I find it fascinating that, in 1938-39, a pretty low point in American race relations, the Academy saw fit to both nominate and actually give the Oscar to Hattie McDaniels, while this year none of the actors from Slumdog Millionaire were even nominated, in this our great era of post-racial awesomeness. 

Which isn’t to say that none of them were nominated purely because of racism (a lot of it has to do with Hollywood politics and Who Gets Nominated and such), but it’s kind of weird to see a film nominated in basically every non-performance category and not even have one tokenistic actor nod.  And one of the main reasons I can come up with for that is that it’s a movie about Brown People, Ohnoes!

I agree that part of the reason for no Oscar noms for any of the cast of Slumdog is due to race, but I also think a lot of it has to do with name recognition.  The Academy seems to automatically prefer established names over newcomers (while many in the cast have had prior roles, for most this is their very first appearance in a major American production), and while newcomers have been nominated and even occasionally won, if you look over the past 10-20 years of nominations, there are very few names that weren’t already recognized from prior work who got nominations.

It’s undeniable that racism still touches every major industry in America, including entertainment, though I think Hollywood has been more progressive than many other industries in terms of progress towards racial equality.

Knowing that speech was written for her certainly does change my take on it.  I wonder what her true thoughts in that moment were.  It makes total sense now the whole credit to my race line.

The Academy voters are top-heavy with old, retired farts (in the main, white heterosexual men) still smarting that women, Hispanics and blacks have “taken their jobs.”

Which is the main reason “Brokeback Mountain” lost the award to “Crash,” and the brown people in “Slumdog Millionaire” weren’t even nominated.

It was an open secret in Hollywood that the old cabal of white entitled guys vowed to make “Brokeback” lose, and I have no doubt they also made it a point to nominate around the cast of “Slumdog.”

As for Rhett Butler’s misogyny, his character was based on Mitchell’s first husband Red Upshaw, who she’d married during her rebellious flapper days, was a bootlegger (if I remember her biography correctly) who practiced domestic violence. A sweetheart who, after Gone with the Wind became a blockbuster, came back and threatened to blackmail her with that info.

Domestic violence (as well as divorce) was then considered shameful for the woman (as would have been the revealing that she’d been married to a bootlegger.) Although ex-hubby never made good on his threats, Mitchell was haunted by them, one of the main reasons she shunned publicity.

Upshaw may also have sexually assaulted Mitchell after their divorce.

Holy hell.  Now we’re whining about a lack of tokenism.

Slumdog’s actors weren’t “nominated around” because they are brown people.  They were nominated around because they were brown people no one in the Academy had ever heard of and the Hollywood Foreign Press Association didn’t see fit to make their names famous at the Golden Globes. 

90% of Oscar noms seem to be cut and pasted straight from the Golden Globes, and it takes a considerable amount of buzz for a non-GG nominee to break into the Oscar mix. Thats what the Oscars are about: buzz.  Hype.  Reputations.  Name Recognition.  Paying your dues.  Unfortunately for them, the actors in Slumdog have only just been admitted to the cool kids club.  Maybe next time around they’ll be able to skate by on hype alone like many a past and current Oscar nominee.

Perhaps instead of lashing out at the (admittedly lazy) “cabal” of the academy, you should direct 90% of your anger at the foreign press who saw fit to lavish praise on Slumdog the movie but not its actors.

Suppose they had given a token nomination to one Slumdog actor (with no chance of winning).  Does that make everything better?  Is it not enough that this film has 10 nominations and is predicted to clean up tonight?

Of course, maybe the possibility exists that the performances in Slumdog, however good, didn’t measure up.

I agree that part of the reason for no Oscar noms for any of the cast of Slumdog is due to race, but I also think a lot of it has to do with name recognition.

Yeah, that’s part of it.  The other part of it, which I think is probably the real reason nobody, even the one actor in it who should be recognizable to Americans (Irfan Khan), was nominated, has to do with SAG issues.  SAG members nominate the actors, and due to union loyalty they’re unlikely to nominate anyone who isn’t in SAG. 

