Caste, Competition, and Hope: Reflections on Homebound

The movie Homebound was screened at our department as part of an academic and social learning activity. The film presents a powerful and realistic portrayal of the struggles faced by young aspirants from marginalized backgrounds, especially those preparing for government jobs. Through the lives of its central characters, Homebound highlights issues such as caste discrimination, unemployment, and the rigid functioning of institutional systems. The screening created an opportunity not only to watch a film but also to reflect on the harsh realities of ambition, dignity, and survival in contemporary society. This blog attempts to explore the themes and social concerns raised by the film and their relevance to our present situation. 

Beyond the Standing Ovation: 5 Surprising Truths Revealed by the Film ‘Homebound’

Some films transcend mere entertainment. They become cultural documents, holding up a mirror to society and revealing truths we might not be ready to confront. They challenge, provoke, and force a conversation long after the credits roll. The fictional 2025 film Homebound is one such document. A critically acclaimed drama from director Neeraj Ghaywan, it earned standing ovations at international festivals for its powerful portrayal of struggle in modern India. Mentored by Executive Producer Martin Scorsese, its realist tone was polished for a global stage and shortlisted for an Academy Award.

Despite its accolades, Homebound tells a story many were not ready to hear, and its journey from script to screen and beyond is as revealing as the film itself. This article moves past a simple review to explore the five most surprising and impactful takeaways from the film and its surrounding discourse. These are the lessons that uncover what Homebound truly says about the complexities of art, ethics, and society in contemporary India.

It’s Not About Survival, It’s About Dignity:

At its core, Homebound  is an adaptation of Basharat Peer's poignant New York Times essay, "A Friendship, a Pandemic and a Death Beside the Highway." The film, however, makes a crucial and surprising change to its protagonists, Chandan and Shoaib: it reimagines them as aspiring police constables.

This single narrative choice fundamentally alters the story's focus. It shifts the film from a straightforward tale of economic survival to a more profound and complex search for "institutional dignity." Chandan and Shoaib are not just seeking a livelihood; they are chasing the power and respect symbolized by a government uniform. They see it as:

...a tool to

"stand tall among people who take issue with their very names".

By positioning them as candidates for the state apparatus, the film frames their entire journey as an attempt to gain fairness and respect from the very system that marginalizes them. Their ambition is not just to live, but to live without the "ignominy" of their Dalit and Muslim identities, making their eventual failure all the more tragic.

The Real Violence Isn’t Loud, It’s Quiet:

Homebound deliberately avoids scenes of overt, dramatic violence. Instead, its power lies in its meticulous focus on the "micro-aggressions" and subtle, everyday cruelties that define the characters' lives. The film argues that the most pervasive prejudice isn't a physical blow but a constant, quiet degradation.

This theme is perfectly illustrated in Chandan's choice to apply for the police exam under the 'General' category rather than the 'Reserved' one, a decision born from a deep-seated fear of the "shame" associated with his Dalit identity. This internal struggle with identity is mirrored by the external prejudice faced by Shoaib. As a Muslim man working as a peon, his simple offer of a water bottle to a colleague is refused a devastating, non-violent moment of religious "othering." The film presents these moments as a form of deep-seated, systemic cruelty, best defined in its analysis of Shoaib's experience:

This interaction is analysed as a "quiet insult," representing the "quiet cruelty" of caste and religious segregation in modern corporate spaces.

Homebound compellingly argues that these daily, quiet degradations are just as damaging and violent as any physical act, grinding down the human spirit through a thousand small cuts.

The Censors Weren’t Afraid of Big Issues, They Were Afraid of a Vegetable:

When Homebound  was submitted to India's Central Board of Film Certification  was ordered to make 11 cuts. Surprisingly, the most telling edits weren't related to major political statements but to seemingly insignificant details. The board ordered the muting of the word "Gyan" and, most absurdly, the complete removal of a line of dialogue that referenced "Aloo gobhi."

These bizarre cuts reveal a deep "anxiety regarding films that highlight social fissures." The state's fear isn't just of grand political critiques, but of the mundane, everyday markers of cultural identity embedded in something as simple as food. By censoring a vegetable, the authorities betray a desire to erase the very texture of real life where these social divisions are most apparent. Actor Ishaan Khatter, who plays Shoaib, publicly criticized these moves, pointing out the "double standards" applied to social films but not to commercial entertainers. The controversy proved that sometimes a film's most potent commentary is found not in what it says, but in what the authorities try to silence.

A Film About the Marginalized Was Accused of Exploiting Them:

Perhaps the most profound irony in the story of Homebound  is that a film celebrated for giving a voice to the voiceless was met with serious allegations of silencing its original subjects. This controversy complicated the film's legacy, shifting the conversation from its artistic merit to its ethical responsibilities.

Two primary issues emerged after its release. First, author Puja Changoiwala filed a plagiarism suit against the filmmakers, claiming the movie unlawfully copied her novel. Second, the family of Amrit Kumar, the real-life man on whom the character of Chandan was based, stated they were unaware of the film's release and had only received a small sum of Rs 10,000 initially for their story. This situation forced critics and audiences to confront a critical question at the heart of "true story" adaptations:

Does "raising awareness" justify the alleged exclusion of the original subjects/creators?

