Jodha Akbar

India-Forums

   
Jodha Akbar
Jodha Akbar

Rajat's rigid acting (Page 8)

QtnNotti Goldie
QtnNotti
QtnNotti

Joined: 25 March 2009
Posts: 1184

Posted: 30 June 2013 at 4:07am | IP Logged
Originally posted by sashashyam

My dear Disha,

As one is, at 60+, far too old to drool over a handsome young man,  also as one who has never seen Rajat Tokas on screen before, and finally  as one who, as a history buff, has a pretty good idea of what the real Akbar was like, let me add my tuppennyworth to this debate.  I think the selection of this young man to play Jalaluddin Mohammed Akbar was one of Ekta's casting coups.

First of all, Jalal here is 19 or 20  years old. He has been the Emperor since he was 13. How on earth can one  cast a more mature actor? It would be ridiculous.

Second, Rajat has the one intangible quality needed to play a young emperor. He has presence. This is something that is either there or not there; it cannot be taught. He looks every inch a king, one born to command, one born to rule. A couple of inches more in height would have been even better, but it does not matter, and Akbar was not tall in any case.

As for the rigidity that seems to be the major cause for complaint, one has to take into account the character to be played. This is a young man who has his world at his feet. So arrogance comes naturally to him, as also the attitude of one who habitually dominates lesser mortals. The stance, the hands behind his back (exactly like the great Dilip Kumar playing Prince Salim in Mughal-e-Azam, incidentally), the slow walk to pick up Jodha's payal, the way he picks it up, with a slight hesitation before  he does so,  it is all part of the consciousness of being a Mughal ruler.

Jalal is not used to bending at all, for nothing and no one. It would normally never occur to him to stoop and pick up a girl's payal as a token ' women have always been his to take as he chose, he would never dream of chasing any of them. Still he picks it up, which means a lot more than with an ordinary man.

He does not kiss the payal as any ordinary lover would. It would be not be like the Shahenshah at all. He tosses it up in the air, but he always catches it, and when it falls into the fire, he burns his hand to retrieve it. This is not so much, as some have thought, a sign of passion for Jodha. He is not yet aware that he is falling in love with her, he does not know what love means. It is rather the possessiveness towards her that, as the line has it, uske parvaan chad gaya tha. For him, the payal symbolizes Jodha, and he will not let go of it or her, even if he has to burn his fingers to secure it.

It all comes thru beautifully, and far from being unnaturally rigid, it is all spot on for who Jalal is.

Jalal sneers so often because his whole approach to life and to most others is sardonic; he has never had to adjust to anyone at any time. His mirthless smile just before meting out punishment is terrifying, and in his interaction with  Sharifuddin, when the latter tries to get him to take rest,  he is all smooth  menace. Perhaps the sneer is too pronounced at times, but that is a matter of degree, and not too serious.

Rajat has deep set eyes, so I cannot see how such eyes can be 'bulging'. They gleam in their depths when he gets close to another and sneers, and the whole effect is meant to put the interlocutor off balance. It might seem overdone at places, but in an Indian TV show, where hamming is the rule and not the exception, it seems to me that the complaints on this score are excessive.

Surely one does not see  a Dilip Kumar or an Amitabh Bachchan or a Balraj Sahni on TV  these days? At least I have not seen any. Male leads in most TV serials are routinely shortchanged in what is basically a woman's medium.

This one might be the exception, though the scriptwriter seems to be confusing the young Jalal with either Mahmud of Ghazni or Mohammed Ghori, given to ransacking temples for the jewellery and abducting any female within reach. Probably this was done to give Jodha that much more credit for reforming him. But it is historically totally inaccurate. Akbar was born in a Rajput kingdom where his father had taken asylum while on flight from Sher Shah Suri, and he spent his early years among the Rajputs. It was this exposure to a different culture that shaped the broadmindedness of his policies towards the Rajputs and towards Hindus as a whole once he had begun to set his own  course.

To sum up, nothing is really lacking. It is not the actor's fault, and not even the director's. Rather Rajat's performance is related  to how Jalal the Emperor is visualized and developed. He is now part an arrogant warrior, used to victory, and part an impulsive young man, following a desire of the heart that he does not as yet  understand, and struggling with unfamiliar emotions.

Of course Rajat is not perfect, but then what is perfection? There were those who criticized Dilip Kumar's Prince Salim in Mughal-e-Azam as being too,  what else, stiff. They wanted him to be like Pradeep Kumar in Anarkali, a besotted lover dragging himself all over the ground  to get to Anarkali. But then Mughal-e-Azam is a classic, and Anarkali has been long forgotten!

