Any idea where one might be able to see this sequence? Does anyone recall having ever seen it with the movie? Where might it have been placed?

go back in time

Did a google search for this song and found the lyrics;



...also a quote from what looks like an interview with Anand Bakshi;



Ali

The qawwali is available on this CD.

Wow, thanks a lot Ali. At least I now know not to bother ever searching for the "video" of this thing. If anyone is able to rip the song and post it on his or her Web site, I'd love to hear it (I don't think I'll order the audio CD). Thanks again for the information, man!

I have the CD and in India it is available for Rs. 99 under the MusicIndia / Polydor label.

(Previous mentions at viewtopic.php?t=6345&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=15 )



= = = = = =

For those following this thread for the different versions and DVD-editions of Sholay, check out viewtopic.php?t=8245 for the Carlotta edition...

(Updated 27-Dec-2005: Carlotta can actually be called Eros-Carlotta)

Editions known so far:

1. Ultra DVD

2. Gold VHS

3. Malaysian VCD (unbranded)

4. Eros-DEI DVD

5. Eros-B4U DVD

6. Carlotta DVD

7. Orson Video (VHS or DVD?)

8. Sipsons Video (VHS or DVD?)

==

I think you may be remembering another movie in which Amitabh and Dharam have a qawalli but are just guest artistes in that movie... perhaps buddha mil gaya? or soorma bhopali... I remember that movie had a "character actor" as the "hero." (There is definitely a movie with Dharam and Amit qawaali.)

I think you may be right about this and my memory might be playing tricks with me. The Amitabh & Dharmendra jodi in the qawalli may have led me to think it was from Sholay. That and the fact that I distinctly remember reading about this missing qawalli from Sholay, might have led my old brain to put 2 & 2 together to get 5.
Hmm.. now that would be another Amitabh movie, 'Do Aur Do Paanch' except that had Shashi Kapoor and not Dharmendra. See I can still remember a little and although I guess I am rambling now, there still might be hope for me.

Found this brief sample from an eBay listing for an LP of Sholay. The qawwali is the 4th song in the file.

How Many versions of SHOLAY:

IMDB lists 70mm print and 35 mm print.

70mm print is stated to be 6 track audio and 35mm print to be mono.

Are there 35mm prints of SHOLAY that are cinemascope?? If so, are there any SHOLAY 35mm cinemascope prints with DD 5.1 audio obtained from 70mm's 6 tracks?? I doubt though.

The IMDB writeup on Sholay is not entirely correct. Meanwhile, I do belive that the re-released Sholay in 2003 / 2004 is 35 mm cinemascope with Dolby 5.1 or Dolby Stereo. (Someone bought the rights and released it afresh.)

Also, just to let you know that the Carlotta DVD of Sholay from France is also an EROS collaboration. I received my copy, there's a small EROS logo on the backside of the DVD case -- the sound is Dolby Digital 1.0 (mono) but is a vast improvement over previous mono-converted-to-Dolby-Digital-5.1 DVDs that have the same sound coming from all 5 speakers. The picture is nice.

I wonder, has any DVD of Sholay been mastered (as [I feel] it should be) from the 70mm print of the film, rather than from the 3mm one? As far as I know, Sholay was shot on 70mm film, which means that its "aspect ratio" was — not 4:3/1.33:1 (or 1.37:1, if we're to account for the sound track) or 2.35:1 (it couldn't have been 2.39:1, as that ratio wasn't in use as early as the 1970s, and certainly wouldn't have been used in India in 1975) — 2.2:1. As 70mm-film projectors were not common back then (hell, they've never really been "common" anywhere in the world, at any time), the movie was likely converted to 35mm for the purpose of usability, at which point a decision was probably made to project the picture in the 2.35:1 aspect ratio (35mm film, I doubt, could be projected at 2.2:1; 1.33:1 would have been a ludicrous choice to make, as the sides would have been just unacceptably cut off). At 2.35:1, of course, picture information couldn't be "added" at the sides, so a bit would have to have been chopped off at the top and at the bottom. This all said, the Eros DVD of the film is presented 4:3, and it doesn't look as though we're missing a hell of a lot of important information at the sides. This, indeed, makes me feel that it's possible that Sholay was shot both in both the 70mm format (for the few cinema halls that supported it) and the 35mm format (for the remaining majority). Regarding "versions," I've always been exposed to the "Asrani" scenes (though I've been told, by family, that they were inserted later on, when the film had proved a success) and the "Gabbar-goes-to-jail ending"; of course, I don't remember about the smaller things, such as the "Basanti chase" (that leads to the song, "Jab Tak Hai Jaan") and the "spiking of Thakur Saheb's shoes." (I don't remember about Gabbar's torturing Sachin's character, either... I think I remember the latter's simply having gone out, seen two dacoits and Gabbar, and being brought back to the village, dead, on his horse.)

As for the sound, with the 70mm print, it must have been four-channel surround sound. If, indeed, there's an "original" 35mm version, as well, I can't fathom the sound it should have.

At last week's showing of the film (on Monday, September 4, 2006, at 8:00 P.M.) at the Walter Reade Theater of the Lincoln Center (in New York City), I believe that picture was in the 2.2:1 aspect ratio. Gabbar was arrested at the end, Sachin's character wasn't shown being tortured, and Asrani made his appearance.

FRAMING:

It has been mentioned before in various SHOLAY threads (by Sanjay et. al) and is also obvious by comparing various version frames:

1) Sholay was never shot in 70 mm frame. Instead it was shot on some 35 mm film (Sanjay). Later it was blown up (cheated) on to 70 mm film. It happens all the time for Hollywood films, for optimum picture quality, that thay make special 70 mm prints from a 35 mm cinemascope print if the film is to be screened on a giant 70 mm format. Only thing is they don't make much fuss about it, like Sholay did.