The controversy serves as a stark reminder that telling the stories of the marginalized comes with an ethical obligation to include, credit, and fairly compensate the real people whose lives are being portrayed on screen. It forced a necessary, uncomfortable dialogue about who truly profits from stories of pain.

Critical Acclaim Doesn’t Guarantee an Audience:

Homebound  was an unequivocal critical success on the world stage. Mentored by Martin Scorsese into a work of searing social realism, it received standing ovations at the Cannes Film Festival and was officially shortlisted for an Academy Award. Domestically, however, it was a commercial disaster.

The film was declared a box office "FLOP," earning lifetime collections of only ₹4.58 crore. This stark disconnect between critical prestige and commercial performance is not just a matter of audience taste. A more nuanced analysis points to systemic issues, including "flawed distribution" and a "lack of screens," suggesting a commercial ecosystem not structured to support such films. The irony is palpable: a film polished for a global arthouse audience, with the imprimatur of a Hollywood legend, failed to connect with the very audience whose reality it depicted. Producer Karan Johar drove this home, stating that due to business mandates, he might not make "unprofitable" films like Homebound  again.

The Stories We Need vs. The Stories We See:

Ultimately, Homebound's  journey reveals a fundamental schism in modern India: our cultural exports are celebrated for the very truths our domestic market—and our state censors refuse to confront. The film's narrative choices, its depiction of quiet prejudice, the controversies over censorship and ethics, and its commercial failure all converge to tell a story larger than the one on screen.

The complete journey of Homebound  leaves us with a lingering, thought-provoking question that extends far beyond the film itself. What does it say about our society when the stories that hold up the most honest mirror are the ones we are least willing to pay to see?

Case Study: The Ethical Mire of 'Homebound' Adapting Marginalized Narratives for the Screen:

1 Introduction: A Critical Success, An Ethical Crisis:

The 2025 film Homebound presents a stark paradox: a cinematic triumph on the world stage, celebrated with a standing ovation at Cannes and selected as India's official entry to the Oscars, that simultaneously became a case study in ethical failure at home. Celebrated for its artistic bravery, the film ignited a firestorm of legal and ethical debates, becoming a flashpoint for accusations of plagiarism and the exploitation of its real-life subjects. This case study dissects the multifaceted controversies surrounding Homebound, providing a comprehensive analysis of the responsibilities filmmakers bear when adapting the true stories of marginalized individuals for the screen. To understand the depth of these conflicts, one must first examine the film’s origins and its transformation from reportage to cinema.

From Reportage to Screen: The Genesis of 'Homebound':

Understanding a film’s journey from source material to final cut is crucial for any ethical analysis. The process of adaptation is not a simple translation but an act of interpretation, where creative choices carry significant narrative weight. The very act of reimagining the protagonists' ambitions in Homebound a decision intended to heighten the film's thematic resonance also created a critical distance from their lived reality, arguably making the subsequent claims of exploitation more potent.

The Source Material: A Story of Migrant Precarity:

The cinematic narrative of Homebound originated from Basharat Peer’s poignant 2020 New York Times essay, "A Friendship, a Pandemic and a Death Beside the Highway," originally titled "Taking Amrit Home." The essay chronicled the true story of Amrit Kumar and Mohammad Saiyub, two migrant textile workers in Surat whose lives were irrevocably altered by the national COVID-19 lockdown. Their story was one of economic desperation and a harrowing journey to return home against impossible odds.

The Narrative Shift: Reimagining Ambition and Dignity:

The most significant change made during the film’s adaptation was the transformation of its protagonists. The real-life textile workers were reimagined as Chandan (Vishal Jethwa) and Shoaib (Ishaan Khatter), two friends aspiring to become police constables. This narrative shift altered the film's central theme from one of pure economic survival to a more complex exploration of seeking "institutional dignity." By positioning the characters as candidates for the state apparatus, director Neeraj Ghaywan framed their ambition as a desire to escape the social "ignominy" of their Dalit and Muslim identities through the perceived power and respect of a uniform.

 Production Pedigree and International Framing

The film was backed by high-profile industry figures, including acclaimed director Neeraj Ghaywan and prominent producer Karan Johar. Its international credibility was further bolstered by the involvement of Martin Scorsese as an Executive Producer. Scorsese's mentorship was substantial; he reviewed three different cuts of the film, and his influence is credited with shaping its "realist" tone. This guidance helped ensure the film was "neither dumbed down nor sanitised for westerners," positioning it perfectly for a strong reception at prestigious international festivals like Cannes and the Toronto International Film Festival (TIFF). This production context, however, would soon clash with the legal and ethical challenges that emerged upon the film's release.