Shyamala B.Cowsik


 

Chummeshwari analysis!!!! It couldn't have been said better SmileClap

The following 2 member(s) liked the above post:

..nams..sashashyam

veenisha IF-Rockerz
veenisha
veenisha

Joined: 02 June 2008
Posts: 7875

Posted: 30 June 2013 at 4:22am | IP Logged
awesome post yaar
and I completely agree with you he has improved him acting skills really well

The following 1 member(s) liked the above post:

sashashyam

Desichiqneez IF-Rockerz
Desichiqneez
Desichiqneez

Joined: 12 March 2007
Posts: 7231

Posted: 30 June 2013 at 4:22am | IP Logged
DITTO Nishaaa...!!!!DeadApprove

Wusssup with his weird expressions??!!! 
ALso what;s wid da BIG EYES??? ROFLErmm
A clean crisp look doesn't have to mean masculine...
ShockedWackoROFL khair chddow!!!! Clown

I lurveee rajat since PRC days...!!!! BlushingDay Dreaming 
and honestly, i can't see him romancing anyone 
else except Mugdha... PinchErmm Approve
BUH... Paridhi is not that bad either and in 
fact  i feel she's perfect as jodha no...!!! Embarrassed
da only prob is her mature look... Confused


Amor. IF-Stunnerz
Amor.
Amor.

Joined: 27 August 2008
Posts: 41175

Posted: 30 June 2013 at 5:03am | IP Logged
@Shyamala ji
thnkuu so much for ur post
Its really appreciated Clap
U analysed it perfectly even my dad used to say that he's doing it perfectly, thr r sum flaws but its not bcoz of rajat or paridhi or any other cast its bcoz ppl r comparing it either with the movie or sum other Hist Shows.
But let it b every1 has thr own POV n i want to say that Rajat is not at fault in this neither he's rigid nor " he can't act"
HE CAN ACT n he has proved it much before when he was only 14 , he won the ITA when thr were actors like Rajeev khandelwaal n Ronit roy were nominated with him.
It proves that he has that calibar, he's not getting much screen space as Jalal, bcoz the story is just developing, lets give him sum time, he'll rock as Jalal also.

No offence to any1.

The following 5 member(s) liked the above post:

QtnNotti..nams..Star_girlSuper Kool.FemmeFatale.

..KarnaKriti.. Goldie
..KarnaKriti..
..KarnaKriti..

Joined: 15 November 2010
Posts: 2165

Posted: 30 June 2013 at 7:50am | IP Logged
Originally posted by disha15

I have tried to keep my cool.But i just need to vent some of my views too,since everyone here seems to have one of their own.

Its simple.An actor is like clay,he is moulded by the director.

Its director who wants him to behave that way.Why is it so difficult for people to understand that?

Rajat's posture,which has been bothering people SO very much,isn't his usual posture.Its what he is being asked to do.

And moreover,kings are not supposed to be epitome of grace,they define 'strength' and 'power'.

So just because he went head over heels for a girl,all of a sudden,he wont turn soft.

And for all those who think,somebody else should have been given the role,i just tend to laugh.Because,tell me,who else has been able to make such major impact playing a historical?

Just one.Rajat Tokas

So if he isn't good enough,then no one is!

There is a reason why he is famous.And it is NOT just because of his looks.Looks toh bohat logon ke paas hota hai,but he didn't become famous just because of that.it was because of the way he portrayed PRC.If you would have seen the show.you would have known,that the director is at fault here.

And i see SO many fangirls drooling over their supposed favourite actors in other forums,where they just DO NOT stand even one word against their actor,even if the actor TRULY cant act *no offence* but just because he is 'hot'.

We are not such mindless pankhis. We showed respect,didn't we?We silently listened to everything.So please show some respect to us as well and try to understand the issue here.

We dont mind criticism,but attacking the actor directly,how is that criticism?Say you dont like how Jalal is being shown,fine.but statements like "Rajat cant act" etc,thats just not fair,considering most the people saying that havent seen his work before.And those who have,you did like him in PRC right?He did ACT well there,then how can one say that "he cant act"?

everyone knows he did a fabulous job as PRC.he didn't take those awards for no reason.Fine,the girls might watch a show for the actor's looks,what about the elders at home?Why would they watch it?The kids,why would they watch it?Obviously,not for the looks :D there must have been something right?

