAL AESTHETICS
• Task:
Cinematographer Pratik Shah uses a "warm, grey, and dusty" palette. Analyze the framing choices during the highway migration sequences. How do close-ups of "feet, dirt, and sweat" contribute to an"aesthetic of exhaustion"?
Cinematographer Pratik Shah deliberately employs a “warm, grey, and dusty” palette to visually communicate the physical and emotional toll of the migration sequences. The muted earthy tones evoke both heat and fatigue, emphasizing the harsh environmental conditions the protagonists face while traversing highways on foot. This choice avoids cinematic glossiness, grounding the film in realism and highlighting the endurance required for survival.
Framing and the Embodied Struggle
The framing during the highway migration sequences is notably close to the ground. Shah frequently focuses on feet, dirt, and sweat, using tight shots to fragment the human body and foreground the physical labor involved in walking long distances. This selective focus constructs what critics call an “aesthetic of exhaustion”—a visual language that makes the audience viscerally aware of the protagonists’ fatigue. By omitting wide shots of heroic landscapes or panoramic vistas, the camera confines viewers to the embodied struggle, reflecting both the literal and metaphorical weight of their journey.
Symbolism of Dirt and Sweat
Close-ups of feet dragging along dust-laden roads or hands brushing against dirt also serve a symbolic function. The granular texture of dirt and sweat underscores the social marginalization of Chandan and Shoaib; it literalizes their status as expendable, invisible laborers in the eyes of society. In essence, Shah’s framing choices transform exhaustion into a visual motif that communicates both bodily suffering and systemic neglect, reinforcing the film’s broader critique of social inequities during the pandemic.
The sound design in Homebound, managed by Naren Chandavarkar and Benedict Taylor, employs a minimalist and restrained approach that significantly diverges from the conventions of traditional Bollywood melodramas. Instead of using an orchestral or emotionally manipulative score to cue audience reactions, the film often relies on silence or ambient diegetic sounds—such as the rumble of buses, footsteps on highways, or the murmur of distressed crowds to convey tension, despair, and exhaustion.
This choice serves several narrative and thematic purposes:
1.Amplifying realism: By avoiding a conventional, melodramatic score, the filmmakers anchor the audience in the raw, unembellished experience of the protagonists’ journey. For instance, during the migrant walk sequences, the near absence of music emphasizes the physical strain and emotional weight of their migration, forcing the viewer to confront the starkness of systemic neglect and social apathy.
2.Allowing silence to speak: Strategic moments of silence operate as emotional punctuation. In scenes depicting humiliation or exclusion—such as Chandan being asked his full name, or Shoaib’s micro-aggressions at work—the absence of music underscores the internalized trauma of marginalized individuals. The silence becomes a canvas for the audience to inhabit the characters’ vulnerability, making the tragedy feel personal and intimate rather than performative.
3. Minimalist score versus melodrama: Traditional Bollywood melodramas often employ sweeping orchestral arrangements to signal grief, joy, or triumph, guiding audience emotion in a prescriptive manner. In contrast, Homebound’s soundscape respects audience intelligence, letting ambient noise, pacing, and diegetic sounds dictate emotional rhythm. This restraint aligns with the film’s realist aesthetic, emphasizing systemic issues over individual melodrama and highlighting the dignity—or lack thereof—experienced by the characters in everyday interactions.
In essence, the soundscape of Homebound functions as a silent narrator, heightening tension and tragedy through absence rather than embellishment. This minimalist approach not only differentiates it from traditional melodramatic cinema but also reinforces the film’s social realism, rendering the protagonists’ struggles more tangible, visceral, and ethically resonant.
PART V: CRITICAL DISCOURSE & ETHICS (POST -SCREENING SEMINAR)
11. THE CENSORSHIP DEBATE
Discussion:
How do these specific cuts reflect the state's anxiety regarding films that highlight social fissures? Discuss Ishaan Khatter’s statement on "double standards" for social films
The selective cuts imposed on Homebound (2025) underscore the state’s persistent anxiety about cinema that exposes social tensions. The censorship board appears particularly sensitive to sequences that critique entrenched hierarchies, depict marginalized communities’ struggles, or expose corruption and moral decay within ostensibly respectable institutions. These cuts reflect a desire to maintain a sanitized public narrative, limiting the audience’s exposure to uncomfortable realities that might provoke debate or dissent.
These selective suppressions not only dilute the filmmaker’s intended message but also reveal an underlying fear of cinema’s capacity to stimulate critical consciousness. By curating which social fissures are deemed “acceptable” for public viewing, the state effectively mediates the discourse on social ethics, constraining it to palatable narratives.
