Originally posted by: sashashyam
The question is not of which samrat had which kind of hair. In most cases, we have only the coins to go by. In general, maharajas had long hair, as can be seen even from Raja Ravi Varma's 19th century paintings. But that is not the point.
The point, for me at least, is that Rajat had beautiful flowing locks, which made him look exactly llike a Greek statue. They framed his face and made the elegant planes of his facial bones stand out. Now, this looks like a modern haircut,and it has ruined the beauty of his hair, and diminished his overall looks.
I agree!😭
Not many men can carry off the long locks look like he can...
firstly, he has the advantage of having the right kind of waves that would suit the shoulder length locks required for this kind of historical... imagine if he had dead straight hair, he would end up looking like Abul Mali from JA... or if he had very very curly hair... he would look like Satyaraj who's forgotten his way to the hair saloon!
Moreover, his locks had a natural double, rather triple shade in them!
In different lighting, they would look either black, dark brown or chestnut!
His locks, sharp features and his complexion were a magnificent trio. One of it's gone!
Even in modern get up, I preferred his long lock Nevla look to the short hair Robindo look!
If he was not so strikingly handsome per se, he would look ordinary because of this haircut. There was a shot of the old Chandra during the flashback to Durdhara's death scene, and the contrast was stark.
You young people can accept and admire this new thatch if you like. I do NOT like it, nor could I see any reason for it. Do they think the TRPs are gong to shoot up because of this? It only shows that the director had no idea what to do, so they thrashed about and came up with this.
On the other hand, I liked Chandra's new costume, like that of a Roman consul, without that 9 yard bedsheet.😉 If only they could have left the hair intact, it would have looked wonderful.