Core Controversies: Plagiarism and Subject Exploitation

While films based on true stories often generate debate, Homebound faced specific and severe allegations. The controversies cut deeper than debates over creative license, striking at the foundational principles of intellectual property and the moral duty owed to individuals whose real-life tragedies are monetized for the screen.

Legal Challenge: The Plagiarism Accusation

Shortly after its celebrated debut, the film was hit with a major legal challenge. Author Puja Changoiwala filed a plagiarism lawsuit, claiming that Homebound unlawfully copied her novel. This accusation presented a direct legal threat to the film's originality and intellectual property rights, casting a shadow over its artistic achievements.

Ethical Breach: The Treatment of Real-Life Subjects

Beyond the legal dispute, a profound ethical breach was alleged by the family of the real Amrit Kumar, on whose life the character of Chandan was based. Their grievances highlighted a stark disconnect between the film's mission to tell their story and the reality of their involvement:

• Inadequate Compensation: The family claimed they were given only Rs 10,000 initially for their story.

• Lack of Communication: They asserted that they were entirely unaware of the film's actual release and its subsequent international success.

 The Central Ethical Question

These allegations crystallize the core ethical dilemma of Homebound. The controversy forces a critical distinction between two fundamentally different ethical postures: filmmakers who endeavor to stand by the lives they portray ensuring collaboration and fair compensation—and those who risk exploiting those same lives for cinematic acclaim. Does a filmmaker's stated goal of "raising awareness" for a marginalized story justify the alleged financial and creative exclusion of the real-life subjects? The debate shifts from one of artistic interpretation to one of fundamental respect and justice, a tension further complicated by external pressures from state and market forces.

 Navigating Institutional and Commercial Pressures

A film's journey is shaped not only by its creators' choices but also by powerful external forces. For Homebound, state censorship and the harsh realities of the commercial market created additional layers of conflict, challenging both its narrative integrity and its financial future.

 State Censorship and Narrative Control

The Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) ordered 11 cuts to the film, totaling 77 seconds of screen time. The nature of these cuts, though seemingly minor, was revealing. For instance, the muting of the word "Gyan" and the removal of a dialogue about "Aloo gobhi" pointed to the state's anxiety regarding films that highlight social and religious fissures, even in subtle ways. Actor Ishaan Khatter publicly criticized these actions, pointing out the "double standards" applied by censors. He argued that social films with a distinct perspective face far greater scrutiny than mainstream commercial entertainers, revealing a systemic bias against narratives that challenge the status quo.

 Cinematic Execution and Thematic Resonance

The controversies surrounding Homebound are inseparable from its potent and deliberate artistic execution. The film's cinematic language gave a powerful voice to the sensitive themes of caste and religious discrimination, which in turn fuelled the public and institutional debate surrounding it.

On-Screen Portrayal of Systemic Injustice

The film masterfully depicts systemic injustice not through overt violence but through what the source material calls an accumulation of "micro-aggressions" and "quiet cruelty." The "shame" associated with caste identity is powerfully conveyed when Chandan applies for the police exam under the 'General' category, fearing the stigma that would follow him even if recruited. Similarly, the "quiet cruelty" of religious othering is captured in a workplace scene where an employee refuses to accept a water bottle from Shoaib, a subtle yet deeply painful moment of exclusion.

The Aesthetic of Marginalization

Director Neeraj Ghaywan and cinematographer Pratik Shah developed a distinct visual and auditory style to immerse the audience in the protagonists' experience. Shah’s "warm, grey, and dusty" colour palette, combined with persistent close-ups on "feet, dirt, and sweat," creates an "aesthetic of exhaustion" that traps the characters in their harsh reality without romanticizing their struggle. This visual style is complemented by a "minimalist" and "restrained" score from Naren Chandavarkar and Benedict Taylor. In stark contrast to the emotionally directive music of traditional Bollywood melodramas, the score allows the raw performances and ambient sounds to carry the weight of the tragedy, heightening the sense of realism and quiet despair.

Key Takeaways for Film Professionals

The journey of Homebound offers a crucial learning opportunity for the global film industry. Its legacy is not merely its cinematic achievement but its painful exposure of the critical fault lines in the process of adapting true stories. For filmmakers, producers, and industry stakeholders, this case provides a clear and urgent call to re-evaluate the ethical frameworks that govern their work.

Actionable Insights for Ethical Filmmaking

1. Prioritize Subject Collaboration: Adapting true stories of marginalized individuals requires an ethical framework that treats subjects as foundational partners, not transactional sources. Filmmakers have a moral obligation to move beyond transactional agreements to ensure meaningful collaboration, fair compensation, and transparent communication.

2. Anticipate and Navigate Institutional Scrutiny: Films that address sensitive social fissures must be prepared for state censorship. The Homebound case demonstrates the need for strategic navigation of regulatory bodies while simultaneously defending artistic integrity against cuts that dilute or distort the narrative's core message.

3. Develop Sustainable Models for Serious Cinema: The case proves that critical acclaim does not guarantee market survival. The industry must innovate beyond traditional distribution to build niche audiences for socially relevant films, lest such stories become commercially extinct.