You are absolutely correct re:@ blue. This is one of the main problems with our audiences: they do not/cannot distinguish between the character and the actor, or between the actor and the performance. Paridhi is beautiful now that she is richly dressed, earlier she looked at times like one of her better looking maids. She is competent as an actress, and it is not difficult given her blindingly positive role.
Rajat - I am 60 plus and thus not the kind to drool over a handsome young man, and I had never seen him before this show, so I had a completely open mind about him - is a casting coup as Jalal The boy is breathtaking and an absolute natural. The role is a godsend for him too, for I cannot see him playing one of the wimpish male characters in one of Ekta's regular soaps.
Shyamala B.Cowsik
Originally posted by: Star_girlHaha, what? While Paridhi is a good actress, she cannot and does not outshine Rajat. The thing is that her character is likable, and that is why people will be more inclined to like her. Jalal, on the other hand, is a very unpredictable, complicated character, not likable at all, and a character that takes a lot of talent to portray. Playing a likable, nice, poised character takes the barest minimum effort, this is what every actress plays in television. Playing a complex, wild and arrogant person is something not everyone can pull off. This is why Ekta chose Rajat. Because he has the talent to pull off a character like that. The thing is, we tend to confuse the likability of a character with the acting of the actor. And for us, the flawless protagonist is always the better actor. But actually, it takes a lot more effort and talent to pull off a negative or a grey-shaded character.
comment:
p_commentcount