Why the hell ROM got stuck with ACADEMY AR of 4:3? 1.85:1 is WIDE SCREEN , that generally disney uses for their features etc and DEI etc cropped/butchered WS films to make them filling STANDARD TV SCREENS. Hollywood is going DIGITAL for their TV too, and new PHILIPS 21:9 56 inch screen looks phenomenal( but only for Europe ) and here a DIRECTOR's vision is REGRESSIVE 4:3 AR!! What the hell he was trying to show that we could not see in GANDHI?

Film seems just a follow up, sequel to RDB mantra with a different milieu , more Western Floss, mixed with MOHABTAEN, and some YRF influence and SLB visionary style. Imho, it will be another YUVRAJ or SAAWARIYA that would live on AUDIO CD only. To my surprise Waheeda etc are characterization is so similar to age old YRF/BR film characterizations that has never changed.

I always doubted that ROM can make a film as good as classic GARAM HAWA or as lovable as ZUBAIDA! and I was right in first place.

Majority of theatres (including modern Big Screen ones) that I have seen films in, in North America, have "Max Size" screen when the AR is 16:9. A film with AR of 2.35:1 will have less picture area than a film in 16:9.

I like bigger screen. As it is, in North America, you get a bigger picture if AR is 16:9. BTW, In I-Max theatres std screen is 4:3. When a 2.35:1 film is transferred to I-Max, the picture size actually is only half of what it could have been if it was a real 4:3 I-Max.

Among India themed films recall "Bollywood Hollywood" where 2.35:1 screenings saw picture cut up from top and bottom as compared to 16:9 film print-screen combo.

Yup, I do remember that.

But why OM would think this film will look the best in STD AR?

BTW I think, I remember one OM PURI film very simillar shot, voilent style recently, on dvd?

Alright guys, it's time to officially put this whole aspect ratio issue to rest. I saw the film today and it was projected 'anamorphically' in a 2.35:1 aspect ratio, even the 'Censor Bpard Certificate' at the begining of the film, stated 'Delhi-6 (Cinemascope)'. The film seems to have been shot and exhibited no different from the thousands of other Hindi films released over the last Three decades. I suppose I was not going crazy, when I thought I remembered seeing the theatrical trailer exactly the same way, ie. in anamorphic 2.35:1 aspect ratio.

Regarding my views on the film, I found it to be okay. Not anywhere as good as 'Rang De Basanti' but still not anywhere as bad as some people (read as Moron Adarsh), painted it out to be. The film lacks cohesiveness and seems to drift in many parts and I can see how the average viewer would/could never like this film. The music, unlike 'Rang De Basanti' is not utilized well and I could'nt help but think to myself, "what a waste of an excellent sioundtrack". Other than the 'Kaala Bandar' song, I can't think of even one song that does not seem to be an intrusion or simply poorly incorporated into the script. In fact it almost seems like the soundtrack came first and the script sort of just accomodated the songs. Overall I would rate the film a '6.5 - 7.0 out of 10'. 'Rang De Basanti' on the other hand I would rate as a solid '9.0 out of 10'. The one thing that stands out in the film though is the perfomances of so many of the supporting cast, making one feel sorry that all this talent is going to waste simply because the 'Chopras', 'Johars', 'Bhansalis' etc. continue to work only with their coterie of mediocre actors.

EDIT: The rather blatant preachiness in the climax of the film is quite jarring for an understated film like 'Delhi-6'. I found it to be quite obnoxious and totally pandering to the lowest common denominator of the viewing audience, who is not the target audience of such a film to begin with.

I just saw this last night and much to my relief, I concur with Sanjay that the film is projected and clearly framed for 1:2.35.

The film isn't excellent mainly because of the all-too-obvious preachiness towards the end, but personally I really enjoyed to the relaxed, loose feeling of the film's structure. I'm glad to see Mehra trying something different.

The DVD will answer it all!

thanks SAnjay, I believe dvd is not far away. Imho, get SOOO MANY ACTORS EXTRAVAGANZA, ALL BIG WIGS and then do justice with their roles characterization, in 2.30 hr, including songs here and there, kaala, gora bandar too, trying to show some glamor/sleeze/floss incorporated too, is a hecka hard job for a director and then seeing all those mega names, create an exuberant hype and plethora of expectation. Film like SLUMDOG no expectations take u by surprise.

Nevertheless, Divya Dutta is such a class act, excellent performer that has been always side lined in 5-10 minute roles. She reminded me of Dimple roles in some movies, but nevertheless does lack Dimple persona though.

Divya Dutta is most certainly a class act, in this film and almost all others that she gets to work in. As for the ensemble of character artists in the film, my praise was more directed towards the small timers, rather than the bigger names such as Om Puri, Waheeda Rehman etc. Ofcourse I have to add that Rishi Kapoor is also such a wonderful actor to watch, how I wish bollywood would make more use of him and other great actors of his generation, even if only in character roles.

Indeed! Rishi is a very dependable performer, unlike Rajesh Khana who went flop, over age.

Small actors, yes, usually they are overlooked like Divya Dutta, Vijay Raz, atul kulkarni It was nice to see Tanvi Azmi instead of mama kher( seems she did not age well though).

Similarly actors like Victor Banerjee, etc are underated always.

Do u know what happened to Simone Singh?I thought she was pretty impressive in Sur, hmbpkh, etc and was a perfect fit for overseas desi gal kinda roles though.

But unfortunately these good actors will finish as small actors and would never be rewarded for whatever they deserve.

I just watched this again last night, but this time in a theater in NJ.
It was definitely not Scope, and neither did the certificate say Scope.
It however wasn't 4:3. It was clearly 1.85:1 as the curtains were pulled back far enough that I could see the edge of the frames. Funny, for the UTV logo in the beginning, they added black bars to make it scope, but the rest of the film played out in Flat.

and so it continues... Though at least now I can understand the choice of 1.85:1, and not the ridiculous notion of 4:3.

perhaps it is indeed 4x3 and theatres are matting it to either 1.85:1 or 2.35:1.

That is just not possible. I am willing to bet anything that the film has been shot on 35mm film with an aspect ratio of 2.35:1, there is now way or technology on earth for it to have been shot in 4:3 and then somehow converted to the final projected result that I saw when I viewed the film. A movie shot in 4:3 just cannot be matted to a an aspect ratio of 2.35:1 without losing majorly on resolution, resulting an almost unacceptable softness. In addition to this being a first in the history of cinema, if it actually is, it would also raise the question of why in the hell would Rakyesh Mehra do this. Also as stated earlier, the 'Censor Board Certificate' also clearly states 'Cinemascope'.

so are there multiple prints in circulation? some 2.35:1 and others 1.85:1...?
youullu didn't see "scope" mentioned in the theatre he saw in, while sanjay saw "cinemascope" in the censor cert in the theatre he saw in...

btw, delhi 6 was processed at Prasad http://www.screenindia.com/news/keeping ... ng/391410/

1.85:1 is perfectly acceptable!

The way I noticed films if they are 4:3 or 2.35:1 is if the screen at the cinema is huge, and I mean huge! Thats one way you could notice easily. My local cinema didnt play it because they didnt have the lens to play 4:3; and if they did it would not fit the whole screen so it would have to be played in a smaller screen.