“When Home No Longer Belongs: Reading Homebound (2025)”
This blog has been written as part of an academic assignment given by Barad Sir for the Film Studies / Sociology of Media course. Drawing on a detailed worksheet provided for the film Homebound (2025), the blog approaches the film as an academic text and critically examines its narrative structure, characters, cinematic techniques, and the social issues it portrays. The purpose of this analysis is to develop critical thinking and to understand how cinema not only reflects lived social realities but also questions and reshapes them.
Introduction
Homebound, directed by Neeraj Ghaywan, is a socially grounded film set during the COVID-19 lockdown that examines questions of dignity, belonging, and citizenship in contemporary India through the lives of two young men whose aspirations for stability and recognition are shaped and often crushed by entrenched structures of caste, religion, and institutional indifference. Adopting a realist mode rather than dramatic spectacle, the film focuses on everyday gestures, silences, and movements to reveal how systemic inequality operates within ordinary life, and this blog approaches Homebound as an academic text by reading it both as a narrative of pandemic-era displacement and as a metaphorical journey toward acceptance that ultimately remains incomplete, thereby highlighting the gap between constitutional promises and lived realities while demonstrating how cinema can critically question social apathy and the denial of dignity.
PART I: PRE-SCREENING CONTEXT & ADAPTATION
1. Source Material Analysis
Homebound is adapted from a 2020 New York Times essay by Basharat Peer that recounts the real-life experiences of Amrit Kumar and Mohammad Saiyub, two migrant textile workers stranded during the sudden COVID-19 lockdown. The original article focuses primarily on their labouring lives, the precarity of migrant work, and the abrupt collapse of economic security when industries shut down. In the film adaptation, director Neeraj Ghaywan reimagines these figures as Chandan and Shoaib, aspiring police constables rather than textile workers. This change is not merely narrative but conceptual, as it shifts the film’s central concern from economic survival alone to questions of ambition, institutional belonging, and dignity. While the essay depicts dignity as threatened by market failure and employer exploitation, the film presents dignity as something imagined to be earned through entry into a state institution. The police uniform thus becomes a powerful symbol of social legitimacy, respect, and protection in a society that otherwise marginalizes these men. Through this reframing, Homebound moves beyond documenting hardship and instead interrogates why access to institutions is perceived as the only pathway to dignity for the marginalized—an inquiry that extends beyond the narrower focus of the original reportage.
2. Production Context: The Scorsese Influence
The film credits Martin Scorsese as an Executive Producer, and this association is evident in its aesthetic and narrative approach. Homebound adopts a restrained realist style marked by naturalistic performances, long observational takes, and a deliberate avoidance of melodrama or intrusive background music. Silence, pauses, and unadorned visuals are allowed to carry emotional weight, creating a sense of lived reality rather than cinematic spectacle. This disciplined realism aligns the film with international art cinema traditions, contributing to its positive reception at global platforms such as the Cannes Film Festival and the Toronto International Film Festival. However, this same stylistic restraint posed challenges for sections of domestic Indian audiences, who are more accustomed to heightened emotional expression and clear narrative resolution. As a result, Homebound emerges as a film that resonates strongly with global critical audiences while demanding a more patient and reflective mode of viewing from its home audience.
PART II: NARRATIVE STRUCTURE & THEMATIC STUDY
3. The Politics of the “Uniform”
In the first half of Homebound, the narrative closely follows Chandan and Shoaib as they prepare for the police recruitment examination. For both characters, the police uniform signifies far more than stable employment; it embodies the promise of social mobility, public respect, and institutional protection. Within a social order where caste and religion shape everyday interactions, the uniform appears to offer visibility without exposure and authority without vulnerability. Both men place their faith in the idea that state institutions operate on principles of fairness and merit. However, the film steadily destabilizes this belief by foregrounding the overwhelming imbalance of opportunity—millions of applicants competing for only a few thousand positions. This statistic functions not simply as background information but as a narrative strategy that exposes the fragility of meritocracy itself. Homebound suggests that while ambition is actively cultivated among marginalized populations, structural constraints ensure that only a negligible few can succeed, turning hope into a subtle mechanism of discipline within deeply unequal systems.