2) 35 mm version was originally released in mono sound and 70 mm version with multichannel sound. Note there were only a few 70 mm theatres in India at that time. 35 mm print had more picture at top and bottom. 70 mm print had top and bottom picture cut off. It makes no sense to me that they would optimise the picture for a wide screen frame that would be released in a select few theatres as oppsed to most of the prints in 35 mm. It just turned out that no one noticed that they were seeing less at top and bottom. How can you notice what's missing in a frame untill you see full frame, side by side. Anyway, 70 mm print gelled well with the audience, mainly because of multichannel sound and because of giant screen size. To me, full frame (35 mm), as seen from DVDs/ VHSs, seems better framing if equally big screen is avail like I-max/ Omni-max screens.

3) Later SHOLAY re-releases, when 35mm cinemascope was common, the releases were on 35mm cinemascope with almost same framing as was on 70 mm (pic cut off from top and bottom as compared to orig 35 mm as shot) and had multichannel sound.

What we need is full frame DVD with multichannel sound.


VERSION:

Original release was, whatever was allowed by Indian Censors for India. Why did they stuck to Indian censors passed version for outside of India is beyond me.

Later Director Cut version has what director intended and is more intense version. It doesn't mean orig censor passed version was incomplete. It was compatible with the plot that was possible with censor cuts. For example, there is no point showing a cobbler nailing Thakur's shoes if they were not going to be used to destroy Gabbar.


What we need is full frame DVD of Director's Cut with multichannel sound.


BTW, why can't we get that Qawwali filmed now and added in extras. Most of the actors are alive and well. When dead can dance in KAAL why not in SHOLAY.


What we need is full frame DVD of Director's Cut with multichannel sound and missed Qawwali that should be shot even if now.

Is there any segment talked about but missing in Pakeeza ??

From my vantage point of "Sholay" at that Walter Reade screening, it looked like it was shown in Academy ratio (1.33:1). I may be wrong but that's what it seemed to me (curtains were pulled in on the sides). A few years back, I was at a screening that I had to leave (with no subs) that was 5.1 and in 2.35:1! It looked great, newly remastered. It's really a shame that that one was not circulated around instead of this crappy, beat up, mono print.

Now Commando303's wording about prints being shot in both 70mm and 35mm is possible. I know that there were Hollywood movies that were shot at the same time in both formats (do a take in one format, than another in another format). This was true for some of the musicals like "Oklahoma," I believe.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0048445/boa ... d/30276850

Rana, are you certain that Sholay was never shot onto 70mm film? From what I've heard (I'll post sources if I find them), the movie was, indeed, shot onto the larger format, and not merely "converted" from 35mm for the sake of better quality. Regarding the practice, I don't believe it happens "all the time" in Hollywood; it occurs now and then, but not very frequently.
Again, I agree that the 4:3 aspect-ratio version of Sholay (as seen on the Eros DVD) looks "complete." That said, the version presented at the Walter Reade Theater — again, I believe in the 2.2:1 aspect ratio — also looked very "complete": no shots seemed to be begging for "more to be shown." Now, certainly, I couldn't do any sort of "side-by-side comparisons," but I do (for some reason) recall seeing Dharmendra's "legs" during the "Basanti at the mandir" scene.

Also, I feel it important to re-iterate that more is not (necessarily) better. I still hold the conviction that Sholay was shot onto 70mm film; if, however, Rana is correct, and it was originally recorded only onto 35mm film, then I think we ought to ask ourselves, "did Sippy intend to have the full-frame version shown"? Sure, the Eros DVD doesn't have any boom mikes visible; nonetheless, I feel that a certain "epic quality" is missing from the very-close-to-square picture format. If Sippy wanted to omit parts of the top and the bottom (i.e., if he shot the film open-matte), then I think the DVD ought to reflect this choice. If Star Wars (pick any episode) had been shot open-matte, I think we'd still probably prefer to see the "wide-screen" presentation. (*Again, all this said, I'm not convinced that Sholay, indeed, was not filmed 70mm, 2.2:1.)

...I can only imagine that the request to have the "Qawwaali" filmed now is a joke... lol.

What I'd like to see is a DVD of Sholay that is mastered from the original 70mm print of the film, and makes use of the version's four-channel surround sound. If I am mistaken — of Sholay actually never was shot on 70mm film — then I'd like to see a "cropped" (2.2:1) picture on the DVD (taken from the 35mm film) and hear (as there seems to be consensus around this) the surround-sound audio track. A "full-frame" option might be nice, but I don't want it to be the only option (maybe it could be a dual-layered, two-sided disc — each side containing either presentation of the movie). Also, I think it's necessary that the DVD allow the audience to select the "theatrical" or "director's" cut. This wouldn't even take up much more space — it could be done as it was on the Terminator 2: Judgment Day "Ultimate Edition" DVD: The film, itself, takes up the space it does, and two "routes" are taken during play; each leading to one of two "versions" of the film. Thus, the only extra space taken would be that by the additional footage (totaling less than fifteen minutes, altogether) of the Director's cut.

Of course, the DVD must include a shit-load of special feaures, as well: Cast/crew interviews; the "making-of"; theatrical trailers; booklet inserts; "the phenomenon"; critical responses; etc.

Ajy1, the version of Sholay presented at the Walter Reade Theater was not 1.33:1. Maybe they forgot to pull the curtains all the way open at your showing (did you see any picture being projected onto them?)... Wow: 2.35:1 Sholay with a clean print, great sound, and no subtitles — I only wish I could have seen that (lol). Where was this? It must have been Eros's "digitally-remastered" print from (I think) 2004.