Ekta's Emperor Jalaluddin Mohammed: an assessment - Page 10

Originally posted by: sashashyam

I quite agree with you in principle, but there are two problems here.

One, there is no one monolithic audience, even for TV, though perhaps there is less of niche audiences here than for films. The success of a TV show depends on how large the segment of the Indian audience that decides the vital TRPs turns out to be. For films, there is a mass audience for Dabangg and then there is a niche audience for an Anurag Kashyap film. The latter still makes money because of limited costs and the multiplex audience. The arithmetic for TV is far more cruel.

The only really top quality Indian TV shows I have seen in recent years were all by YashRaj's TV division: Their 26 parter Powder, about the global and Indian drug trade, was better than any comparable US production with 20 times the budget. Then there was an official adaptation of Kane and Abel as Kismat, again only for 6 months and 64 daily episodes. It was only a little below Powder in quality. There were a couple of other good but lighter shows , but none of them did well, with TRPs consistently between 0.7 and 1 while Ekta's tripe shows got 4 and at times 7. So Yashraj cut their losses and closed down their TV division. So you see, the Indian TV audience gets what it wants (or deserves) !

This brings me to my second point. The audience is not always right. If it had been, Yashraj TV would have been a flourishing and expanding concern, not a piece of TV history.

Moreover, if a part or even the whole of the audience judges a medieval monarch by the standards they would apply to a 21st century Majnu, then again they are not right. This was in fact the sole argument in my post.

But the fact remains that right or wrong, TRPs are king, and so popular mediocrity will continue to thrive, while any good shows wither on the vine. Perhaps the audience is right, by its lights and its standards.

As for Rajat in Jodha Akbar, he seems very promising, but of course he cannot afford to be complacent, or to stop trying to improve himself. But then this is a given in any field of endeavour.

Shyamala B.Cowsik

Originally posted by: sashashyam

I have not seen it, most probably since I was mostly out of India on diplomatic postings and missed some very good shows. I will try and see it online. Which would be the best site to go to for the episodes? Was that the one with the Pathak sisters? I had heard about it.

Shyamala B.Cowsik

This is one had Ratna Pathak, the one with Supriya Pathak was Khichdi.
Startv.in
Both shows were good but Sarabhai was brilliant.

Originally posted by: sashashyam

My dear,

What can I say but that I am flattered and very, very pleased?

Shyamala (Aunty? I would prefer that to Ma'am, unless you have any objections to it!)

Thank you so much for making the post!

I do think that this version of Akbar was a tad OTT but despite that Rajat has added the layers which makes me want to cringe at his monstrosity and wish so much that Jodha enters his life and reforms him...so that's a job well done...even if it is a little over the top!

Originally posted by: blahblahs

I would also very briefly like to point out that at times when watching the show, my mind inevitably draws a comparison between the show JA, the movie JA and the actual historical events, especially the characters. It, therefore, becomes important to note that in such cases we, as followers of the show, should not yet start comparing the way Hrithik portrayed Akbar with the way Rajat does so for many reasons:

1.) Asutosh G. had a completely different interpretation of Akbar than the director in the show

2.) Two different actors=two different perspectives (i was impressed to see Rajat put his own spin of the character rather than follow Hrithik even a little or follow the director excessively)

3.) The show attempts to show a more "hard core" Akbar as mentioned earlier to underscore Jodha's role in his life a little more. Therefore, it almost seems like we're talking about two different characters here even though it was the same historical persona.

4.) JA the movie was a certain length and there were restrictions the Ashutosh G. had to follow that led him to perhaps, develop the characters in somewhat less elaborate manner. However, since this is a show, the director here has the liberty to really flesh out the characters in great detail. This should be a luxury to watch for us as viewers.

Just my opinion.😊

I could not agree with you more! Awesome!

I loved Rishta.com too. In fact I recorded all the episodes on DVDs for myself, and the same with Powder. I personally liked the gritty and very realistic Powder ( I am familiar with the departments featured there) much more than the lighter series, but then that is a matter of personal taste.

It is likely that people you refer to liked Rishta.com because the genre was new on Indian TV, was hep and modern, and dealt with problems that they could relate to.But if it did connect with them, I wish there had been more of them who actually watched it, for then perhaps the TRPs might have been a tad higher and it could have had a second season. It is a genre that is quite familiar in Western, especially US TV, except that there it would very often be decidedly gross.

But for the same reasons, the small town Indian audience would have been totally unable to relate to Rishta.com, and must have been put off, as also, given the very low TRPs, a lot of the metro audience as well. That is what I meant by a niche audience or, as in this case, the absence thereof .

As for the audience at which Jodha Akbar is aimed, it is of course the mass one. But as the historical format - the lengthiest disclaimer in living memory notwithstanding - does impose certain restrictions on Ekta Kapoor's vivid imagination, it is to be see how this audience receives it. It would be difficult to gauge this target audience's reaction thru the IF, which is small in numbers and also a very niche segment.

I never thought that you were trying to put this young man down. I was only pointing out that the kind of audience necessary for an Indian TV show to really succeed often has deplorable taste. Taste as defined by me and my favourite people, of course!😉 And in my post, to point out that what is seen as rigidity is needed for the character.