Ishaan Khatter’s commentary on “double standards” further illuminates this tension. He points out that films portraying mainstream or escapist narratives often escape scrutiny, while socially critical films face disproportionate censorship. This discrepancy highlights the paradox of artistic freedom in a regulated environment: the more a film interrogates prevailing societal norms, the more likely it is to encounter institutional resistance. Khatter’s observation stresses that censorship is rarely neutral—it selectively targets works that could challenge dominant ideologies or provoke uncomfortable questions about social equity, morality, and governance.
Ultimately, the censorship debate surrounding Homebound underscores a broader ethical question in film culture: should cinema merely entertain, or should it serve as a mirror to society, even when that reflection is unsettling? The tension between creative expression and regulatory oversight invites a critical reflection on the ethics of control, public sensibility, and the responsibility of art in shaping social discourse.
12. THE ETHICS OF "TRUE STORY" ADAPTATIONS
• Debate:
Author Puja Changoiwala has sued for plagiarism, while the family of the real Amrit Kumar claims they were unaware of the film's release
The Ethics of “True Story” Adaptations
Ethical Challenges in True-Story Adaptations
The release of Homebound (2025) has sparked a significant debate regarding the ethical responsibilities of filmmakers when adapting real-life events. Debate: Author Puja Changoiwala has sued for plagiarism, while the family of the real Amrit Kumar claims they were unaware of the film’s release. These dual controversies highlight the tension between creative freedom, intellectual property, and personal consent in cinematic adaptations.
Intellectual Property and Plagiarism
Changoiwala’s plagiarism claim highlights the issue of intellectual property in cinematic adaptations. Authors invest considerable research, interpretation, and narrative construction in their work. Unauthorized use of such material undermines the principles of creative ownership and professional integrity. If the film borrowed her structure, characterization, or insights without proper acknowledgement, it constitutes not merely a legal violation but an ethical transgression, challenging accepted standards in literary and filmic adaptation.
Ethical Responsibilities of Filmmakers
Between the claims of plagiarism and the family’s objections lies a core set of ethical responsibilities that should guide true-story adaptations. Filmmakers must navigate the delicate balance between artistic license and moral responsibility, ensuring that creative freedom does not come at the expense of accuracy, respect, or human dignity. This involves acknowledging sources, exercising transparency about dramatized elements, and actively considering the impact of the narrative on both the individuals portrayed and the wider audience. Ethical filmmaking in such contexts demands foresight, sensitivity, and a commitment to truthfulness—even when dramatization is necessary for cinematic storytelling.
Consent and Privacy Concerns
Concurrently, the family of Amrit Kumar raises concerns of consent and privacy. Ethical filmmaking requires sensitivity when portraying real individuals, particularly private citizens, whose lives are depicted on screen. By proceeding without informing or obtaining consent from the family, the filmmakers risk emotional distress and potential reputational harm. Even when the law permits dramatization of real events, moral responsibility dictates that filmmakers exercise care and transparency, especially when the subjects are living persons or their immediate relatives.
Balancing Accuracy and Dramatization
This case exemplifies the inherent tension between artistic license and factual fidelity. While dramatization and selective narrative construction are standard cinematic techniques, the ethical stakes heighten when such creative liberties affect real people. The filmmaker’s autonomy must be balanced against obligations to respect the integrity, privacy, and dignity of those represented.
Conclusion: Ethical Imperatives in True-Story Cinema
The Homebound controversy demonstrates that “true story” adaptations demand rigorous ethical scrutiny. Filmmakers have a tripartite responsibility: to the individuals depicted, to the authors and researchers whose work informs the narrative, and to the audience, which expects a representation grounded in truth. Ethical practices such as informed consent, attribution, and transparent communication are essential not only for legal compliance but also for maintaining public trust and preserving the moral credibility of cinema as a medium for narrating real-life experiences.
Prompt:
Discuss the ethical responsibilities of filmmakers when adapting stories of the marginalized.
Does "raising awareness" justify the alleged exclusion of the original subjects/creators?
Ethical Responsibilities of Filmmakers When Adapting Stories of the Marginalized
When filmmakers adapt stories of marginalized communities, they inherit a dual responsibility: to accurately represent the lived experiences of these individuals and to respect their rights as storytellers, contributors, or subjects. Marginalized communities are often underrepresented in mainstream media, which makes any cinematic depiction not only influential but also ethically sensitive. Ethical adaptation requires informed consent, sensitivity to context, and attribution to those whose experiences inform the narrative.
