The child would be in proper new clean housing if the father would have accepted housing from the producers instead of insisting on cash in its place.
"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."
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.
Someone should go on a major awards show or talk show and publicly thank the producers of the movie for privately agreeing to use the film's profits to rebuild this kid's house. Then they'll have to do it.
Ok, not to sound crass, but look. This was a film about kids living in poverty in India, starring kids living in poverty in India. What did people really expect was going to happen here? That they'd all move to Hollywood and become the next Lindsay Lohans or Zachary Quintos?
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??
I was wondering if this kind of thing disproportionally affects Muslims in India. Is the government more likely to mow down a Muslim shanty town? Or, to put it another way, are Muslim families more likely to be subject to this kind of distress?
Well, come on--if we made sure this kid had a house, it would change his life too much, and that's obviously awful, so what we really need to do is just ignore him. It's in his best interest, really. We're thinking of the children. Won't someone think of the children?
The sale of young kids for the purpose of marrying them (to Arab sheiks looking for kicks or for an heir) has been going on for a long time. I am rather conflicted about the current story - on one hand, it draws attention to a serious issue, and on the other hand, it reeks of entrapment and is way too tabloidy to be taken seriously beyond a couple of days.
Check this story of a kid who was rescued by an airline stewardess: [www.karmayog.org]
I'm trying to imagine how the producers could have avoided controversy, and I'm coming up empty.
If they had cast actors who were not living the slumdog life (brought them in from Great Britain or elsewhere) there would have been outrage of another type. Something along the lines of how the producers didn't want to muddy their hands of the potential sociopolitical problems of finding child actors whose lives would be forever changed by their participation.
No one...absolutely NO ONE knows how things are going to turn out for a film as it is being made. It's a gamble for all involved. The fact that this film is now successful and the opportunistic are now calling foul is pretty disgusting, but pretty effing predictable, too. These squabbles over "fair shares" are par for the course, but this story about the father selling his daughter seems pretty contrived and twisted for the benefit of a tabloid rag.
@Dr. Nick: @souldecirce: Why should the filmmakers be hung out to dry by opportunistic media outlets seeking a fabricated story rooted in the lowest common denominator? The only reason this is happening because this film was successful. I think this story is worthy of its praise, and historically will stand as the one that bridged the gap between Ho'wood and Bollywood. It would be a shame if future films of the same caliber lost their greenlight, because of potential tabloid BS contrived by third parties looking to stir up some shite.
@PaisleyPajamas: If the filmmakers believed as you do, why did they say that they mishandled the compensation for the individuals? Either they know they fucked up (and need to take their lumps), or they're cowards, not auteurs, of the highest order (and need to take their lumps).
@souldecirce: Given what has transpired, I really think it was a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation, which is why I brought up the idea that if they had brought actors in, rather than casting locally they'd still be getting a lashing in the press.
"...Christian Colson, the film's British producer, has admitted being wrong-footed by the intense media interest in the child actors. He insists, however, that Rubina and Azharuddin Mohammed Ismail, 10, another slum child who played a lead part, were paid fairly, and that as soon as they were cast moves were made to safeguard their futures.
The children were found places at an independent school - the first they had ever attended - which specialises in educating disadvantaged youngsters. If they remain in school until they are 18, they will receive a "significant lump sum". They have also been promised a new home by the film-makers.
"We thought that the parents would be incentivised by long-term benefits to their children. We were wrong," Mr Colson told The Times this year.
Looking ahead
- Rubina, 9, and Azhar, 10, now attend a UN school to which they are driven in their own rickshaw
- Their trust fund is guaranteed only if they attend school until the age of 18, though they are not obliged to pass any exams
- Each family was promised that funds would be available in emergencies. When Azhar's home was bulldozed, the producers wired money They also gave £500,000 to the charity Plan, which improves children's housing in the slum
- Attempts to buy apartments for the children have proved difficult under Indian law..."
The producers of Slumdog Millionaire have in essence purchased bare minimum media pacification policies and spun it as custodial oversight of the childrens' future. Notice the trust fund payouts at age 18 have been attached to a 'still in school' contingency that seems highly problematic. I'm advocating a G.W. Bush Administration style water-boarding of the producers of Slumdog Millionaire until they admit that they're parseltongued weasels.
@Dagrolord: With you in the spirit of punishment for the reprehensible actions, but disagree with method. Why waterboard them to admit information we know already?