Shyamala B.Cowsik

Originally posted by: Rockerchic

My point was not that popularity defines all.

(All things considered how much more popular than the great Ekta can it get?This show got a 2.0 opening. It'll top the charts in no time. )

I was talking about connecting with the audience at which the show is aimed. Rishta.com while it did not fetch TRPs was considered one of the best on tele by the small audience which watched it.

Within the audience who watch JA, people feel Rajat did not perform to the best of his abilities.(the people whom I interact with on IF and elsewhere as well)

And rightly so. No one can grasp a character over night. Rajat is a good actor who still needs to get the feel of the character. Same with the actress as well.

They are new to their characters. I would say it's a bit much to expect them to be perfect from the get go.

JA is catching my fancy quite a bit. So my intention was not to put down the actor but merely to point out that people who find him rigid are not entirely wrong in their stance.

~RC

Thanks a lot, I will try and catch up with it soon.

Shyamala B.Cowsik

Originally posted by: blahblah26

This is one had Ratna Pathak, the one with Supriya Pathak was Khichdi.
Startv.in
Both shows were good but Sarabhai was brilliant.

Originally posted by: sashashyam

I have not seen it, most probably since I was mostly out of India on diplomatic postings and missed some very good shows. I will try and see it online. Which would be the best site to go to for the episodes? Was that the one with the Pathak sisters? I had heard about it.

Shyamala B.Cowsik

I agree completely with all that you have said here. I too am very hopeful about this serial. .

The much longer time span available to the TV director can be a great advantage if used well, as you have noted. That was why the director of Yashraj TV's superb Powder held out till he got a TV series, and would not compress it into a film. He wanted and needed to spread himself, and he spread himself to very good effect. I hope it will be the same here. But if the time is not properly used, one will end up with a historical soap.

But apart from this Jalal being more 'hard core' there is something else here that is not so good.They seem to want to show Jodha as some sort of guardian angel, who changed a bloodthirsty Jalal into an insaan. To highlight this approach, they began by showing Jalal like a sort of cross between the ruthless plundering invaders, Mahmud of Ghazni and Mohammed Ghori, rather than as the son of Humayun and the grandson of Babar. At one point, the commentator was actually citing the enemy soldiers Jalal killed on the battlefield as evidence of his unwarranted cruelty! What did he think a warrior does to his enemies, perform their aarti? It was totally ridiculous and biased.

Jodha, in contrast, was introduced running a 400 metre dash to save a pigeon. The commetator went on to eulogise her as a prem aur daya ki murti. This same girl then goes to a Kali mandir, and worships the goddess, and then emerges after the attack on the temple (which I am sure Jalal never knew about) and takes violent oaths about getting Jalal's head. This is not described as being bloodthirsty, of course, for a guardian angel cannot, by definition, be anything but sweetness and light!😉

The fact is that Jodha is a princess from a warrior race, and she too has violence in her genes, whence her violent pronouncements.. The Rajputs were generally busy fighting among themselves and it was their chronic disunity that allowed outsiders to make inroads into their land.

Then again, Jalal was born in a Rajput kingdom,Umarkot, and spent some years there and later in a Rajput kingdom in present day Madhya Pradesh. This gave him the familiarity with the Rajput psyche that enabled him, even early in his reign, to win them over and make them the pillars of his empire.

Here, however, he is shown thinking and talking of the Rajputs as if they were an alien race to which he is unremittingly hostile. This again is deliberate, meant to deepen the dark shades in Jalal's character, and to make out that Jodha's eventual contribution in taming and reforming such a supposedly harsh personality was that much greater.

This approach seems to me to be artificial and excessive, besides being historically incorrect. Akbar was wise and had, very early on, a maturity far beyond his years, and there is no evidence that he needed any guardian angel. But as there is no copyright on Akbar, it is open house and anyone can depict him any way he/she wants!

I hope they tone this slant down as the show progresses, and show the constant emotional deprivation that Jalal suffered from all his life, as also the gentler side of him, as when he tends to the battered Abdul today, so patiently and with so much care. That will enrich the characterisation, and make the show a much better watch for all of us.

Shyamala B.Cowsik

Originally posted by: blahblahs

I would also very briefly like to point out that at times when watching the show, my mind inevitably draws a comparison between the show JA, the movie JA and the actual historical events, especially the characters. It, therefore, becomes important to note that in such cases we, as followers of the show, should not yet start comparing the way Hrithik portrayed Akbar with the way Rajat does so for many reasons:

1.) Asutosh G. had a completely different interpretation of Akbar than the director in the show

2.) Two different actors=two different perspectives (i was impressed to see Rajat put his own spin of the character rather than follow Hrithik even a little or follow the director excessively)

3.) The show attempts to show a more "hard core" Akbar as mentioned earlier to underscore Jodha's role in his life a little more. Therefore, it almost seems like we're talking about two different characters here even though it was the same historical persona.

4.) JA the movie was a certain length and there were restrictions the Ashutosh G. had to follow that led him to perhaps, develop the characters in somewhat less elaborate manner. However, since this is a show, the director here has the liberty to really flesh out the characters in great detail. This should be a luxury to watch for us as viewers.

Just my opinion.😊