My dear Disha,
As one who 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
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.
Edited by sashashyam - 12 years ago
Members Lounge