Then again, Irfan Khan should be in SAG by now, he’s acted in enough big budget American movies…  Though his performance wasn’t all that noteworthy.  Then again, when did the Oscars ever have anything to do with whose performances were worthy of note?

I’m kind of with you on this one, Steve.

While I think it’s fair to say that the Academy hasn’t had a great track record of nominating POC, I really believe that this instance has less to do with the fact that Dev Patel and Freida Pinto are Indian and more to do with the fact that 6 months ago, nobody outside of Bollywood had ever heard of Dev Patel and Freida Pinto.

Look at the list of nominees this past decade and virtually every name on the list had some degree of household recognition in America (the country in which 99% of the Academy members are citizens and where the Academy itself is based) prior to the performance for which they were nominated.

I think the Academy’s bias in this case has more to do with the unfamiliarity with the Slumdog Millionaire cast than it does with their ethnic background.  If there were a bunch of other relatively unknown actors and actresses getting nominations in recent years and Patel and Pinto were still being ignored, the racial bias argument would have some more weight.

The other part of it, which I think is probably the real reason nobody, even the one actor in it who should be recognizable to Americans (Irfan Khan), was nominated, has to do with SAG issues.  SAG members nominate the actors, and due to union loyalty they’re unlikely to nominate anyone who isn’t in SAG.

That’s rather interesting, because the entire cast of Slumdog Millionaire won the 2008 SAG Award for Oustanding Performance by a Cast in a Motion Picture.

Hm.  Maybe I was just wrong when I figured that had something to do with it.  I was chatting with a friend who was saying that actors in “foreign” films almost never get nominated, and I extrapolated from there that it might be a union issue. 

In that case, I’m really glad SAG came out and gave them that award collectively, because part of my frustration at not seeing anyone (even the token obvious person) nominated was that I thought the performances were spectacular.  In a really subtle and brilliant way that the Oscars don’t usually understand. 

In fact, one thing that annoys me about the performances likely to get someone an Oscar is the fact that a good actor should practically disappear within a film.  I don’t want to sit there and think, “hmmm, there’s that Dev Patel everyone is always talking about.  Yup, this is definitely a virtuoso performance!”  I want to get lost in the movie.  I want to forget that what I’m doing is sitting in a chair passively taking in a piece of art.  It’s Not Fucking About You, Sean Penn/Meryl Streep/Etc.  Not that I don’t like those actors, and yes, in some films a big showy performance is a good thing (this is probably why so many actors win for biopics).  But UGH!  Why can’t actors be appreciated for what good actors do best - making me forget they’re actors!

In that case, I’m really glad SAG came out and gave them that award collectively, because part of my frustration at not seeing anyone (even the token obvious person) nominated was that I thought the performances were spectacular.  In a really subtle and brilliant way that the Oscars don’t usually understand.

I’m really not much of a follower of the various movie awards, but when I looked it up and saw that it was given as a collective award for the whole cast, my first thought was, “Why in the hell doesn’t the Academy give a ‘Best Cast’ Award?”

Frankly, I thought the best performances in Slumdog Millionaire were from the youngest versions of the main characters, and I believe they had no prior experience in film (or outside of Mumbai, if I remember correctly).

Generally, I have a feeling that a very large group of minority actors are going to be getting high profile roles in this upcoming decade.  There’s just too many of them doing examplary work in television (The Wire, Lost).  I could be wrong, but I hope I’m not.

Opoponax, I kind of agree with you that a great performer should “disappear”, but I think it’s more that they should be generous to the other actors in their scenes.  The opposite of Robin Williams, basically, but it doesn’t have to be understated, just willing to live truthfully in the scene, regardless of where it may go.

Umm, Dev Patel is British.  And Dev Patel was nominated for a BAFTA for his role in Slumdog Millionaire. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dev_Patel
He was also in the British TV series Skins

But to get back on the topic of GWTW. I read the book before I saw the movie, and the book was had more nuance about race relations.  The was one episode during the Reconstruction period were the wife of a union soldier asks Scarlet for a recommendation for a nanny, when Scarlet suggests that the woman hire a freed slave, the woman is upset that Scarlet would even suggest such a thing. 

But it’s been a very long time since I read the book last.