When Mourning Wears a Grey Shirt: Unpacking ‘Sabar Bonda’

Grief usually shows up in Indian cinema dressed like an instruction manual: white clothes, choreographed weeping, a sepia glaze that tells you what to feel before you can feel it. Sabar Bonda rejects that grammar from the first frame. It’s mourning days unfold in a village of cement dust and verandas, where someone cracks a small joke after the priest leaves, where a grey shirt is worn thin by habit, where a pair of red plastic chappals waits at the door like punctuation. This refusal to costume grief isn’t a minimal flourish; it’s the film’s moral center, the quiet space where a queer love story learns to breathe.

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by Posterphilia (@posterphilia)

Rohan Parashuram Kanawade does not hedge his reasoning. “In real life, in working-class families, when there’s a death, no one goes there wearing white clothes. I have not seen that since my childhood.” He’s not hunting novelty; he’s correcting vision. The film is not interested in the shorthand we’ve inherited from other films; it is interested in the way grief actually lives in a house, among people who still have to cook, fetch water, soften their voices for elders, and find an hour to sit on a step when the sun dips. Put simply, the story trusts ordinary texture more than performance.

That ethic extends to desire. There is no speech that names Anand, no banner announcing identity. Kanawade says, “I didn’t want to make a film to show queer character. That was also not the point of this film.” The choice is not coyness. It is fidelity to how many queer lives in India, urban and rural, are lived in full and read in context. He adds, “My references are not those; my references are life.” You see it in the way Anand performs ritual because his mother asks him to and because the village would talk if he did not; you feel it in the way his body softens around Balya without converting that softness into spectacle. This is not a closet drama. It is the presentation of a life that holds both duty and intimacy, neither underlined, both legible.

If the film gives desire room, it’s because it treats rooms as characters. Kanawade’s brief to himself is precise: “Space is always as important as character.” Unfinished plaster, a courtyard with relatives sprawled across a charpoy, a temple floor that holds the afternoon’s heat, a lake that dwarfs a lone figure walking back at dusk. These are not backdrops, they are pressures and permissions; they shape how people move, what they can say, and what they allow themselves to feel. The camera honours that reality by resisting the easy intimacy of faces without a world.

The film’s editor, Anadi Athaley, built the rhythm to protect this way of seeing. He describes the film’s language with a kind of stubborn clarity: “There won’t be many specific close-up shots that we would use to underline the elements in the frame. They will be used rarely. That would be the language of the film.” The edit trusts the viewer’s eye. “Many times we would keep the shot run longer to let the audience notice the elements,” he says, then lists the anchors he built around: “like the red chappals, Anand’s grey shirt, his hair, Balya’s eyes, the concretisation of the houses and the temple.” The cut, in other words, is not a drumbeat pushing you to the next revelation; it’s a breath that allows fabric, masonry, and gaze to carry meaning until you feel it without being nudged.

To keep that breath honest, the film refuses the cosmetic. Producer and supervising colorist Sidharth Meer frames the visual philosophy with ruthless simplicity. “The philosophy was ‘less is more.’ That guided every creative decision.” There is no glaze of prettiness, no rush to romanticize poverty or melancholy. The shirts look washed a hundred times. Cement looks like cement. The palette is not drained of life; it is tuned to the way life actually sits in these rooms. Meer explains the target plainly: “Every frame had to feel honest, almost as if the viewer was part of that world rather than just watching it.” The result is not austere; it is intimate, because the film lets you enter a space without first repainting it for your benefit.

Step back for a wider look, and the film’s stance becomes even clearer. For decades, mainstream imagery has taught audiences to recognise grief through costume and queerness through declaration, but Sabar Bonda declines both shortcuts. It argues for a third path where clothes and interiors are not symbols but conductors, where a grey shirt is not a signifier slapped on a body but a history of wear, where a veranda is not a “setting” but a geography of authority and reprieve. When a story trusts the ordinary, it is not lowering stakes. It is raising them, because the film must persuade you without leaning on the theater. That persuasion arrives through patience, through a director who privileges space over soliloquy, through an editor who resists the underlying close-up, through a color philosophy that refuses polish and protects grain.

The payoff is not only aesthetic but also ethical. Portraying mourning as routine rather than spectacle honours how families actually endure it. Portraying queerness as present rather than announced honours the way many people must live it, without the safety or desire to name it in every room. This is not neutrality. It is a politics of attention, one that asks the viewer to see the world as it is, not as cinema has trained us to expect it.

If you want the industry answer to why this film travelled, you can point to the landmark firsts: a Marathi film at Sundance, the World Cinema Dramatic Grand Jury Prize, a slate of producers who believed early. Sidharth Meer gives the human answer instead: “Every frame had to feel honest, almost as if the viewer was part of that world rather than just watching it.” Honesty is not a marketing claim here; it is the backbone that allowed an international audience to recognise a life they might not have lived, but absolutely recognised as true.

There is one more reason the film lingers. It rewires the viewer’s reflexes. After Sabar Bonda, the next time a movie serves you grief in regulation white, you might notice the artifice. The next time a narrative treats a rural interior as a postcard, you might hear the shallow ring. The next time a queer character is burdened with a speech instead of a life, you might ask why, because that is what a fresh visual language does. It refuses to be an exoticised document of a village; it refuses to be a didactic tract about identity; and in doing so, it earns the right to be both intimate and large.

A film of small things, then. A shirt worn soft. A pair of red chappals by a threshold. A courtyard that holds both a ritual and a glance. None of it shouts; all of it accumulates. The rooms do the holding, the clothes do the speaking, and the people in them finally get to be seen — without being turned into symbols.

Also, read:

Venice Film Festival: Five Iconic Moments We’re Still Not Over