That is utterly disgusting if true. But in no way surprising.
Corporate greed – there is nothing else like it in the world.
You’re right about the suits and the studio execs. They probably don’t even know the names of these kids.
If there’s one thing that helps me digest the fact that Slumdog Millionaire took home the undeserved Best Picture statue, it’s the fact that these kids got to experience and celebrate its colossal success (See videos of their joyful faces at the red carpet). It was the first time aboard an airplane for some of them. Apparently they were taken to Disneyworld the day after the Oscars. It’s all very nice and thoughtful, but I hope the people pampering them today realize that tomorrow two of them will be back to the grinding poverty they were born into, in a house with nothing but a dimly-lit bulb and a table fan to count for electricity.
What happens to them after all the hype over Slumdog Millionaire eventually fades? I just hope they’re given opportunities in Bollywood (and fairly paid for it). As far as performance in the film goes, the kids did a great job.
Actually, they were paid well more than the normal rate for child actors in India. Plus Danny Boyle set up a trust fund for each of them to fund their EDUCATION which is much more practical, valuable and useful than giving their family huge sums of money. I live in a Third World country and giving too much money all at once to poor people is almost never a good idea. Many of them squander it, mismanage it or worse, get killed for it leaving them as poor as ever.
So exploited? I don’t think so.
That Danny Boyle and producer Christian Colson setup a trust fund is true. And all that media-bullshit over the kids being underpaid is false. The father of the one of them told the Indian media that the films producers did more than pay them fairly. I wish the best for these kids in the future. It’d be nice to hear about them doing well – on and off the screen – in two to three years.
Great news for the two slum kids and their families as the housing authority in Mumbai is now going to give them each an apartment in honor of the recognition they’ve brought to the city. I hope it happens quickly. The only thing harder for me to grasp than the fact that those children who were sleeping in a slum in India last Thursday night, have been sleeping in the posh hotel I just drove past, is that tomorrow night they’ll probably be right back there knee deep in squalor.
a similar scandal arose out of Kite Runner from what I remember. the thing is, it sucks but its not like these kids would have been better off if they never starred in said films…
Maybe they’re better off not running around L.A. with Paris Hilton and Lindsay Lohan. There are worse things than being poor. Not many, but a few.
This was a low budget film that was never expected to make 150 million dollars. The filmmakers compensated the kids much better than they were required to and as well as they were able to at the time and now that the film has been successful it appears they are compensating them much more. They could have avoided this controversy by not choosing actors from the slums but that wouldn’t have benefited the kids or the communities that have taken such great pride in the film and the young actors. This to me is a great success story and the people that are upset by it or feel it’s exploitation should feel free to skip the movie and donate their 8 dollars to a children’s charity that serves India. I’m sure those charities have gotten more exposure now in the light of Slumdog Millionaire’s success.
did they put a gun to the kids’ heads and make them act in the movie?
People don’t realize that these kids are being helped a lot. The production gave them full scholarships for college. They’re not going to live there for long.
You guys have all made alot of good points about the kids initially being adequately compensated etc. but this film has made tons of money and is just going to keep making more. Even the people who didn’t like Slumdog Millionaire almost universally agree the children were excellent. I have several friends who had no intention of ever seeing it but now that they’ve seen how engaging the kids were in interviews at the Oscars they can’t wait to see it. From an economic standpoint I think Fox Searchlight really blew it keeping the kids away from the media until now and instead letting Freida Pinto, who comes off more rehearsed than a political candidate, be the lead spokesperson for the film.
Folks.. Great discussion pointing out the reality of these children actors and contrasting it to the show surrounding by the movie. That said, I have to agree with Irwin – adequate compensation and a trust fund for education is the best thing that could happen to these kids. Let’s be careful not to confuse what would calm the anxieties of the western world with what would help these children the most.
Folks.. Great discussion pointing out the reality of these children actors and contrasting it to the show surrounding by the movie. That said, I have to agree with Irwin – adequate compensation and a trust fund for education is the best thing that could happen to these kids. Let’s be careful not to confuse what would calm the anxieties of the western world with what would help these children the most.I also don’t think Slumdog was the best movie among the five, but hey, it fits the pattern the Oscars reward, and helps the Academy increase its global appeal..
