Every Indian lives alongside a billion others they will never meet. Each comes from a different region and religious group, but shares the common language of cinema. The practice of watching Hindi fiction films creates a unified consciousness among Indians in an “imagined community,” such that they perceive themselves as belonging to a particular identity (Anderson 1983: 35, 70). The mainstream Bollywood film “All-India” transcends regional divisions and seeks to define and celebrate a modern national identity, a theme created in the aftermath of independence (Rajadhyaksha 1997: 681). Beloved by all, the Mumbai film industry intends to reflect the shared tropes and desires of this imagined community and has become a source of cultural imperialism. Yet over the course of the new millennium, criticism has mounted around the universal appeal of traditional Hindi fiction cinema. . As Mumbai filmmakers discover profitable opportunities to produce films for what are considered "modern" audiences in the diaspora and foreign markets, Indian audiences fear that filmmakers will sacrifice substance for style. Films labeled as universal hits have enjoyed success abroad but receive mixed reviews in India (Ganti 2011: 445). While Indian editorials call on directors and producers to refocus their attention on the "All-India" hit, Bollywood filmmakers maintain that their priorities lie in producing profitable films that demonstrate a distinct movement toward modernity. With rising distribution and production costs, single-screen Indian film generates little equity. For generations, it has been associated with the “backward” lower classes who have a limited entertainment budget. Filmmakers consider that these audiences are to the detriment of the industry: paper circles are given their own spaces to allow community development to the exclusion of the working or rural classes who represent a challenge. to modernity. The city centers of Indian metropolises mainly cater to urban elites and tourists. The colorful displays and clean conditions attract a gentrified public while the high prices have kept out the “scum”. Breckenridge and Appadurai suggest that these spaces serve as an "interocular field" (...) structured such that each site or setting of socialization or regulation of the public gaze is to some extent affected by the experience of other sites" ( Appadurai and Breckenridge 1995: 12). The elite individual draws strict comparisons in his or her mind between spaces intended for consumerism and the rest of the city and creates distinctions between the purchasing power and modern capacity of consumers in each landscape..