Filmmaker Anurag Kashyap has addressed long-running chatter about his career trajectory, particularly the belief among some film buffs that his perceived downturn as a director began when he collaborated with Karan Johar on the ambitious but commercially unsuccessful film Bombay Velvet. According to Kashyap, that moment, symbolised by working with a mainstream Bollywood figure like Johar, became a point of scrutiny and criticism from sections of the audience and industry observers.
In a recent interview, Kashyap explained that the backlash started when he chose to cast Karan Johar, known mainly as a producer and filmmaker rather than an actor, in Bombay Velvet. Johar played the antagonist in the film, and while Kashyap said it was a natural choice based on Johar’s performance ability, he acknowledged that fans saw the pairing as unusual. What was intended as an artistic decision, to bring depth and complexity to the character, instead became a talking point suggesting Kashyap had moved away from his indie roots.
“People saw me and Karan as rivals, as two different ends of a spectrum,” Kashyap said, reflecting on how some followers interpreted the collaboration as a compromise. He noted that many who appreciated his earlier work felt disappointed and branded him as having “sold out” by working with someone associated with mainstream Bollywood glamour and studio culture. The idea that his career suffered due to that choice, he said, persists even today.
Behind Bombay Velvet was an ambitious attempt to blend commercial scale with a darker, stylistic narrative, and Kashyap believed Johar was suited to a key role. In hindsight, he has stood by that casting decision, emphasising that it was based on artistic fit rather than industry politics. Unfortunately, the film did not connect with audiences in the way he had hoped, and its box-office performance was disappointing. The setback had repercussions on relationships within the industry as well, as navigating conversations with co-stars and collaborators became emotionally challenging in the immediate aftermath.
Kashyap also revealed that the reaction from some co-actors, including Ranbir Kapoor, was shaped by the film’s reception. He said that Kapoor was upset about how the film was received and urged Kashyap to move on from discussing it. That dynamic underlines how a single project can have complex ripple effects on creative relationships, go-beyond the screen, and affect personal interactions later on.
What stands out in Kashyap’s comments is his frustration at how a collaborative choice was reframed into a narrative about authenticity and loyalty to a particular cinematic style. He pointed out that collaborations across different segments of the film industry, whether with mainstream or independent filmmakers, should be seen in the context of storytelling and performance rather than as symbolic acts of allegiance or betrayal.
Beyond Bombay Velvet, Kashyap has continued to work on varied projects, constantly experimenting with form and content. His filmography includes a mix of gritty dramas, genre explorations, and stories that blur lines between popular and parallel cinema, a testament to his belief that cinema is a space for diverse expression rather than rigid categorisation.
In addressing the persistent narrative about his “downfall,” the filmmaker highlighted how assumptions can take on a life of their own in public discourse. Rather than letting perception define his legacy, he appears focused on creating work that resonates with his personal artistic vision and continues to push boundaries in Indian cinema.