My only comment is what I read in the papers today that the award to Slumdogs is now being celebrated in India, because it is a recognition of the country – however arbitary. As I have said on the Slumdog thread, it was also a recognition from the Academy of the Mumbai attacks. I have yet to see the film, but let’s acknowledge, at least, that something positive may come of this, especially for the kids. The situation of poverty and deprivation in Mumbai is at least getting some recognition. It has been noted that Bollywood films themselves ignore the realities of the slums. Anyone familiar with the neo-realists in Italy knows that the films there got a poor reception for showing the poverty. Perhaps some good can come out of all this, after all.
Whether it’s the Indian government, Fox Searchlight or Danny Boyle himself who’s forking out the money to buy the two kids who live in the slums each an apartment for their respective families consider the following numbers. The apartments are going to cost slightly less than $30,000 each. Slumdog Millionaire has already grossed $175,000,000 worldwide. Lets say it tops out after DVD and TV sales at
$300,000,000. That would mean that each of the Mumbai apartments cost just 1% of 1% of the money the film generates. Or to put it another way if a thousand people plunk down ten dollars each to watch the film in a theater on a Saturday night in a big city like New York or L.A. only one dollar is needed out of the money collected in ticket sales for that showing to pay for one of the apartments.
Just when I thought the dust had finally settled from all the post Oscar hype today hundreds of websites featured photos of the 10 year old boy who played the youngest Salim clutching a fluffy stuffed animal he’d won playing carnival games at the Santa Monica Pier, less than forty eight hours earlier, with tears streaming down his face moments after his father had beaten him for being so jet lagged and exhausted that he refused to talk to a reporter. It’s beginning to look like the misery depicted in the film wasn’t exaggerated after all. One can only wish the media will leave these kids alone now.
In case anyone else on here is interested in the progression of this story the latest update is that the boy who played the youngest Salim is suffering from a 103 degree fever and has been prescribed antibiotics. The girl who played the youngest Latika refuses to wear anything other than the dress she wore when she walked down the red carpet and she’s refusing to leave her home or play with her friends. The psychologist/social worker who has been brought in claims the physical and psychological trauma the children are suffering was inevitable. Why can’t Fox Searchlight put the kids and their families up at the Indian version of Motel 6? Slumdog Millionaire grossed over $20,000,000 worldwide this past weekend.
I’ll take it that the reason no one else is responding to my updates on this story is simply because how does one respond to the inhumanity being displayed by the parties making huge profits off of this film. The latest news is that the shack the boy who played the youngest Salim lives in is now set to be demolished within the week by Mumbai city officials as it’s an illegal structure.
I think they don’t respond because you seem to be like paparazzi-ing these kids… It’s kinda weird to me. I hope they get on well in their personal lives, but I don’t want to butt in.
Yes, these children were given an amazing oppertunity and I am sure, they were fairly treated on set. HOWEVER, the film has brought in $15,000,000, and those children were just sent back to live in one of Mumbai’s most dangerous slums.
Yes, Danny Boyle has set up an education trust fund, which the children receive at the age of 18, upon completion of their schooling…
Are you aware that there is a 53% drop rate in Mumbai India?… Honestly, it isn’t that realistic to stay in school until the age of 18, most children, are out from ages 10-16. Given the harsh circumstances of these kids, chances are, and I HOPE IM WRONG, they will need to do other things as a mean of survival and to help their families at all stable. Azharrudin, the boy who plays the role of young Salim, his father surfers from TB and all the money he earned went into the treatment of this…
So, when we live in a world where hollywood dishes out billions a year on films and actors… these children, and MANY others could be taken away from these horrible conditions.
JUST TO PUT IT IN PERSPECTIVE..
It would cost $40-60 billion annually to achieve the millennium goals..(for those who are unaware of these, they are:
Goal 1: Eradicate extreme poverty and hunger
Goal 2: Achieve universal primary education
Goal 3: Promote gender equality and empower women
Goal 4: Reduce child mortality
Goal 5: Improve maternal health
Goal 6: Combat HIV/AIDS, malaria and other diseases
Goal 7: Ensure environmental sustainability
Goal 8: Develop a Global Partnership for Development
think about how many millions of billions are dished out for movies, cast, crew, make up, set workers, set, etc…
anyways.. just a thought.