4. Intersectionality: Caste and Religion
5. The Pandemic as a Narrative Device
The onset of the COVID-19 lockdown in the latter half of the film introduces a marked tonal shift. Rather than serving as a dramatic interruption, the pandemic operates as a mechanism that exposes what scholars term “slow violence”—systemic harm that exists long before moments of crisis but becomes starkly visible during catastrophe. With the lockdown, Homebound transitions from a narrative of aspiration to one of survival. Dreams tied to examinations, uniforms, and institutional entry collapse, giving way to the immediate struggle to stay alive. The protagonists’ journey during this period reveals that the violence they encounter is not unprecedented; it is an intensified continuation of the neglect they have always faced. In this sense, the film argues that the pandemic does not generate inequality but rather lays bare the structural injustices that were already embedded in everyday life.
PART III: CHARACTER & PERFORMANCE ANALYSIS
6. Somatic Performance and Embodied Trauma: Chandan
In Homebound, Vishal Jethwa’s portrayal of Chandan is defined by a striking use of somatic performance, where the body becomes the primary site through which trauma is communicated. Rather than relying on dialogue, Jethwa allows physical gestures to express fear and vulnerability. Critics have observed that Chandan appears to physically contract in the presence of authority figures, a pattern most clearly visible in the scene where he is asked to state his full name. His hunched shoulders, lowered eyes, and faltering voice suggest not momentary nervousness but a deeply ingrained habit of self-protection. This bodily withdrawal reflects the internalized impact of caste oppression, where the body learns to anticipate scrutiny and humiliation even before it is voiced. The hesitation attached to self-naming transforms identity into a source of danger, revealing how caste-based trauma is not only socially imposed but physically embodied.
7. Shoaib as the “Othered” Citizen
Ishaan Khatter plays Shoaib with a controlled intensity that critics often describe as restrained or simmering. His performance avoids overt expressions of anger; instead, frustration emerges through silences, tightened expressions, and emotional withdrawal. This restraint mirrors the lived reality of religious minorities who must constantly manage their responses in order to remain socially acceptable. Shoaib’s narrative arc—from turning down a job opportunity in Dubai to pursuing a government position in India—signals a strong desire to belong within the national framework. His choice reflects faith in the idea of India as home, even as his everyday experiences repeatedly position him as an outsider. Through Shoaib, the film captures the central paradox of minority existence: a deep emotional attachment to home coexisting with persistent exclusion and suspicion.
8. Gendered Perspective and Social Privilege: Sudha Bharti
Janhvi Kapoor’s portrayal of Sudha Bharti has drawn criticism for functioning more as a narrative contrast than as a fully developed character. While it is true that her inner conflicts receive limited exploration, her role serves a significant thematic purpose within the film. Sudha represents the advantages of educational access and social insulation, illustrating how education can provide a relatively secure route to dignity and stability. Positioned against Chandan and Shoaib, her character underscores the idea that personal effort alone does not determine success; structural privilege plays a decisive role. Rather than weakening the narrative, her comparatively underwritten presence sharpens the film’s critique of inequality by highlighting who is able to imagine a future without constant fear, and who is not.
PART IV: CINEMATIC LANGUAGE
9. Visual Aesthetics
In Homebound, cinematographer Pratik Shah crafts a muted visual world dominated by warm greys and dusty tones, reflecting the emotional weariness and physical depletion of the characters. During the migration sequences on the highway, the camera resists panoramic or picturesque compositions and instead stays uncomfortably close to the body—lingering on blistered feet, sweat-soaked clothes, dust-covered skin, and strained expressions. These choices deliberately deny the viewer any visual relief or aesthetic distance. By fragmenting the body into parts rather than presenting it as a whole, the film develops an “aesthetic of exhaustion,” where movement itself becomes an expression of pain. The recurring images of feet scraping hot asphalt, sweat mixing with dust, and uneven breathing recast the road not as a symbol of freedom or transition, but as a space of relentless endurance. This visual language actively resists romanticization and compels the audience to confront the raw physical cost of survival.