The defense of “raising awareness” is frequently invoked in such adaptations. Filmmakers argue that dramatization or selective storytelling is necessary to reach wider audiences and highlight systemic injustices. While raising awareness is a legitimate goal, it cannot ethically justify the exclusion of original subjects or creators. Bypassing consent or failing to credit those whose lives or research form the foundation of the story risks exploitation, misrepresentation, and emotional harm. Awareness achieved at the cost of silencing or marginalizing the very individuals being represented undermines the moral credibility of the film.
Moreover, ethical filmmaking entails acknowledging the power dynamics inherent in storytelling. Marginalized communities may lack access to platforms to tell their own stories, making them vulnerable to appropriation by more powerful creators. Filmmakers must recognize this imbalance and adopt practices such as co-creation, consultation, or participatory storytelling to ensure that the narrative does not become another instance of erasure.
In conclusion, while raising awareness about social injustices is a worthy cinematic goal, it cannot override ethical obligations to the subjects and creators of the story. Responsible adaptation requires respect, inclusion, and transparency, balancing artistic expression with moral accountability. True ethical practice in storytelling is not only about showing marginalized experiences but ensuring that those experiences are represented with their voice and consent intact.
13. COMMERCIAL VIABILITY VS. ART
Context:
Producer Karan Johar stated he might not make "unprofitable" films like Homebound again, despite its Oscar shortlisting
13. Commercial Viability vs. Art
The Tension Between Art and Profit
The case of Homebound (2025) highlights the persistent tension between artistic ambition and commercial imperatives in contemporary cinema. Despite the film’s critical acclaim and its shortlisting for the Oscars, producer Karan Johar remarked that he might not pursue similar projects in the future because they were “unprofitable.” This statement underscores the economic realities that often constrain filmmakers, even when their work achieves artistic recognition or social significance.
Impact of Commercial Pressures on Creative Decisions
Commercial viability frequently dictates creative decisions, from casting and genre selection to narrative structure and thematic focus. In the context of Homebound, the film’s challenging subject matter—highlighting social fissures, marginalized experiences, and uncomfortable truths may have limited its mainstream audience appeal, reducing box-office returns despite its critical success. Johar’s comments reveal a broader industry pattern: films that prioritize profit often favor escapist entertainment over socially or artistically ambitious projects.
Artistic Integrity vs. Market Realities
This tension raises important ethical and cultural questions. Should filmmakers compromise the depth, authenticity, or social relevance of their work to appeal to mass audiences? Conversely, is it pragmatic or even necessary for producers to consider market realities in order to sustain a career or finance future projects? Homebound exemplifies the conflict between art as cultural and social commentary and art as a commercial product, reminding us that recognition and profitability do not always align.
Balancing Artistic Vision and Economic Sustainability
Ultimately, the debate highlights the delicate balance filmmakers must strike: creating meaningful, thought-provoking cinema while navigating market pressures. While awards and critical acclaim validate artistic endeavors, sustainable filmmaking often requires reconciling creative integrity with economic practicality. Homebound thus serves as a case study in how commercial considerations can shape, limit, or influence the kinds of stories that reach mainstream audiences, raising broader questions about the role of art in society and the compromises imposed by the marketplace.
Analysis:
Analyze the tension between the film's critical acclaim (Cannes ovation, Oscar shortlist) and its domestic box office failure (flawed distribution, lack of screens). What does this say about the consumption of "serious cinema" in the post-pandemic Indian market
Homebound (2025) presents a striking case study of the disconnect between international critical recognition and domestic commercial reception. The film received widespread acclaim, including a standing ovation at Cannes and shortlisting for the Oscars, signaling that it resonated with global audiences and critics for its narrative depth, thematic sophistication, and cinematic craft. Such accolades typically reflect a film’s artistic merit, innovative storytelling, and relevance to broader human or social concerns.
However, despite these achievements, Homebound struggled commercially in India. Its domestic box office performance was hindered by flawed distribution strategies, including a limited number of screens and lack of access in key urban and semi-urban markets. Marketing efforts failed to sufficiently communicate the film’s appeal to mainstream audiences, and the post-pandemic Indian cinema landscape still recovering from restrictions on theatrical attendance favored familiar genres such as high-octane action, romantic comedies, or star-driven commercial spectacles. As a result, a film lauded internationally for its craft found only niche engagement at home.
This gap between critical acclaim and domestic consumption highlights several broader trends in the post-pandemic Indian market:
-
Risk Aversion in Audience Behavior – Audiences are increasingly selective in choosing theatrical experiences, often preferring familiar, formulaic entertainment over socially or emotionally challenging narratives.
-
Distribution and Visibility Challenges – Serious or art-house cinema struggles to secure adequate screens, marketing, and visibility, limiting its reach regardless of its quality.
