MovieChat Forums > Bridge of Spies (2015) Discussion > Im still trying to figure how Mark Rylan...

Im still trying to figure how Mark Rylance won an Oscar.

posted 9 years ago by TwoFace224
21 replies | jump to latest

Because for the most part. I thought I was watching an emotionless robot pretending to be human. I mean sure there a few scene were he comes close to showing something you might call an "emotion". But really there was nothing there for me to care about. This might be because hes hardly in the movie at all. I mean hes in it for 30 minutes in a 2 hour and 22 minutes movie. Which bring be to my next point. In order to be nominated for Best Supporting Actor shouldn't you be in the movie longer than the time it takes to watch episode of Good Times?

I haven't watched all the nominated actors in the category other than Mark Ruffalo and Sylvester Stallone. I would say that Mark Ruffalo gave "emotional" passionate performance. And I know that people will say Stallone is hack. But at least in Creed. He actually made me Give a Sh!t. I cant say that about Mark Rylance at all. I could only imagine that Tom Hardy was more worthy as well. Frankly if anyone should have won an Oscar for this movie it was Tom Hanks. He did all the work and the Bulk of the Acting.

[–] A_Man_of_Iron 9 years ago

It's simple, he won because he was playing a certain character and played it very well - more importantly, he made a big impression in the very little screen time he had. "Emotional" does not mean "better." Abel was meant to be emotionless and calm. Rylance's performance has those qualities. It's a quiet, reserved, and understated performance that doesn't scream "I want an Oscar!"

[–] SceneIt22 8 years ago

Well said. I agree. Rylance's character was understated, but very well done. There was some quality about him that was quiet, but quite memorable and appealing.

I wonder what the real-life Abel was really like. Do they have any video recordings that are available to the public that might have captured his demeanor?

[–] hilaryjrp 9 years ago

A_Man_of_Iron got it right. Judi Dench once won a supporting actress Oscar for less than five minutes of screen time (Shakespeare in Love). Mark Rylance is quiet, in my opinion magnificently so, in everything he appears in. He'll probably never appear with Will Ferrell in Talledega Nights 3.

However--if your larger question is why are British actors (regardless of talent) given preference in American entertainment, I couldn't agree with you more. If you speak up for American actors on these boards or other forums, you'll be shouted down or downvoted by other Americans. Some of us have family in the entertainment industry who aren't even considered for jobs because of the growing ruling British acting "class." The problem is so bad that even *British* actors who come from the working class are becoming increasingly vocal about it.

[–] xiberian 9 years ago

However--if your larger question is why are British actors (regardless of talent) given preference in American entertainment, I couldn't agree with you more.

Can you give some examples that demonstrate British actors are "given preference" in American entertainment "regardless of talent"?

Some of us have family in the entertainment industry who aren't even considered for jobs because of the growing ruling British acting "class."

How do know it's because of actors from a specific country, rather than more competition overall? It's pretty pathetic trying to lay the blame for failure at an entire group of people. As is laughable paranoia about a "ruling" cabal of British actors.

The problem is so bad that even *British* actors who come from the working class are becoming increasingly vocal about it.

British actors getting jobs in the US is a "problem" that British actors are vocal about?

Again, can you provide some examples of what you're talking about?

[–] hilaryjrp 9 years ago

Again, can you provide some examples of what you're talking about?

For "starters" (do you put everything in quotation marks?): http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/may/04/bob-hoskins-working-class-actors-opportunities-tv-stage-film

[–] xiberian 9 years ago

For "starters" (do you put everything in quotation marks?):

You tell me. Did I put "everything" I wrote in quotation marks, or did I simply put put quotation marks around things I was quoting?

What do you think quotation marks are for, randomly placing around words like "class" and "starters"?

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/may/04/bob-hoskins-working-class-actors-opportunities-tv-stage-film

That's not an example of British actors complaining about a ruling class of British actors in Hollywood, it's some blogger's opinion that in Britain (where class division and bias is rife) it's harder for working class actors. Some British actors agree, because poorer people can't afford to pay for drama school, but again, that's Britain, not Hollywood.

Your argument was that British actors are given preference over Americans, regardless of talent, which is complete nonsense, unless you can provide some actual examples, and that even some British actors think so, which is at best a misunderstanding on your part about what they are saying.

