The fifth time was the charm for Leonardo DiCaprio in 2016, as he finally won an Oscar for Best Actor after four previous unsuccessful nominations. To get that precious statuette, DiCaprio gamely participated in the traditional Oscar campaign, hobnobbing with such important cultural gatekeepers as Barbra Streisand and Pope Francis to raise awareness of his profoundly uncomfortable role in The Revenant. Best Actress winner Brie Larson survived a similar gauntlet of Q&As, meet-and-greets, and gala luncheons on her way to Oscar glory. But another winner this year, Best Supporting Actor champ Mark Rylance, did no such thing to promote his role in Bridge Of Spies, and yet he still managed to triumph in his category over sentimental favorite Sylvester Stallone. Acclaimed as a stage actor in his native England, Rylance is not even particularly well known in America. So how did he nab the Oscar? Deadline’s Pete Hammond writes about this anomaly in a thought-provoking column about Oscar politics and declares that Rylance’s win was “about as pure as you can get.”