Regardless of the medium, be it television or feature or documentary, I'm not gonna distinguish and worry about my particular canon, whatever that means.
I don't make any distinction between a popular TV series or blockbuster film and doing Shakespeare. They're different, but as long as the material is good and the intention is honourable, it's all the same to me.
Good acting is good acting, whether it's on stage, on TV, or in films.
Being a good Hans Haacke student, part of his influence on me is that there's no difference between a gallery show and a film - or even an ad and a T-shirt-in terms of cultural legitimacy. They're just different contexts in which to have some sort of communication.
TV and films are same for me. I took a decision to be an actor, and I am an actor. I never decided to be TV actor or film actor.
I've always said that if anything - whether it was film or television - was something I responded to, then I was open to it.
Whether it's animated, whether it's live-action, whether it's Broadway, whether it's television, a musical is a musical is a musical. So, pretty much, you approach the songs in pretty much the same way.
I just feel like when a good project comes along, I'm not going to discriminate against it because it's television or because it's a film. I never want to say no to something just because of the area that it's in. If it's a good story or I think it's going to be exciting to play or exciting to be a part of, then I'm going to be a part of it.
For me, I wanted to be an actor without being bothered about the medium. So when the opportunity came my way, it did not really matter on which medium I am working.
I'm drawn more to quality, and so if the quality is in television, I go in that direction. If it's in film, I go in that direction. But I don't limit myself or discriminate against any of the mediums.
I believe that acting in any medium is the same thing, it's discovering the truth in where you are.
I'm more interested in the quality of the work than its medium.
The content has to be good; medium doesn't matter to me.
I never say I have a preference for one medium as opposed to another.
I don't see a difference between the big screen and the small one. We are entertainers, and the medium doesn't matter.
I really have no preference between TV and film. I think that each individual project is its own thing and has a very different style.
I've always been an actor who works in every medium - I've worked in theater and film and television - I've never seen any difference between the three.
I enjoy all aspects of it, I don't have a preference for any medium. I think each of them has its attractions and I would hope they each inform the other in some way.
I try to consider each body of work on its own terms, discretely, so terms like 'sculpture' or 'photography', in their broad sense, don't really enter into my thinking.
Good reporting is good reporting, regardless of the newness or oldness of the medium.
To me, it's about good work, a good story, and tastefully done. There's so many stigmas - oh, you're on the small screen or you do films or you do reality. It's about the project and not the medium on which it's delivered. It's the story you tell, period.
For me personally, it doesn't matter if I'm in a short film, a commercial, a digital series, a TV show, or a movie. Acting is acting. You have to embrace whatever medium you happen to be in and not worry about everything else around it.
For me it's always been about the stories, not what medium. The medium is secondary to the stories.
Whenever I get a good script, I don't care whether it's telly or theatre or big screen - I'm not bothered.
