"It's a really difficult situation that's spiraling out of control," Colson tells EW. "We've had to constantly reevaluate the challenge of: If you want to lift people out of poverty, how the hell do you do that?" According to him, the children's parents rejected the filmmakers' offer to move them from their makeshift shacks into proper apartments, demanding instead payment in cash. "Nothing would be easier than to throw money at this," says Colson. "But we felt from the beginning that that would be irresponsible." So he and Boyle (with input from the film's U.S. distributor Fox Searchlight) have hired local Indian social workers to help negotiate a solution that will relocate the families into safe and clean housing. Colson can't say how soon they'll resolve the matter, but he promises he won't quit until they do. "We are committed to this," he says. "We'll still be on this in two or three years. And you can hold me to account on that."

[hollywoodinsider.ew.com]

Does the father have drug issues or something? Why would he insist on cash and reject housing?

This is the same kid who was in the papers not long ago because his father was beating him up in view of reporters for being too exhausted to want to do more publicity with press.

I don't blame the producers for setting up trust funds for the kids, paying their school tuition and trying to arrange housing instead of handing more cash to the parents. There are a lot of exploited American former child stars who worked away their childhood and ended up with little or nothing to show for it who would love to have had money put in trust funds where their parents couldn't eat it all up.

 Reply

It's just interesting that people act all shocked when things like this happen to the kids in Slumdog Millionaire - did anyone actually watch the movie??

 Reply

Some of the highlights of the media's coverage of this story:

1) Americans were "targeted". Yet only 6 Americans were killed, out of a death toll of around 200. And before you say "yeah, but that's 6 Americans in India!", remember that this was at a four star hotel in the country's largest city. They couldn't find more than 6 Americans? I'll bet you could find more than 6 Indians at the Waldorf.

2) This attack either has "similarities to" or "bears the hallmarks of" Al Qaeda. Oh, woops! Some other group claimed responsibility. But hey! Nobody's heard of them before so we don't believe them. We're still gonna say it's Al Qaeda, because all terrorists must be Al Qaeda, which means all terrorists are targeting Americans.

3) This attack and the warning of attacks on the LIRR are linked. This is never said explicitly, but it was always "on the same day as a new warning is issued for underground attacks in New York, today in Mumbai etc. etc..." as if a link exists. But no such link exists. In fact, no such plan exists for attacking New York. Does nobody understand what the words "uncorroborated but plausible" mean? They mean "we have no confirmation of this, but you never know, it could happen." That's hardly even newsworthy. Lots of stuff *could* happen, sheesh.

There's nothing funny or worth being snarky about about these attacks in Mumbai. But the American media should be embarrassed about its coverage.

 Reply