Okay, what are people's opinions on crossing the TV - Movie divide? Is it merely as simple as being a good actor makes you a good actor in TV or Movies? Or is it something more complex?

Example, I was a big fan of 6 Feet Under and I think that Peter Krause is an excellent lead in that particular show. An excellent lead in one of the greatest TV shows ever, in an era in which some have argued TV has out-performed film. Yet he has never, nor is he likely to, break the movies in any way.

Is this because of the acting style? Is he, for example, an actor better at playing characters we gradually get to know over years, than those compressed into 2 hours?

I know there are people who have excelled in both. But I still feel there is a divide between the two formats and what they require.

Thoughts?

Some thoughts:
Tv and cinema have been very different in the past. Many of the differences have been eliminated gradually.

in the 50s a lot was done live on tv. Then there was the much smaller format and the low image quality. This led to very different lensing and framing. The tempo also was different - and even significantly sped up during the 80s. On tv you need to hold the attention of people, not to mention the commercials which provides constant interruption.
I will focus on "cinematic" tv shows which have at least one story arc - as opposed to consisting of self contained episodes with a handful of running themes or gags - plus high production values.

Nowadays people can record a show and watch it on the same flat wide screen in high quality when they want to just as a DVD, rent or bought. So many radical differences are basically eliminated.

I don't think it's much of a difference for an actor if they are in a two hour movie or over an entire season of a quality dramatic tv show with high production values.

Many actors come from stand up or tv comedy show skids. I think that the difference here is much more obvious. In live audience or tv comedy there are still at least occasional moments of breaking the fourth wall (stand up even constantly breaks the fourth wall). This is still the absolute exception in made-for-theatrical release movies, including comedy. Without having a chance to wink and nod - or address - directly to the audience, some actors seem lost. Robin Williams and Tom Hanks needed quite some time to get footing in straight drama. Others probably never will.

So I don't think portraying a character over a 10-12 hour tv season or a 2 hour movie is that different in general for the actor regarding the acting style. It has more to do with the script and the directors.

...just my usual random musings...

I'll have to echo Threeperf. These days, I don't think there's much differentiating between the two. Post-1960, movies were made with TV in mind, and nowadays, TV is made with cinematic quality in mind. It's not so much acting for either medium now as it is acting for the camera, period.

Prior to 1960, I think movies were a bit more theatrical. Not just in the pre-method quality of the performances, but also the greater reliance on blocking/stage movement, the tableaux arrangement of the actors in a stationary shot, etc. That's something you didn't see on TV, partly because of its lack of sophistication at the time, and partly because the small screen didn't take advantage of those things the way the big screen did. When movie execs started realizing that movies could have a second life on TV, they started downplaying those cinematic techniques, which they knew would be lost on the small screen at home.

Now TVs are getting bigger and clearer, shows are getting more sophisticated, and those pre-60s movie stylings--which, it should be noted, haven't creeped back into cinema since--have creeped into Mad Men and other shows of its ilk.


Yes, the information refresh rate. That's a specific reason why the small screen has different demands than the big screen, which I will elaborate upon for those playing at home.

The visual elements on a small, non-detailed screen have to change more quickly than the elements on a large, detailed one in order to hold our attention. For example, Yasujiro Ozu's long, unbroken shots with their relatively static arrangements are going to feel as though they've "expired" much more quickly at home than in the cinema. The smaller the screen, the more quickly our brains are going to tell us that there isn't enough going on, that something new should be happening to our optic nerves.

In that sense, small screen storytelling doesn't have the same luxury as big screen storytelling, but--I know I'm repeating myself--the big screen hasn't really taken advantage of that luxury in a long time, and the disadvantages of the small screen are starting to go away.

I don't see much of a difference from television and movies. Great acting is great acting. Lots of great acting in both mediums. Some of my favorite actors on television are Hugh Laurie, Timothy Olyphant, Ana Torv, John Noble, Jensen Ackles, Julianna Margulies and the entire cast basically of The Good Wife, Bryan Cranston is great so is Jon Hamm, Michael C. Hall, Jim Caviezel and Michael Emerson rocks. It's been a treat to see Terry O'Quinn over at Hawaii Five-O.

But in movies there have been MANY amazing performances this year. Damien Bichir in A Better Life, Jessica Chastain in The Debt and The Help. Actually pretty much the entire ensemble cast of The Help deserves recognition. The entire ensemble cast in The Debt is superb. Ryan Gosling in Drive, Joseph Gordon Levitt in 50/50, Brad Pitt in The Tree of Life, Tom Hanks in Larry Crowne, Michael Fassbender, Kevin Bacon and James MacAvoy in X-Men: First Class, Kristin Wiig gave 2 memorable performances this year in Paul and Bridesmaids. Ryan Reynolds, Julia Roberts and Willem Dafoe are all excellent in Fireflies in the Garden.

I could go on.

But Hugh Laurie and Bryan Cranston won't ever top Daniel Day Lewis regardless of how good their TV exploits are. And I think Cranston in Breaking Bad is superb.

There are many movie actors who will never top Cranston's work in Breaking Bad, and quality acting on TV is a much more recent phenomenon than in movies.

Doesn't it come down to the material though? I haven't seen Breaking Bad so I will infer that everyone is correct and that Cranston's performance is great. That's settled. How about Cranston in movies? Apart from Drive he has barely registered. I'm struggling to recall him in something else (and I saw Contagion a week ago). Now, he probably hasn't gotten movie roles that show off his gifts, but shouldn't a truly great actor transcend some of his material? Michael C. Hall is another good example. He is, by far, the best thing about Dexter. In movies? Nope.

Contrast that with movie actors who move to television. Has anyone taken Thomas Jane seriously as an "actor" before Hung? Again, I think it comes down to the material.

Perhaps since the late 90s and the Sopranos. But it dosn't change the fact that huge TV stars often barely register in the movies.

For me there is still a disconnect there. Perhaps Movies are still too shallow demanding sex appeal of even their older and less fasionable stars. Whears TV can give us average Joes....like Cranston

I don't know.

You simply need to watch it, Ed. It's a slow burner to begin with but is so well done that you'll wonder what the hell most TV and Movie producers have been doing in the past few years.

Definitely. Can't decide on The Wire or Breaking Bad as Best Show Ever.

And as incredible as Cranston has been, Aaron Paul has matched him, especially this season. Not to mention Giancarlo Esposito, Jonathan Banks and even Mark Margolis. Just an incredible show.

And I won't even get into the cinematography, which is better than 90% of films out there. Beautifully shot, with some incredible scenes.

People have put forward the notion that good acting s good acting whether it be on Tv or Film.
I agree with this. How and ever from a character's development point it is easier for an actor to develope in a well written tv series as opposed to a film because he/she gets more time. Most films last about 2 hours were as a tv series can have up to 10 hours to develop the character.

Also in the last 10 - 15 years the quality of TV shows has improved enormously where as we have seen very little improvements in films. This might be because there was plenty of scope for improvement in TV shows whereas movies have nowhere really to go but down.

That's true. There are still a lot of cutesy, hackneyed sitcoms and such, though. I honestly don't watch much TV; I'm definitely more drawn to film. Every once in a blue moon there'll be a show that has a definite cinematic quality to it (e.g. "Lost"), but in general, most of it is pretty MEH for me.