Deconstructing Sholay
Hi Folks,
The most successful film and arguably the greatest one in modern
Indian cinema is Sholay (flames). This one is an analysis on why it
became a classic. The reasons as I fathom are:
(a) The Characters & Characterzation: Rarely can I think of a film,
Bollywod or Hollwood or any other wood, that had such a multitude of
big names (some would become big after the movie), yet which had such
a DIVERSE and STRONG characterization for each one of them. No two
were alike yet no one oveshadowed the other. Think about it, Jay,
Veeru, Basanthi, Thakur, etc all different all subsets to a pie.
Matter of fact it was the characterization which made the film. The
story of dacoits in a village and folks coming to the rescue has been
told a million times before and after, so the story was very
ordinary, the characters were not.
Which other film can you name wherein the most remebered characters
are not the main characters but SAMBA (Mac Mohan), SOORMA BHOPALI
(Jagdeep), Jailer (Asrani) and KAALIA (Viju Khothe).
(b) The setting: It worked in Mother India, it worked in Sholay and
more recently it worked in Lagaan….it is all about being true to
the locals. A Real village is a real village, a recreated set is not
the real thing. The earthy look to the film, right from the horses to
the train sequence, all had a rustic and consistent look to it and a
look that gelled well with the story and was not a barrier to it.
(c) The humour: For a three hour film with that many characters there
was a total lack of slapstick. It was all genuine humour. Right from
Jagdeep, to Basanti to Veeru’s drunk scene to Asrani, hell even in
bad guys had a tinge of humour to them and it was humour which has
stood the test of time….watch Sholay today to see what I am talking
about.
(d) The strong female characters: Maybe that is how they are in real
life but both a talkative Hema and a quite Jaya, gave performances
which had a hallmark of strength of character and a celebration of
their womanhood in that film. Yes despite Jaya being forced to depict
a widow….a widow it was but one who gave that occasional glimpse of
a life still waiting to be lived and Hema….one of her most
memorable performances. To think that both the women, who played
almost opposites of each other, could hold their own, is what the
film is all about.
(e) Aare ooh Samaba: Just like Amrish Puri would do later in Mr India
(Moogambo Khush Hua), it was the negative character, a theater actor
by the name of Amjad Khan, who made the film what it was. To know the
true worth of what he accomplished, it must be remembered that the
late Amjad, in real life was one of the most sophisitcated and
articulate folks….yet the tobacco grinding in the palm and
the “Sabaasee Deega” dialogue, would have one believe that the guy
had never been to school all his life…the hallmark of a great
actor. It was an era where the villians were never remembered, it was
all about the hero….that is until Gabbar made Sholay his
film…..all the others gave a superlative performance but Sholay and
Gabbar Singh became synonamous and continue to be that way till
today. In effect it is the Ravan, as opposed to the Ram, who gives a
backbone to the film and that was apparent in Sholay.
(f) The dialogues: While the story was ordinary, the dialogues were
less but each word carried a lot of weight. There were no free words,
almost every word of Sholay became etched in memory and for that the
credit goes to the screenwriters. This was one of the first films to
sell JUST IT’s DIALOGUES IN A CASETTE and that went on to become a
best seller. Such was the impact. The dialogues created the
characters who then evolved into the film.
Clearly the above all had created a legend and India’s greatest movie
came to life.
Now anyone who ever aspires to be creatively inclined with the Indian
film cinema should watch this classic, cause what was worth in gold
in 1975 is now priceless.
Sincerely,
Vivek “Ram Gopal can create a sequel or do whatever, the magic that
was SHOLAY can never be recreated in this lifetime” Kumar
Not awed, not amazed, just mesmerized, perfection started in a cinema
hall called MINERVA in Bombay one fine 1975 morning!!!!!!
Movies
 1 readers recommend this post  Loading ... |
 Email This Post To Friends
|
|
Related Posts | |
5 Responses to “Deconstructing Sholay”
Leave a Reply
(Ref smilies)
Our Comments Policy : The following kinds of comments are troll capped, blocked and/or commenter's identity reported publicly: Verbal abuse, personal attacks, hate statements, spam, trolls, advertising. Please assist us in keeping the comments clean. Use the contact form to let us know if you find unwarranted comments on PFC. Thank you.
-
Advertisement
-
- Random thoughts on Yuv
- Dev.D- Emosional Aty
- An Interview With Oye Lucky Lucky Oye’s Dolly - Richa C
- SORRY
- The story of Rab Ne Bana Di Jodi Reve
- Ada Music Review
- Ajay TG- Man With A Camera.
