Introduction to the Hindi Cinema Homage “Bombay Talkies” begins with a young man declaring to his father that he is a homosexual, and not a eunuch that his father has envisioned him being. After such an intense coming-out scene, it becomes clear that the 2013 anthology production sets out to be different from most Bollywood projects. “Bombay Talkies” is a celebration of the Indian cinema centenary, claiming to be an overview of Bombay film history. The anthology includes four short films, but the focus of this essay is going to be the piece directed by Karan Johar, who comes from Chopra-Johar family clan, a dynasty of actors, directors, and film producers. Johar established himself as a commercial Bollywood personality, his stardom helping to publicize “Bombay Talkies.” Meheli Sen criticized the movie for ‘misplaced narcissism’ and I agree with her. Other authors, including Ravi Vasudevan and Manishita Dass, partially agreed with Sen regarding the disregard of Indian movie history. The movie was originally promoted as an homage to the Hindi film industry but ended up being a distinct representation of commercialized mass production associated with Bollywood. Sentimental Look on Homosexuality by Karan Johar The short movie directed by Johar begins the anthology but does so in a controversial manner. Traditional Bombay films explored the concepts of social identity and individual liberation. The combination of poor editing choices and overacting make Johar’s segment appear disorganized and shallow. The short movie often takes itself too seriously and relies on linear storytelling instead of experimenting with the form like the 1950s classics. Lingering and dissolved shots mixed with an abundance of abrupt cuts make the piece unfinished. The content presented is overly dramatic and unrealistic, which belittles the struggles of gay men. The main character deliberately pursuing his colleague’s husband proves to be a poor representation of the community as a whole. Physical abuse demonstrated in the film is concealed under the mask of ‘coming-out struggles’ of Gayatri’s husband. Johar makes a plot device out of the scene, where Dev beats up Avinash at his apartment, instead of exploring the mental and emotional consequences of such toxicity. Even though Bombay’s pictures of the 1950s were sometimes excessively sentimental and over-emotive, Johar fails to recognize the broader mission of traditional Hindi films. They played a crucial role in exploring the anxieties and aspirations of the masses, becoming an effective weapon for social change and national liberation (Dass). “Bombay Talkies” lacks any thematic unity between the short films taking away the enjoyment the audience is seeking from the celebration of the Indian cinema. The Issue of Excluding Parts of the Hindi Cinema History “Bombay Talkies” proves to be a quite stereotypical tribute to Hindi film history. Meheli Sen argues that the film is not an official homage as it is produced by a corporate entity and therefore lacks government involvement to make it more authentic and historically accurate. The industry chooses “to celebrate and memorialize its past” but fails to include essential parts of the Indian cinema history such as silent films and regional cinemas (Sen