10. Soundscape
The background score by Naren Chandavarkar and Benedict Taylor follows a restrained, minimalist philosophy that prioritizes silence and ambient noise over melodic guidance. Rather than directing emotional responses through dramatic music, the film allows long stretches of quiet to dominate, interrupted only by sounds such as footsteps, distant traffic, wind, or labored breathing. This approach stands in stark contrast to mainstream Bollywood conventions, where sorrow and struggle are often emphasized through heightened musical cues. In Homebound, silence operates as an ethical and political choice: it refuses to aestheticize suffering or manipulate sentiment. By allowing sound to remain sparse and grounded, the film aligns its auditory design with its realistic commitments, ensuring that tragedy is experienced as lived reality rather than cinematic performance.
PART V: CRITICAL DISCOURSE & ETHICS (POST-SCREENING SEMINAR)
11. The Censorship Debate
Homebound became a subject of controversy after the Central Board of Film Certification mandated eleven cuts, including the muting of the word “Gyan” and the removal of a dialogue referencing “aloo gobhi.” Though these alterations may appear trivial, they are symbolically charged. They reveal an institutional unease with everyday markers of identity—names, food habits, and casual speech—that quietly expose caste and communal divisions. Rather than censoring overt political statements, the CBFC’s interventions target ordinary social details, suggesting discomfort with cinema that represents inequality as routine and normalized. Actor Ishaan Khatter described this approach as reflecting “double standards,” arguing that socially grounded films face stricter scrutiny than mainstream spectacles. His response points to a larger issue: realism itself becomes threatening when it mirrors society too closely and too honestly.
12. The Ethics of “True Story” Adaptations
The film’s ethical position was further complicated by a plagiarism lawsuit filed by Puja Changoiwala, along with allegations that the family of Amrit Kumar—one of the real-life individuals whose story inspired the film—was unaware of the film’s release and inadequately compensated. These disputes foreground serious ethical questions surrounding authorship, consent, and representation. When filmmakers draw upon the lives of marginalized individuals, their responsibility extends beyond raising awareness to ensuring transparency, acknowledgment, and meaningful inclusion. Homebound risks undermining its moral intent by potentially replicating the very silencing and exclusion it seeks to critique. The controversy thus prompts a crucial question: is social awareness sufficient, or must ethical storytelling also be grounded in accountability toward the people whose lives form its foundation?
13. Art Cinema and Commercial Viability
Despite widespread international recognition—including a standing ovation at the Cannes Film Festival and inclusion on the Oscar shortlist—Homebound struggled to find commercial success within India. Producer Karan Johar publicly remarked that he might hesitate to back similarly “unprofitable” projects in the future, drawing attention to the financial risks associated with socially engaged cinema. This disparity highlights a structural tension in the post-pandemic Indian film industry: while global festivals reward realism and political courage, domestic markets often marginalize such films due to limited screens, inadequate release strategies, and audience conditioning. As a result, Homebound exposes a troubling reality—that in contemporary India, critical and reflective cinema often finds greater acceptance abroad than within its own theatrical ecosystem.