- Maharathi: Murder is in the Details (Zero Spoiler Review)
- Mukhbiir Versus Chamku – A toss-up between two lone rangers
- Random thoughts on Yuvvraaj
-
Advertisement
Hottest Today:
Recent Posts:
aptly deconstructed vivek =D> omkara is the only movie in recent times i can recall which brings out the villain more than the hero… though sholay to me was just a really entertaining film (yes, i have no other fascination with it as i never grew up with movies), i agree that an act like gabbar or even mogambo for that matter will never be repeated or recreated in any way in modern day.
and your statement about being able to remember every single character, no matter how “small”. amen! so true :)>-
Few weeks back I tripped on a substance and in that euphoria wrote a piece of article called ‘A day in the life of a film buff’ and submitted to this website.
Predictably, i guess, it was rejected.
So if my piece was deemed to be unworthy of being an article it should atleast be
something as a comment.
I used to say to my fellow movie buffs that india with its huge population produced
good movies which can be counted with fingers (both hands included).
But, wtf i know!.I didnt watch any kashyap’s movies.ritwick ghatak or those numerous movies i used to miss in the sunday afternoons on doordharsan.
My desire is to discuss and discover those unknown gems that india produced..but
somehow(censor board? or being too good to be true) unknown ..but listen to me here ..indian movies does not ..i repeat ..does not equal to hindi movies or bollywood.
I am like this food connoisseur who didnt taste hyderabadi dum biryani..
Did any one of you eat the real hyderabadi dum biryani?
I just want to provoke people to start digging those real indian gems..not those fake bollywood shit.
————————————————————————————————————–
A day in the life of a film buff
caution : i dont write reviews which reveals the plot.
What is the relationship between a mother and child.
is mothers love overated? What about the CNN?? abcnews?? story the day about this woman who smothered her 2 yr old child and then went back to sleep.
how can a mother kill her child just for disturbing sleep? is it that simple?
They cant just throw a sensationalist news at us and then hide like ostrich. I am sure it is much complex than that..but readers dont like complexity.
They do like the graphic details..but those details ironically entertains them.voyeurism is the biggest selling feature of the news outlets in america.and my dear friends, thats where Michael haneke comes.He makes us watch all we want…that at some point we start hating the director for making us do that.
Funny games.(5/5). directed by michael haneke.
You want to see how funny life can be sometimes? and how life is soo un-fucking-fair.
u c…the hall marks of a great director is being relentness in provoking the audiences…even if it goes against their will. and sometimes people dont understand that kind of emotion ..ie being provoked … and in a desperate attempt to escape from the hell of facing their reality…they try to criticize the director in such an illogical way that they just want to bury him or just plain
ignore him. Escapist facists! dont get me wrong ..i am a great escapist myself.I escape in to movies..but ..somehow i escape in to such kind of movies..
where i can see some reality sometimes my own reality. Fuck reality..I just want to see some pure passion..you know what pisses me off?..saying that common indian audience (world audience for that matter) just want to escape from their reality. and it became the single most reason for not experimenting with quality cinema.
then…what about me? I can escape in to pather panchali more easily than to any crap bollywood or my own andhra/tamil cinema or mainstream hollywood produces.PEOPLE WILL WATCH QUALITY CINEMA! ..wait a min..wtf i am talking abt…I HOPE PEOPLE WATCH QUALITY CINEMA.
I hate to use the word “foreign”,but, god bless foreign cinema.
nazi-jew is a person who calls himself moviebuff but hates subtitles.
pasolini,melville,fellini,truffaut,godard,renoir, bresson, de sica,wong kar wai,
miang ling, jafar panahi, majidi majidi,kiarostami, pedro,meirelles,kurasawa,ozu,
kenji, cuaron, suzuki,rosellini,ray,ulrich,bergman, tarkovsky,zertov, menzel,
milos forman, frizlang,padilha,hsiao-hsien, gillo pontecorvo,pen-ek ratanaruang,chan wook park,kielowski,fassbinder,herzog…..
I am extermely jealous of any person who is about to discover these great
directors and at the same time i will be extremly grateful to anyone who can show me some obscure but great cinema.
I cant even imagine myself if these people didnt make such great movies..
what makes them great? subject matter? technique??reality??..NO.
I guess its the passion. somehow you can see the passion with which the director made the movie.just like any other art..and that is exactly why sometimes you cant even explain why u liked the movie.
That is exactly the reason why (other than my lack of command in any written or spoken languages) i am at loss of words to explain why 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY IS THE GREATEST MOVIE EVER MADE.(advice: Never watch 2001 on a small screen TV with crappy sound.)
The only way to express the greatness of 2001 is by making another movie.
but, first, let me try to explain it in words.