You dont like how he is playing Jalal,fine.But blaming the actor for it is just unfair.He has made remarkable work previously,and that cant be just ignored.while there are a few who aren't liking him here,there is a vast population who is!And no,its not because of his looks.What is the problem if a good actor,has looks anyway?

You might say,the only people who like him,are the ones who watched PRC.but no,i have seen SO many other people (take our forum only for example) who havent watched PRC and yet are loving him.

One clearly does not know,what goes on the set,what goes on while editing!

The crappy piece of editing,screenplay and camerawork,why dont we talk about that?Even that plays a major role how it looks on screen.

I am not opposing anyone's views here,coz they clearly are yours.I respect it.I am just hoping that my views as a viewer are respected too.

No offence meant to anyone.

..KarnaKriti.. Goldie
..KarnaKriti..
..KarnaKriti..

Joined: 15 November 2010
Posts: 2165

Posted: 30 June 2013 at 7:53am | IP Logged
^^ ditto Disha!
Nobody else has been able to create such a major impacts though there have been many others... Its not bcoz of his good looks but his talent! :-)

The following 4 member(s) liked the above post:

..nams..sashashyamStar_girl.FemmeFatale.

..KarnaKriti.. Goldie
..KarnaKriti..
..KarnaKriti..

Joined: 15 November 2010
Posts: 2165

Posted: 30 June 2013 at 7:54am | IP Logged
Originally posted by QtnNotti

Originally posted by sashashyam


<font face="Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif">My
dear Disha,



As one is, at 60+, far too old to drool over a handsome young man, also as one who has never seen Rajat Tokas on
screen before, and finally as one who, as a history buff, has a pretty
good idea of what the real Akbar was like, let me add my tuppennyworth to this
debate. I think the selection of this young man to play Jalaluddin
Mohammed Akbar was one of Ekta's casting coups.



First of all, Jalal here is 19 or 20 years old. He has been the Emperor
since he was 13. How on earth can one cast a more mature actor? It would
be ridiculous. </font>

<font face="Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif">Second,
Rajat has the one intangible quality needed to play a young emperor. He has
presence. This is something that is either there or not there; it cannot be
taught. He looks every inch a king, one born to command, one born to rule. A
couple of inches more in height would have been even better, but it does not
matter, and Akbar was not tall in any case. </font>

<font face="Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif">As
for the rigidity that seems to be the major cause for complaint, one has to
take into account the character to be played. This is a young man who has his
world at his feet. So arrogance comes naturally to him, as also the attitude of
one who habitually dominates lesser mortals. The stance, the hands behind his
back (exactly like the great Dilip Kumar playing Prince Salim in Mughal-e-Azam,
incidentally), the slow walk to pick up Jodha's payal, the way he picks it up,
with a slight hesitation before he does
so, it is all part of the consciousness
of being a Mughal ruler. </font>

<font face="Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif">Jalal
is not used to bending at all, for nothing and no one. It would normally never
occur to him to stoop and pick up a girl's payal as a token ' women have always
been his to take as he chose, he would never dream of chasing any of them.
Still he picks it up, which means a lot more than with an ordinary man. </font>

<font face="Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif">He
does not kiss the payal as any ordinary lover would. It would be not be like
the Shahenshah at all. He tosses it up in the air, but he always catches it,
and when it falls into the fire, he burns his hand to retrieve it. This is not
so much, as some have thought, a sign of passion for Jodha. He is not yet aware
that he is falling in love with her, he does not know what love means. It is
rather the possessiveness towards her that, as the line has it, uske parvaan chad
gaya tha.
For him, the payal symbolizes Jodha, and he will not let go of it or
her, even if he has to burn his fingers to secure it. </font>

<font face="Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif">It
all comes thru beautifully, and far from being unnaturally rigid, it is all
spot on for who Jalal is. </font>

<font face="Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif">Jalal sneers so often because his whole approach to life and to most others is sardonic; he
has never had to adjust to anyone at any time. His mirthless smile just before
meting out punishment is terrifying, and in his interaction with Sharifuddin, when the latter tries to get him
to take rest, he is all smooth
menace. Perhaps the sneer is too pronounced at times, but that is a matter of
degree, and not too serious. </font>

<font face="Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif">Rajat has deep set eyes, so I cannot see how such eyes can be 'bulging'. They gleam
in their depths when he gets close to another and sneers, and the whole effect
is meant to put the interlocutor off balance. It might seem overdone at places,
but in an Indian TV show, where hamming is the rule and not the exception, it
seems to me that the complaints on this score are excessive. </font>