The father of Slumdog Millionaire child star Rubina Ali has denied a report in Britain’s News of the World that he was prepared to place his 9-year-old daughter up for adoption for $300,000 as a “lie made up by foreign journalists playing games with me,” he tells PEOPLE.
The newspaper reported that Rafiq Qureshi, 36, demanded money after it had sent reporters posing as wealthy people from Dubai who said they wished to adopt a child.
Huffington was running that story but who knows what the truth is.
One thing that I believe absolutely is that whatever Danny Boyle did for these two kids (he may have done something or nothing) does not in any way mitigate the cynical attitude this mediocre film takes toward poverty.
I for one think that Danny Boyle went well above and beyond his role and responsibilities as a director to help the kids out. He could have done nothing, but he used his involvement with them to help out in the best way he could, by promoting their education and attempting to give them money for the future (as opposed to the now, which would have been valueless for reasons already discussed in this board). Yes, as a runaway hit, the producers made quite a bit of money off of the movie. It is not for you or me to tell them what to do with the money they earned on their investment!
Movies are multi-million dollar enterprises because people pay millions of dollars for them. As investments have come back with higher returns, actors, directors, and crew have demanded more of that money go to them for their work, and thusly stars get paid millions of dollars to appear in a movie and are protected by the Screen Actor’s Guild. Boyle working in India with non-professional actors was operating outside the rules of the industry, and thus working outside the protections built for the workers in the industry. He still chose to help them in which way he could, and managed through that to provide them opportunities that they previously did not have and had no chance of obtaining. Unfortunately, he can’t change their family’s treatment of them, their neighborhood, their culture, or their country. But at least he took the risk to use people who were actually involved in the story he told versus trying to recreate it in a studio with professional Indian-English actors, which I don’t think would have a) worked very well, and b) would have upset people anyway because of that pesky “burden of representation” issue which gets people all nasty-feeling because White Westerners Misrepresent The Other. He can’t win.
The kids’ problems extend way past the scope of a Hollywood production. We’re talking about an entire culture and system here, one that exists outside of our control. It is also debatable to claim the ethics of going into such culture in the first place and trying to change it to match our values. This is a much more complicated issue than executives earning money and treating it as if they kicked a poor guy begging change in the street.
People complain about the system but I rarely see them offer an alternative model that works better than it. It would cost $40-60 billion annually to combat those issues*, but where would that money come from? Do you expect people to just give it to you without being capable of earning it? If Hollywood put their “excesses” into funding these things as a wider cultural movement, yeah, they’ll get a lot of credit among like-minded people, AND they’ll run out of money with no movies to bring in income and no people to go see them. Are you honestly expecting an entire industry to agree as a body to give up their livelihood in order to help issues that are constantly shifting forms throughout human history?
People complain about the heartlessness of economics, but without approaching it from the economic perspective. In the theory, the point of increasing wealth is to increase the standard of living. Once the standard of living increases, the idea is that opportunities become wider-spread for others to be supported and to have the ability to support themselves. In this era, where the United States is a country rich in opportunities beyond the scope of many other countries, the question we do have to deal with daily is where our responsibilities lie to other people, and as the world becomes increasingly globalized, our health as a nation gets increasingly intertwined with those of other nations. But what to do with that responsibility and how to do it is not currently clear, and is why these things are up to debate. What does NOT help is righteous indignation at those whose investments pay off at their lack of ability to click their heels together and magically make the world better. All that serves to do is make those investors MORE conservative, in that they won’t take risks going into Mumbai to make a movie with local actors because it will cost too much in the long run once people ask them to put all of their profits into a broken economic system. Then they’ll just roll out the blackface and paint the sets themselves, and NO money will go to the kids who will never be on screen who will never have the opportunity to do anything but continue to be beaten by their parents and go slowly postal in a starving, marginalized world.
I can understand feeling disturbed and angry at the horrible things that happen in this world. I can understand looking at those who are better off than I and wondering why they aren’t doing anything about it. But what I’ve come to understand with these dialogs is that it is not your right to tell anybody else how to live their lives, what to do with their money, and how to use their positions, particularly when they are only interested in one thing: making a movie. If the story of the Slumdog Actors moves you so, why not start a grassroots campaign to make it better for them yourself? Surely there are plenty of people willing to donate their time and money OF THEIR OWN FREE WILL to help on these and other like causes across the globe. But stop pointing fingers without considering that you may just have to point that finger at yourself.