For me, artist is a person who tries to express some kind of emotion through his work.
anger : do the right thing,battle of algiers,salaam bombay,city of god,weekend, arth satya.
hopelessness : dr.strangelove
love,loss,revenge etc : virgin spring,seventh seal, sacrifice,oldboy
…..so on..
but..some times when we are alone..thinking kind of metaphysically…we
experience a kind of fleeting thought ..an emotion..a doubt..question..about our existence,future,past,birth,death etc.
if a director takes that 5 sec emotion and expands it into a 3 hr experience then ..believe me..its a fucking miracle..how does it feel to have an orgasm for hours long?
All the directors whom I consider great, always made the same movie.
They subconciously selected subjects which expressed same kind of feeling or same kind of emotions. ..even quentin tarantino,scorsese,altman,arnovksy,christopher nolan,bergman,kurasawa,shekar kammula,spike lee..they all made the same movie..different stories…but same goal…more or less.
May be that is called the STAMP of the director.
Now comes the art of direction.Many people believe that direction is a combination of different arts and in the absence of those arts direction would be meaningless.No. I dont think it is true.Give some respect to direction.
give me minimalistic acting,music, camera movement and i can still show you a great movie.You want proof?Watch robert bresson ,pasolini,miang ling,hitchcock,tod browing,mike leigh
I believe direction is not only abt telling a story ..but its like describing your beautiful/horrible dream to someone.You just want to tell others abt how horrified or how peaceful you felt during the dream.but u cant just state your
emotions ..because the audience cannot feel the same way you felt…so either you
invent a story or explain your dream in a dramatic way…so that the audience feel the same way as yourself….will the audience get it or dont is a different question.
so, whats a successful movie? i dont know.whats a failure? when the director has nothing to say.
Sometimes directors do have something to say..they do have passion..but in the process of making the audience like their child (ie movie) ..they tend to entertain the audience by adding content which dilute or outright hijack the emotions he/she was trying to express….examples : lagaan, black and devdas.
These filmmakers are like mothers (hypothetical) who are ready with makeup boxes for the child right at the delivery table.they cut the body parts of their own kid ..so that they conform to the standards of society.They make me puke.
Now coming to the first short directed by sripriya titled ‘untitled’: its not a complete failure. Music saved the film. i especially liked the part where the chorus starts..but it was abruptly cut short. i think the hook of the movie is yearning for a particular state of mind. I think that emotion can be enhanced if an obstacle is created for the protagonist.what if the curator didnt allow the protagonist to stay there.The wifes character is redundant…her acting (more like i dont give a fuck) spoiled the scenes.The man likes the art soo much that finally he becomes part of it.a bit too much for me.i didnt understand the meaning of title either.
also why a male protagonist? The dialogue that that art is not for every one is so true.Because in the case of 2001, people who are willing to explore that emotion will enjoy the movie much better.
I guess first movie experience is always humbling.
My first documentary is 100 times worse than this.
sripriya: there is nothing to learn from filmschools anymore.
write your first script and make your first movie.
i predict your movies will be poetic but less confrontational.just a hunch.
not judging.
i am sure there will a Nouvelle Vague in india..and i hope u will be part of it.
watched babel at union square. a masterpiece.5/5.
warrior. good one. 3/5
chicago: 2 excellently choreographed songs.remaining movie ok..3/5.
ninth gate : i love polanski.Loved the movie except the last 15 min.4/5
Now coming to criticism.My biggest problem is that..critics make a living out of it. They have to self censor.Roger ebert tiptoes along
the border line by not disappointing mainstream audience,but still entertaining the indie and foreign film crowd. I learned so many things
from his reviews.My only gripe is that he wastes his time watching some really stupid movies.My theory is that if you waste time watching a bad movie..you may forever lose that time to watch a really good movie..becoz there is never enough time in ones life to watch all the great movies.may be on the other hand watching a bad movie will make us appreicate good movies much better.
People stick with non-confrontational reviews and they are fixed on only
particular critics. A real movie lover can never do that because hes gonna miss masterpieces like this http://www.chicagoreader.com/movies/100best.html
Hope my piece does not get stuck like black friday at censor board.
looks like we have beautiful morning in nyc and i guess i will go to sleep.
out.
If I’m right, I do believe a lot of money was spent in trying to construct a village set for Sholay. They went out to a deserted area in Maharashtra, forget the name at present.
anangbhai:
Rampur The village in Sholay : set for this village was constructed near Bangalore. and perhaps this place is still cherished and people go there to see it.
Great analysis, Vivek(as always
)
Whatever I say about the film will feel less…
I appreciate when we ‘analyse’ any film, or discuss it in detail, instead of worshipping it.That is what I liked in the article. You have substantiated all your views on the film with examples.
After reading it, even I feel like analysing it myself.
In fact I was discussing the idea for a project with some friends, to take one film and analyse it from all possible angles-technique, post-release phase, recall value etc etc. It is kind of reverse engineering a film.
The few films that we could think of were Pulp fiction, sholay,lagaan, taxi driver, godfather, and some other american films from the 70’s.