<font face="Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif">Surely
one does not see a Dilip Kumar or an
Amitabh Bachchan or a Balraj Sahni on TV
these days? At least I have not seen any. Male leads in most TV serials
are routinely shortchanged in what is basically a woman's medium. </font>

<font face="Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif">This
one might be the exception, though the scriptwriter seems to be confusing the
young Jalal with either Mahmud of Ghazni or Mohammed Ghori, given to ransacking
temples for the jewellery and abducting any female within reach. Probably this
was done to give Jodha that much more credit for reforming him. But it is
historically totally inaccurate. Akbar was born in a Rajput kingdom where his
father had taken asylum while on flight from Sher Shah Suri, and he spent his
early years among the Rajputs. It was this exposure to a different culture that
shaped the broadmindedness of his policies towards the Rajputs and towards
Hindus as a whole once he had begun to set his own course.

</font>

<font face="Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif">To
sum up, nothing is really lacking. It is not the actor's fault, and not even
the director's. Rather Rajat's performance is related to how Jalal the Emperor is visualized and
developed. He
is now part an arrogant warrior, used to victory, and part an impulsive young
man, following a desire of the heart that he does not as yet understand, and
struggling with unfamiliar emotions.
</font>

<font face="Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif">Of course Rajat is not perfect, but then
what is perfection? There were those who criticized Dilip Kumar's Prince Salim
in Mughal-e-Azam as being too, what
else, stiff. They wanted him to be like Pradeep Kumar in Anarkali, a besotted
lover dragging himself all over the ground
to get to Anarkali. But then Mughal-e-Azam is a classic, and Anarkali
has been long forgotten! </font>

<font face="Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif">Shyamala
B.Cowsik
</font>


<font face="Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif"></font>

<font size="2" face="Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif" color="#000099">Chummeshwari analysis!!!! It couldn't have been said betterSmileClap</font>
nobodyatnotime Senior Member
nobodyatnotime
nobodyatnotime

Joined: 29 September 2011
Posts: 486

Posted: 30 June 2013 at 9:05am | IP Logged
Originally posted by Sweet_Krishna

Rajat is not only rigid but he is faking the voice as well. His actual voice is boyish which gives away when he has a roaring laughter.Rest of the times, he is uttering dialogues by bringing unnecessary huskiness in order to prove himself mature.Moreover, he is acting like a psycho when portraying Akbar like turning his head sideways, popping out his eyeballs, smirking non stop. He was acting like a lunatic while watching Jodhaa while there was a storm. His appearance is majestic but not his voice and facial expressions. Some one else would have done greater justice to the role. Paridhi is much more mature than him in all the fields. He is a good actor but he is CUTE and that cuteness and softness is acting against him.

I am okay with the voice, actually. I see a young king puppet-ed by others trying to assert his own power- to an extent to himself. Way of speaking is fine. The shrewdness should come off more naturally. But recalling PRC, I remember episodes where Prithvi went into Bhimdev's kingdom and killed off his lieutenants one by one- that was natural shrewdness and he pulled it off brilliantly. I dunno- probably the directors should give him better instructions.

What Disha said about Bharatnatyam- I am no expert but I believe dance is a stylized and symbolic performance art whereas acting on stage or screen is supposed to be closer to life? Sure a king is expected to act/walk/talk in a certain way, but not when he is with his friends. I like Rajat and I think it's great he's got this show but I think the directors should give a different instruction to him. 
There was in PRC an episode where a young soldier died and Rajat wept and wept and he was acting extremely well, but I felt that the directors shouldn't have asked him to cry. A king does not reveal that much emotion in front of his enemy.

The following 1 member(s) liked the above post:

fragrance18

Go to top

Forum Quick Jump

Forum Category / Channels
Forums

Jodha Akbar Topic Index

Check these Celebrity also

Disclaimer: All Logos and Pictures of various Channels, Shows, Artistes, Media Houses, Companies, Brands etc. belong to their respective owners, and are used to merely visually identify the Channels, Shows, Companies, Brands, etc. to the viewer. Incase of any issue please contact the webmaster.

Popular Channels :
Star Plus | Zee TV | Sony TV | Colors TV | SAB TV | Life OK

Quick Links :
Top 100 TV Celebrities | Top 100 Bollywood Celebs | About Us | Contact Us | Advertise | Forum Index