Can someone explain Mark Rylance to me?

I'm torn with this one. I thought he was fantastic in BOEING BOEING. When I saw LA BETE, while I was amazed he was able to perform that first 30 minutes, I was bored out of my skull and found him to be more than a little annoying. Than I saw JERUSALEM and while I do get some people saying he's using his "bag of tricks" I find it to be a much more layered performance than those people are giving him credit for. It's certainly not the best performance ever put upon the stage like a lot of people are wetting themselves saying, but if he won the Tony this year I wouldn't be upset.

JERUSALEM is my first exposure to Rylance, and he is what I call very "audience aware." It makes a lot of that play feel like a monologue to me, and while that can be quite engaging and effective, it is a little off-putting after 3 hours.

I first saw Mark Rylance in London in a performance of Richard II, and he was marvelous. Moving and tragic with unexpected flashes of wit. I was able to see him in MEASURE FOR MEASURE as the Duke, and he was admirable again -- getting laughs out of nowhere, but still warm and alive. I thought his performance in BOEING BOEING was brilliant -- some of the best comic acting I've ever seen.

Alas, I was much less impressed with LA BETE, which felt very mannered and gimmicky in ways that none of the others had been, and I'm among those who weren't impressed with JERUSALEM. Mr. Rylance does his best with Johnny Byron, and he had some brilliant moments especially in the middle act, but the play's Big Mythic Finish fell very very flat for me the night I saw it.

I wish he had better taste in material. I'd love to see him do more Shakespeare. Or maybe just something where he's not playing such an a**hole.

---

Am I the only one who thought Jerusalem was not effective in developing the characters? It was a three hour play that failed to give me all that much insight into the characters and their motivations. I really felt disconnected from them. The acting was fine-I just didn't think the piece was special. As for Rylance, I enjoyed him in Boeing Boeing. Here I felt like it was the same mannerisms he used in Boeing Boeing.

I think Joe Mantello is giving the best performance in the category (and I've seen all the nominees) and deserves to be rewarded. He is incredible-his energy and passion in the role are unmatched. I'd love the big upset to happen (not thinking it will).

Mike, as someone who didn't particularly like LA BETE, I still marveled at what he did with that monologue. As someone who has performed VEEEEEERY long monologues, I know that there's so much that can happen during something that lengthy and not to mention so physical. When I was 19 I was in a play and had this monologue in a play (it was the longest I'd ever had to this date) and maybe 2/3 of the way through I realized I had no idea what I was saying. But I kept talking. Even though the words to me were making no sense I just kept right on and somehow everything I said was exactly right. That monologue ended the show and we got an instant standing ovation. Besides the time I forgot to bring a major prop on stage that carried the next scene I'd never been so scared in my life. So I have incredible respect for someone who can do what he did at that energy level, especially knowing how easy it is to get lost with something that lengthy.

If that made any sense at all. lol

Why are so many people assuming that the race is between Mantello and Rylance? Anyone ever hear of Bobby Cannavale? He's giving a galvanic performance in Mother and I wouldn't be at all unhappy if he over-rode the "favored" two.

---

Updated On: 6/9/11 at 03:54 PM

As much as I disliked Rylance's performance, I'd rather have him win than Cannavale.

And Dreaming, I agree with you re: character development.

---

"So, Mark Rylance won another Tony for giving The Mark Rylance Performance © and accepted the award by giving The Mark Rylance Acceptance Speech ©."

Yes, what you said.

I only saw Mark in La Bete and after the first 10 minutes of the monologue I found myself kinda wishing he'd wrap it up. Same for the acceptance speech last night.

---

Wow....I mean wow...of course, as any open-minded person would say, great acting is subjective. Everyone is entitled to their own opinions. Etc.
BUT
Not recognizing that Mark Rylance is possibly the greatest English speaking actor on earth at the moment is tantamount to saying the Earth is flat. It is beyond opinion. It is fact.
I went through this with the whole "Meryl Streep is too technical" faze during the 90's. It was just sh*t.

"It is beyond opinion. It is fact."

I tend to say that about Ian McKellen - who is also living.

Some things are fact without tangible quantification. The Talent of the Rylance is one of them.

This is the second Tony Award he's won and the second acceptance speech that completely baffled me.

---