Now that Peter Falk and James Garner are both dead, an interesting question remains to be answered by people who liked both classic shows Columbo and Rockford Files.
Was Peter Falk better at playing Columbo in Columbo than James Garner playing Jim Rockford in Rockford Files?
Or Vise Versa?
Was James Garner better at playing Jim Rockford in Rockford Files than Peter Falk at playing Columbo in Columbo?
Why was it necessary for both to be dead before asking the question?
The Rockford files was somewhat less formulaic, so Garner had a little more acting room than Falk. So I vote Garner was better.
All I know is, when Peter Falk played Jim Rockford it was the strangest episode ever.
Columbo used up Rockford’s entire answering machine tape with “One more thing…” afterthoughts.
There was once a plan to relaunch The Rockford Files with Dermont Mulroney as the title character. I have no strong opinions about how well that would have worked, though could they possibly have hosed the source material as badly as the reboot of Dragnet did?
Don’t get me wrong – I loved Ed O’Neil in a grittier role. But the essential thing about Joe Friday was that he was a believer in the system. The new Joe Friday was a cynic.
Peter Falk was better at playing Columbo. He embodied that role absolutely completely, to the point that Columbo, like Sherlock Holmes, became an independently existing person.
While James Garner did an excellent job as Jim Rockford, Rockford was still just a character, another wisecracking private eye. He also had elements of other Garner characters, like Maverick.
That said, although I admired both actors tremendously, and loved both shows, overall I very much preferred *The Rockford Files *to Columbo.
The answer is…Quincy
Excellent answer, and about what I was going to say. James Garner was a great actor and, from all reports, a terrific guy. As likeable and charismatic as the day is long. But when he played Rockford or Maverick or many of his movie roles, you always got the sense that a lot of his own personality was shining through.
When Peter Falk played Columbo, he WAS Columbo. Wonderful character and wonderful acting.
I liked both shows, but probably liked Rockford Files better, mostly because of Garner. If anyone is interested, the following blog post was written by Ken Levine, a Hollywood TV writer, about Garner recently:
I always wondered how much of Goren, L&O;CI was based on thoughts of Columbo. Both characters tended to wear the suspects down with mind games, both tended to make an early judgement and then find the proof, both had easily identifiable quirks, etc…
Right. Falk immersed himself in Columbo, who was rather unlike Falk. Thus, his acting was better.
Garner put a lot of Garner into Rockford. It is the better show.
Agree with Spoiler Virgin, in that Columbo is a character that took on a life of his own. I loved Columbo.
James Garner is Bret Maverick.
When they were both on originally, I watched Colombo all the time but the Rockford Files only occasionally. I liked it fine, but it didn’t resonate.
Last year we started binge watching Colombo, and gave up after only a few DVDs. The formula for the show was too obvious. The murderer was a name in one field or another, the murderer lived in fancy digs, Colombo had some hobby of the week, and of course Colombo tormented the murderer, who he identified almost immediately. The reason Colombo became such a popular figure was that he was so easy to tag - raincoat, one more thing, etc.
Falk got into the role, and was convincing, but it wasn’t great acting. Falk in “The In-Laws” - there was great acting. I think Falk was a better actor, but not because of Colombo.
Both roles were largely based on the actor’s personalities so it’s a tie in that regard. However, Garner was playing the same character he almost always played. Falk had a little more variety in his roles, so he gets an edge there. I liked Rockford Files better than Columbo, so that makes it even again. Garner loses points for the Richie Brockleman episode, but gains them for having a cooler car. I figure it’s draw in the long run, for every point for or against one there’s something that corresponds for the other.
That’s setting the bar pretty darn low! Name a TV character, who had a car at all, who didn’t have a cooler car than Columbo’s!
(Best car on TV? I vote The Munsters Koach. The Batmobile was also darn sweet!)
I am very biased as one of my cherished childhood memories was watching Columbo with my Dad and together trying to figure out what the mistake was that the criminal of the week had made that was going to be Columbo’s reveal. That puzzle (and trying to get the answer before each other did), and the always being underestimated character Falk inhabited, were the reasons we watched. It was a twist on the who-done-it. You knew who done it. You knew Columbo knew. You just didn’t know how he’d prove it but the clues to how he’d prove it had always been there. What was going to be the “one more thing” reveal? Could I get before Dad did?
Rockford Files on the other hand was just Garner doing the same schtick he always did. Nothing more. Nothing less. It was pleasant enough to watch and kill time with but a bonding game to play with Dad it warn’t. A different sort of show.
Falk created a new character for Columbo, a believable person that had not existed before. Garner used the character he always used with very little modification. A lovable character it was, but to compare repurposing the same character with the creation of a new and different one is no rel contest.
I think Garner gains points for having (along with co-creator Roy Huggins) put David Chase on the Rockford writing staff. Chase’s sixteen episodes did something rare in television at the time: using real, non-melodramatic neuroses as the springboard for stories. (For me his episodes fall under the umbrella term “how to cope with difficult people.” The stories were far more compelling than the contrived stuff rampant on television then, and for that matter, now.)
That said: both actors were impeccable in their respective roles. (And Columbo had some pretty good writers, too.)
Apples and oranges. Both were very good in his role. Both shows were well-written, also.
What’s Rockford got on that?
Garner was the better actor and a more enjoyable actor, including in the Rockford/Colombo debate. Colombo wasn’t even as enjoyable as Murder She Wrote or Matlock. Other than Falk’s stellar performance as a completely unlikeable character the show would have been utterly unwatchable. This is not to say that Falk did not do a lot of really fun work, he did.
O’Neil is good in everything he does. Joe Friday, as played by Jack Webb, was a cynic about people, but not his job or government. After Vietnam and Watergate and all the crap after that, a cop who did not understand the inherent bullshit of government would have come off looking like a complete fool. O’Neil’s Friday was going to get his perp and inspire the best out of a team of people from a slacker generation come hell or high water and not let them do “good enough for government work” corner cutting. It was one hell of a well realized character.
That would be Al Bundy, Married With Children.
(My vote for coolest car on TV is the Impala from Supernatural. It even helped save the world once. The same could probably be said about the Batmobile, I suppose.)
Peter Falk was better in his role, and Columbo was the better character, in my opinion. I enjoyed both shows, and appreciated the performances of both men, but Columbo is an iconic character from television’s yesteryear. Jim Rockford, on the other hand, is a character from that show I used to watch.