Title basically explains my question. Generally, it seems like movies that are nomination-heavy, particularly in more general areas like screenplay, best direction, and best picture, also get nominations for acting. Slumdog was far and away the biggest winner last night, but neither Frieda Pinto nor Dev Patel were even nominated for their roles. I believe the movie also did not receive supporting actor nominations.
Any theories? Was the acting really so sub-par in relation to the film? I think Patel at least deserved a nod . . .
well, I personally didn’t think the acting was all that spectacular. Also, there were different actors for the different periods on the story line. You saw that most of the other acting nominations were for roles that featured a lot of screen time (a lot more than in Slumdog Millionair)
It was one of those films that, as a whole, was greater than the sum of its parts, acting wise. IMO, the best actors in the film were Anil Kapoor as the game show host and Irrfan Khan as the police inspector. I didn’t think that any of the leads had stand-out performances. At least, not any better than those who were actually nominated.
Additionally, I don’t think I’d go so far as to say Patel was a bad actor, but his presence in a film certainly wouldn’t be a selling point for me. He may have a career as a supporting actor, but as a lead… he just doesn’t do it for me. Of course, I’ve only seen him in one movie, but I think I’ve seen enough.
I think the only actor in the film that deserved any consideration at all was the guy who played the host (who gave an underappreciated performance, I think). The other lead roles were too divided and no one really stood out. Dev Patel was fine and likeable but not Oscar-worthy.
The best actors were the three youngest children. Frieda Pinto did almost nothing other than looky teary and pretty, Dev Patel was okay but didn’t really stand out against the energy of the movie and all the Bollywood actors gave stylised Bollywood performances.
I can’t compare it to the other nominees, but Slumdog was a fairy-tale and was story driven rather than character or performance driven, to me. I think those kinds of movies are less likely to get award recognition; the characters tend to be pretty broadly defined. Compare that to Return of the King, which only got one acting nomination (supporting actor for Ian McKellan) - same idea. The fact that the lead roles were divided between three actors apiece is also a good point.
Good points . . . I didn’t think about the fact that the movie was more story-driven than actor-driven compared to, say, The Curious Case of Benjamin Button, where Brad Pitt was clearly a huge part in the film.
I was going to argue that in general, though, regardless of the quality of the acting, movies with umpteen million nominations tend to also get nominations for acting, but ROTK is a good counter point.
I think the other factor is that most of the actors in Slumdog had zero exposure to American audiences previously. In fact, this was the first movie role for both Patel and Pinto ever… and by that, I mean neither one has a single IMDB movie credit to their name prior to Slumdog, which would make it hugely unusual to have gotten nominated.
Typically, nominees for Best Actor/Actress have been working in the industry for several years, and have turned out several supporting or starring performances (noteworthy or not). It’s very very unusual to see a newcomer on the list, even if their film has been nominated for other major awards.
The Screen Actors Guild does have an Ensemble Cast award, and Slumdog Millionaire won that, just as Return of the King did, as N9IWP points out. It truly was an ensemble film. I too think the kids were the best part of the acting, and Irfan Khan, and the host guy, Anil Kapoor, who has been having the time of his life during this awards season. It’s been fun to watch him. He just beams.