—PolarisDiB
*I would like to know the source of this information, please, that’s very interesting.
People complain about the system but I rarely see them offer an alternative model that works better than it. It would cost $40-60 billion annually to combat those issues*, but where would that money come from? Do you expect people to just give it to you without being capable of earning it? If Hollywood put their “excesses” into funding these things as a wider cultural movement, yeah, they’ll get a lot of credit among like-minded people, AND they’ll run out of money with no movies to bring in income and no people to go see them. Are you honestly expecting an entire industry to agree as a body to give up their livelihood in order to help issues that are constantly shifting forms throughout human history?
I agree with almost everything you said, and the finger that points also does point backwards (to paraphrase Will Self), BUT
> from a purely idealist (perhaps) POV, this statement …I must stand against. Now, I’m not saying you are wrong in your critique of the critiquers. But I am saying YES there are people out there who believe (and work towards the manifestation of that belief— I for one am always proposing —and attempting to instigate – practical alternative models) that film (esp. the Hollywood machine) as a cultural medium has achieved such a level of influence globally, it would be a much better world if it could re-invest directly in the cultures it represents, and sometimes exploits, for purely economic gain.
This applies to all global corporate interests.
Mutualism. I can see no reason why H-wood would go bust if it filtered profit back into a direct engagement with society on a more political level.
The success of Slumdog Millionaire has inspired one Italian filmmaker to adapt the book “Banker to the Poor”, by Muhammad Yunus into a film. It is a book I encourage everyone to read, along with Yunus’s other book “Creating a World Without Poverty: Social Business and the Future of Capitalism”, for anyone who is interested in the issue of poverty alleviation. Muhammad Yunus is a Nobel Prize winning economist whom is famous for designing Grameen Bank and the system of microcredit. Grameen and microcredit are institutions designed around giving loans exclusively to poor people, especially poor women.
Yunus has quite an interesting story. He was born and raised in Pakistan in a region that is now known as Bangladesh. He studied in the United States at the University of Colorado, Boulder (my alma marter), where he was instrumental in the campaign for Bangladeshi independence. Upon return to his native country he was confronted with widespread poverty and famine, with many people dying in the streets. He journeyed out to the poor villagers to examine why these people were so poor. He discovered that most of the poor people were very hard working and industrious people. The reason that they could not reap the benefits of their labor was because much of their earnings went to paying off loan sharks and their exhortation interest rates.
There is one chapter of the book, “Banker to the Poor”, that can only be described as Kafkaesque. Yunus, a professor of economics at the University of Daka, goes to the University bank to ask why they didn’t give loans to poor people. The poor are not considered “credit worthy”, because they lack collateral. Well it is obvious why they lack collateral. Yunus asks if he could take out a loan in his name for a small group of poor women. The bank representative replies, “We don’t give out loans.” Yunus, a professor of economics, has been telling his students for years that “banks give out loans”. The chapter goes on further and it is something you really must read for yourselves.
Yunus also goes on to describe the lives of his borrowers. One section entitled “Life of Fumi” bore a resemblance to Mizoguchi’s Life of Oharu. They are both stories of women who is degraded by a culture that has no respect for women, and are constantly up-heaved by random events whenever they find a little solace in life. Only in Fumi’s story she eventually finds salvation in the form of a loan from Grameen Bank that allows her to start her own business. Where as Oharu is damned to a life of destitution living in the shadow of a society that took so much from her.
“People complain about the system but I rarely see them offer an alternative model that works better than it.”
Well here is the alternative. Or more accurately a better variation on the current system:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IoqkEKTtIGg
kenny
Has anyone else been following the story of the two child actors in the film who still actually live in a slum? At least the girl who plays the young Latika has a roof of corregated metal over her head. The boy who plays the young Salim lives with his family under a sheet of plastic in order to keep out of the rain, despite the fact that the film has already grossed over $150,000,000. Who wants to be a millionaire? Everyone at Fox Searchlight, that’s who.