-
Global Recognition vs. Local Reception – International platforms and festivals reward innovation, risk-taking, and socially conscious storytelling, whereas domestic consumption is shaped by market forces, star power, and perceived “entertainment value.”
-
Post-Pandemic Market Realities – With lingering hesitancy toward theaters, audiences are more likely to consume content on OTT platforms, further marginalizing films like Homebound that rely on theatrical engagement for visibility and revenue.
In conclusion, the tension between Homebound’s critical acclaim and domestic box office failure illustrates a structural challenge for serious cinema in contemporary India. While international accolades affirm the film’s artistic and cultural relevance, its commercial underperformance underscores the precarious nature of producing socially conscious, narrative-driven films within a market increasingly driven by profitability, risk-aversion, and post-pandemic consumption habits. The case suggests that, for serious cinema to thrive domestically, filmmakers must navigate not only creative and ethical challenges but also strategic distribution, marketing, and audience engagement in a rapidly evolving market landscape.
PART VI: FINAL SYNTHESIS
Essay Prompt:
"Neeraj Ghaywan’s Homebound suggests that dignity is not a reward, but a basicright denied by systemic apathy. Analyze this statement by exploring the film’s treatment of the 'Journey Home' not just as a physical migration during the lockdown, but as a metaphor for the protagonists' failed attempt to find acceptance in the social fabric of India.
Neeraj Ghaywan’s Homebound (2025) presents a searing critique of social inequality in contemporary India, suggesting that dignity is not a reward, but a basic right denied by systemic apathy. At its surface, the film chronicles the physical migration of migrant workers and marginalized citizens during the COVID-19 lockdown, as they attempt to return to their homes. Yet, the “Journey Home” operates simultaneously as a metaphor for their struggle to gain acceptance and recognition within a social fabric that persistently marginalizes them. Ghaywan’s narrative interweaves these layers, emphasizing that displacement is not only geographic but also social and emotional.
The Journey Home as Physical Migration
On a literal level, Homebound depicts the grueling hardships faced by the protagonists: overcrowded trains, roadblocks, scarcity of food and water, and bureaucratic indifference. These sequences underscore the state’s structural neglect, where even the most basic necessities safe passage, sustenance, and shelter are denied. The physical hardships of migration dramatize the tangible effects of systemic apathy, making the audience viscerally aware of the obstacles that marginalized individuals face in securing what should be fundamental human rights.
The Journey Home as Metaphor for Social Acceptance
Beyond the literal, the journey represents the protagonists’ struggle for social recognition, dignity, and belonging. Their displacement is compounded by social hierarchies, economic marginalization, and institutionalized neglect, reflecting a society that conditions dignity on privilege, power, and visibility. Scenes depicting humiliation in public spaces, indifference from authorities, and the invisibility of the marginalized emphasize that the journey is as much about gaining acceptance and respect as it is about reaching a physical destination. The metaphor of the journey highlights a cyclical struggle, where social mobility and inclusion remain obstructed by systemic barriers.
Systemic Apathy and the Denial of Dignity
The film critiques the broader structural failures that deny marginalized citizens their basic rights. Dignity is presented not as an inherent entitlement but as something contingent upon societal validation. Employers, authorities, and institutions repeatedly mediate access to safety, recognition, and respect, reflecting a pervasive apathy that strips the marginalized of agency and humanity. Ghaywan’s storytelling insists that social justice requires structural change, emphasizing that true dignity cannot be granted selectively it is an inalienable right.
Cinematic Techniques Reinforcing the Theme
Ghaywan uses a blend of visual realism and intimate character studies to reinforce this dual journey. Wide, desolate shots of empty streets and mass exodus convey the scale of displacement, while close-ups capture emotional vulnerability, exhaustion, and fleeting hope. The repetition of homeward movement mirrors the cyclical nature of marginalization, and the film’s use of diegetic sound the clatter of trains, footsteps, and crowd murmurs immerses the audience in the relentless struggle, making the denial of dignity tangible and immediate.
Dignity as a Right, Not a Reward
Ultimately, Homebound positions dignity as fundamental and inalienable, rather than a prize bestowed by social recognition or compliance. The “Journey Home” encapsulates both the literal hardships of migration and the metaphorical struggle for social acceptance, revealing how systemic apathy perpetuates marginalization. Ghaywan’s film challenges viewers to confront the ethical and structural failures of society, insisting that acknowledging the humanity and rights of marginalized individuals is not optional it is essential. By intertwining the physical and symbolic dimensions of the journey, Homebound affirms that dignity must be treated as a basic human entitlement, rather than an aspirational reward.