[–] hilaryjrp 9 years ago

Okay. You clearly have a dog, maybe even a rabid one, in this fight. I do not. I was the first person who started a thread here about Mark Rylance's stunning performance.

Have a good day.

[–] xiberian 9 years ago

Okay. You clearly have a dog, maybe even a rabid one, in this fight. I do not

You mean apart from all your family members who are kept out of work by the sinister British ruling class of actors?

[–] hilaryjrp 9 years ago

You love Great Britain, dontcha? Good on you, cheerio, pip-pip. God bless you, sweetie. You have a rum good day.

(This poor American don't want to wrangle none with y'all.)

[–] nightwing60 9 years ago

I take issue with the idea that emotion doesn't mean anything in a movie. Emotion is how the audience can either understand or relate to a character. Even if that character is a horrible human being. For instance. I might not have liked Jake La Motta from Raging Bull. But i at least i understood him. And while i cared and understood about Tom Hank's Mr Donovan and his passionate plea to hold up the U.S. Constitution. And cared about the plight of the plot and the kid (who both of which had less screen time). I gave two sh!ts about Rudolf Abel and I barely understood him. To me saying that Emotion doesn't matter in a movie. Is like saying breathing oxygen doesn't matter.

[–] GavinHeisenberg 9 years ago

Subtle acting is lost on some of you

[–] wooody 9 years ago

I couldn't agree more! I had never seen Rylance before. I left the theater of the opinion that he stole the film..."less is more" sometimes. His performance was a revelation for me. Ironically, my favorite actor of all time is Peter O'Toole who was famous for chewing up the scenery. Ryance was every bit as effective with his nuanced style.

[–] hilaryjrp 9 years ago

If you like period pieces, you should see "Wolf Hall." It's definitely a skewed historical fiction of a guy (Thomas Cromwell) who was a butcher--but that's exactly why Rylance's performance is as good as it is. Rylance is a mesmerizing actor.

[–] wooody 9 years ago

You're the third person that has made that similar recommendation. Thanks!! I have to locate it asap.

[–] bigmyc04 9 years ago

Perhaps you just simply missed the point of his performance?....

That possibility certainly exists, after all...

[–] moviefool09 9 years ago

The OP is spot on. Rylance is a great actor, no question. But come on....this was no Oscar-worthy performance nor role.

This performance was very one-note, lacking in depth, and instead centered around a physical stature. Throw in a couple of " would it help" witticisms and people think it's a great performance. It was a very affected performance also....felt artificial....like this was what Spielberg thought a spy should look like.

Also being opposite a scene-chewer like Hanks made this character stand out more than he normally would have. I think Rylance owes his Oscar to Hanks.

Rylance has done much better work and Spies will probably turn out to be one of his lesser roles.

[–] A_l_a_c_h_u_a_1 9 years ago

The OP is spot on. Rylance is a great actor, no question. But come on....this was no Oscar-worthy performance nor role.

Agreed. Not to mention that Stallone lost out on his lifetime achievement Oscar to Rylance, who was great in this, but nothing Oscar-worthy. When I saw that upset on the Oscars - as everyone thought Stallone was a shoo-in - I thought, "wow, Rylance must have given a riveting, noteworthy performance to beat Stallone who was the favorite"...Then when I watched this movie (which was after the Oscars), I was so stunned.

[–] louiseculmer 9 years ago

it was a terrific performance. Well deserving of the oscar. people don't have to be emoting all over the place to be acting well.

[–] moviefool09 9 years ago

people don't have to be emoting all over the place to be acting well.

I can appreciate subtlety as well as anyone. Al Pacino in "Godfather 2"....THAT is a great subtle performance.

Rylance was all mannerism and stooping. No depth...no interesting layers...not much there, really. A decent 'physical' effort but hardly Oscar-worthy. I'm stunned he was even nominated.

"Farewell Good Hunter. May you find your worth in the waking world."

[–] tody711 9 years ago

He was BRILLIANT... Nuff said. Well deserved award. Look at some old news coverage and see how he channeled Abel....

[–] moviefool09 9 years ago

To each his own.

"Farewell Good Hunter. May you find your worth in the waking world."