Actor Nakuul Mehta, best known for his work in Indian television, has revealed a surprising reason he was once turned down for a role in a major Hindi film. In a recent conversation, Mehta shared that a director explicitly told him he was “too good-looking” for the part, a rationale he found both bewildering and instructive about the quirks of Bollywood casting.
Mehta, who has appeared in successful TV shows and earned acclaim for his performances on the small screen, spoke candidly about the experience when asked about his transition from television to film. While many actors have discussed the challenges of moving between the two mediums, Mehta’s anecdote stood out because it centred not on talent or experience, but on the subjective perception of his appearance.
Recalling the audition process, Mehta said he was excited to be considered for a significant role in a big Hindi film. Confident in his abilities, he prepared for the opportunity as he would for any serious project. However, when he met with the director, the feedback he received was unexpected. According to Mehta, the director told him that his features were “too good-looking” for the character, suggesting that the actor would not be believable in the role as envisioned.
“That was the feedback I got,” Mehta said in the interview. “Apparently I was too ‘good-looking’ for the film.” While many might see such a comment as a compliment, Mehta described it as discouraging and somewhat surreal, especially as it was not tied to his performance or craft but to his aesthetic attributes.
The actor explained that the remark initially left him puzzled. In an industry where looks often open doors, hearing that one’s appearance could be a barrier was a novel experience for him. Mehta reflected on how casting decisions in film sometimes hinge not just on talent, but on a director’s subjective vision for a character’s look, attitude or relatability.
Mehta’s story sparked varied reactions on social media and among fans. Many viewers expressed surprise at the idea that an actor could be rejected for being “too attractive,” noting that such a notion seems at odds with the typical glamour associated with film roles. Others pointed out that directors often have very specific visions for characters, including how relatable or “everyday” they should appear on screen, and that these creative decisions can sometimes lead to unexpected casting choices.
Some commentators took Mehta’s revelation as a broader commentary on the entertainment industry’s complex standards for aesthetics. They argued that perceptions of beauty and suitability for certain roles can be influenced by cultural expectations, narrative demands and marketing considerations. In this sense, being “too good-looking” could clash with a director’s intent to portray a character who needs to resonate with an audience in a particular, perhaps more raw or ordinary, way.
Fans of Mehta celebrated his candidness, supporting his belief that talent and dedication matter as much as appearance. They highlighted his extensive work in television, where he has earned praise for his performances in diverse roles, and expressed hope that he continues to pursue opportunities that align with his strengths rather than being constrained by narrow casting criteria.
Mehta’s experience also touches on a larger trend in Indian cinema, where the lines between television and film talent are increasingly fluid, but not always straightforward. While some television actors successfully make the leap to film stardom, others find themselves navigating different kinds of expectations and hurdles.