PART VI: FINAL SYNTHESIS — Essay Guide
Essay Prompt Response (Ideal Answer Key & Analytical Model)
Homebound, directed by Neeraj Ghaywan, advances a powerful argument that dignity is not a privilege to be earned through obedience, effort, or loyalty to the state, but a fundamental human right that is systematically denied to marginalized communities. This argument is articulated through the film’s central metaphor of the “journey home,” which functions on two interconnected levels: as a literal movement during the COVID-19 lockdown and as a symbolic search for social acceptance within India’s rigidly stratified social order. On the surface, the journey undertaken by Chandan and Shoaib reflects the historical reality of the lockdown, when migrant bodies were pushed onto highways and exposed to hunger, exhaustion, and death. However, the film makes it clear that this journey did not originate with the pandemic. Long before the lockdown, both protagonists were already living in conditions of exclusion—Chandan shaped by caste-based stigma and Shoaib by religious othering. Their preparation for the police entrance examination represents an attempt to secure dignity through institutional belonging, with the uniform symbolizing hope that the state might override social prejudice and guarantee equal citizenship. As the narrative unfolds, this hope steadily disintegrates. The extreme imbalance between applicants and available posts exposes the illusion of meritocracy, revealing how ambition is encouraged among the marginalized while success remains structurally inaccessible. When the lockdown arrives, it does not interrupt a stable life but instead makes visible the slow violence embedded in social and bureaucratic systems. The physical act of walking home mirrors a deeper social truth: no matter how far the protagonists travel, there is no space that fully recognizes or accepts them. Crucially, Homebound refuses narrative closure. Home is not depicted as a site of comfort or belonging, but as an ever-deferred promise. The film suggests that for marginalized citizens, the nation itself remains a conditional space—one that demands endurance and loyalty while withholding protection and recognition. By denying catharsis, Ghaywan resists sentimental resolution and confronts the audience with an unsettling insight: equality appears only fleetingly, often in moments of collective abandonment. In this sense, Homebound transforms the lockdown journey into a stark metaphor for a broader moral failure, asserting that when dignity is treated as a reward rather than a right, the journey home becomes endless—not because the destination is distant, but because acceptance itself is structurally denied.
Conclusion
Neeraj Ghaywan’s Homebound powerfully suggests that dignity is not a reward to be earned through effort, obedience, or institutional recognition, but a fundamental right systematically denied by social and bureaucratic apathy. Through its careful narrative and realist cinematic language, the film exposes how marginalized individuals are encouraged to believe in the promises of equality while being structurally prevented from accessing them.
The film’s treatment of the “Journey Home” extends far beyond the physical migration forced by the COVID-19 lockdown. It becomes a metaphor for Chandan and Shoaib’s repeated attempts to find belonging within the nation—through education, competitive examinations, and faith in state institutions. Each attempt ends in quiet rejection, revealing that the idea of “home” remains conditional for those marked by caste and religion. The road they walk thus mirrors the social distance they are never allowed to cross.
By refusing emotional catharsis or redemptive closure, Homebound resists the comforting illusion that suffering inevitably leads to justice. Instead, it confronts the audience with an unsettling reality: moments of shared crisis expose not solidarity, but the depth of abandonment experienced by the most vulnerable. The film ultimately insists that equality appears only in conditions where everyone is equally abandoned, making visible the moral failure of systems that normalize exclusion. In doing so, Homebound positions cinema as an ethical witness—one that does not offer solutions, but demands accountability and reflection from its viewers.
References
Ajay, U. K. (2025, October 2). “Stand by the lives you bring to screen”: Neeraj Ghaywan’s Homebound draws flak for ignoring family. Asianet Newsable.
Barad, D. (2026). Academic worksheet on Homebound (2025). ResearchGate. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.10952.99849
Bhattacharya, T. (2025, December 24). Oscar-hopeful Homebound faces copyright suit as author accuses Dharma and Netflix of plagiarism. Mint.
Jha, S. (2025, October 10). Karan Johar won’t make “unprofitable” Homebound again; Neeraj Ghaywan takes dig at Sunny Sanskari*. International Business Times (India Edition).
Keshri, S. (2025, December 29). Exclusive: Vishal Jethwa talks Homebound*, Oscar shortlist, and finding his moment*. India Today.
Lookhar, M. (2025, December 5). How close is Homebound to the true story of Amrit Kumar and Mohammad Saiyub? Beyond Bollywood.
Menon, R. (2025, November 24). Homebound review: A journey of friendship, identity, and a nation that keeps failing its own*. Script Magazine.
Worksheet | Homebound (2025). (2025). Academic Film Study Worksheet. Dilip Barad. www.dilipbarad.com
0 Comments