Hi Def TV And The Future Of Movies: The Actors Are Gonna' Have To Be Better

I just purchased a 46" Samsung 120Mhz 3D HD television. The picture is amazing. In fact, it's so amazing, when I watch a DVD, it no longer looks like a movie. 

I put on The Dark Knight and Battlestar Galactica to test drive the new screen and was surprised by the crystal clear image that looked more like high-definition videotape -- essentially, a soap opera with incredibly high production values. Fortunately, most of the actors in these two shows were up to the challenge of this new realism. But, let's face it, that's not always going to be the case.

I struggled at first with my initial viewing to see Commander Adama instead of Edward James Olmos and Bruce Wayne instead of Christian Bale. This is not criticism of their ability -- few would disagree that these are good actors relative to the totality of their peers. However it does highlight the element of style with regards to shooting for these new formats. Interestingly,  Michael Caine's, Gary Oldman's, and Morgan Freeman's performances in Batman were easier to accept -- their performances were nearly effortless, akin to watching good stage acting from the first row. These men have been at the craft longer and had cut their teeth on the stage -- they bring a strong presence to whatever role they do. Most movies and TV programs are not going to acquire the level of talent that Battlestar and Batman are capable of drawing. And there in lies the rub.

Many film and TV actors bring their star presence to bear in a role to make up for stage presence. It's a crutch, a trick of sorts that many were lucky enough to develop or fall into accidentally instead of really becoming the character they're playing. That's why you always hear the critics complain when a TV or movie actor decides they want to star in a Broadway show... more often than not, they don't  really command the stage. The same is true of the opposite. Take a proficient stage actor and put him on television or film, and there's always the chance that the performance will come off as "over acted."  Few are able to straddle the three mediums well and notch down (or up) accordingly. What made Patrick Stewart so great for science fiction roles is that he always played bigger than life characters, and so the stage experience helped fill the screen with a larger than life personality. I doubt he ever barks "Make it so!" in real life to his agent and friends.  He was also very good at notching down to play quieter roles on the screen. But now, what serves him best in the High Definition era is his ability to act as though on the London stage... as though he needs to make a person sitting in the first row believe he is who is pretends to be. Because if you can say anything about HD TV, you definitely feel you're right there.

High Definition is not "just" an upgrade in technology; it represents a paradigm shift in the art of film making and film watching, comparable with going from silent films to talkies. Gone is that layer of artificiality we've grown accustomed to. Just as that evolution brought the mass-produced theater experience one step closer to the live stage experience, so too does this "improvement." But remember, many actors of the 1920s lost their star status when they couldn't transition to talkies. The recent film "The Artist" illustrates that era well and the difficulties of adapting to new technology. The average tv actor is going to come off disingenuous in High Def. That seemed to be the case in some of the performances of the secondary actors in Batman and Galactica.

So what exactly is it about the HD technology? After all, film resolution is far superior to High Def, but we never had this issue of the removal of artificiality in the theater. Believe it or not, there's a lot of math involved in getting a moving image to your television. Here's the simple version. Since olden days, film moved through a projector at 24 frames per second. And frames are repeated to smooth out the motion. In television the speed is different (I believe 30 video frames per second). To make film work on TV, every other frame is repeated an extra time, giving a ratio of 3:2:3:2:3:2...etc. This extra repeated frame causes an effect called "judder." We're used to it because we've been watching movies on TV this way for 60 years. It's barely noticeable, but we pick it up subconsciously. The key point here is that 120 is a multiple of both 24 and 30, and so through the power of math, judder has been eliminated and an almost seamless smooth effect has taken its place. The 120 Mhz television, with a refresh rate that's faster than the human eye can discern, also eliminates motion blur, another thing we've been living with for decades. Really, this level of power is ideal for video games. Human perception can just about keep up with the 60Mhz TVs have used previously.

All this adds up to a major shift in the way we view television. This new clarity is perfect for sports on television. Never before have we felt like we were right there on the field. But it's wreaking havoc with moviegoers. It's one less degree of separation, challenging our suspension of disbelief. I'm sure a new generation of filmmakers has embraced the technology and is planning stuff that will blow our minds. After all, there was no such thing as a movie musical before talkies. (Hard to believe, huh?) But this does raise the stakes for anyone wanting to be an actor. It used to be that if you wanted to be in film or television, studying for the stage was not the best path. The two mediums were approached differently, and for television you only needed marginal talent.  We've come full circle, folks. It looks like stage presence will be the saving grace of actors in the future. Schools had better fund their drama departments well if we want to save television.