I don't know what the solution is here. I'd like to be angry at Hollywood's arrogant interference into these matters having no clue about the gravity of which they dabble. Hollywood filmmakers are not the United Nations or some other ambassadorship entity. They're about making money. That's it. I'm not saying this scumbag father wouldn't have ultimately engaged in the horrible deeds reported here, but I do think Hollywood needs to think more closely about what they do, and the affects it will have on the lives of the people involved long after the awards have been handed out and they're off to make their next feature film. You can't just thrust a whole cultural society in the limelight, highlighting the good and the bad, slap five when the money is made, and leave the rest in ruin. Where's the responsibility here? It's not about trust funds and pats on the head saying "Good job."
There is one good thing to come out of this movie for me at least. I have the misfortune to know many reality-challenged, smug ex-hippies. They would gush on and on that India being the land of Gandhi, maharajahs, Kamasutra and yoga is exclusively a spiritual utopia of great peace and social justice. And where all the people without exception are spiritually advanced, highly evolved souls who have fantastic tantric sex and are adept at balancing their chakras.
Slumdog took all that away from them. As a bonus, they feel terrible liberal white guilt about feeling outraged against all the various atrocities in the film. It has been very beneficial for my inner peace to watch their worldview and their identity as good, non-judgmental liberals get fucked with. Oooommmm.
@Wrapitup: I call shenanigans. You have to be pretty fucking dense if, after versing yourself in some of India's (pretty goddamned mighty) cultural achievements, it takes a movie to make you aware of the dire conditions much of its population lives under--I doubt even the wooliest-minded yogamaniacs are ignorant of THAT. Did your friends all fall asleep when they explained the whole the caste system deal in high school social studies?
@Wrapitup: Wait, explain to me again how a feel-good movie with a storybook ending about an Indian slum child winning a million dollars on a game show and the love of his life validate your "realistic"view of India?
Plus: your vision about how liberals view India hasn't been valid since 1968. If anything Thomas Friedman's Flat World vision of India is the new "wrong way of viewing India."
05/15/09
"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.
05/14/09
05/14/09
05/14/09
05/14/09
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??
05/14/09
05/14/09
05/14/09
05/14/09
05/14/09
04/20/09
Check this story of a kid who was rescued by an airline stewardess: [www.karmayog.org]
04/21/09
04/20/09
04/20/09
If they had cast actors who were not living the slumdog life (brought them in from Great Britain or elsewhere) there would have been outrage of another type. Something along the lines of how the producers didn't want to muddy their hands of the potential sociopolitical problems of finding child actors whose lives would be forever changed by their participation.
No one...absolutely NO ONE knows how things are going to turn out for a film as it is being made. It's a gamble for all involved. The fact that this film is now successful and the opportunistic are now calling foul is pretty disgusting, but pretty effing predictable, too. These squabbles over "fair shares" are par for the course, but this story about the father selling his daughter seems pretty contrived and twisted for the benefit of a tabloid rag.
04/20/09
Pretty simple solution, actually: MAKE A DIFFERENT MOVIE.
04/20/09
Always a downside to success...always.
04/20/09
04/20/09
04/20/09
"...Christian Colson, the film's British producer, has admitted being wrong-footed by the intense media interest in the child actors. He insists, however, that Rubina and Azharuddin Mohammed Ismail, 10, another slum child who played a lead part, were paid fairly, and that as soon as they were cast moves were made to safeguard their futures.
The children were found places at an independent school - the first they had ever attended - which specialises in educating disadvantaged youngsters. If they remain in school until they are 18, they will receive a "significant lump sum". They have also been promised a new home by the film-makers.
"We thought that the parents would be incentivised by long-term benefits to their children. We were wrong," Mr Colson told The Times this year.
Looking ahead
- Rubina, 9, and Azhar, 10, now attend a UN school to which they are driven in their own rickshaw
- Their trust fund is guaranteed only if they attend school until the age of 18, though they are not obliged to pass any exams
- Each family was promised that funds would be available in emergencies. When Azhar's home was bulldozed, the producers wired money They also gave £500,000 to the charity Plan, which improves children's housing in the slum
- Attempts to buy apartments for the children have proved difficult under Indian law..."
The producers of Slumdog Millionaire have in essence purchased bare minimum media pacification policies and spun it as custodial oversight of the childrens' future. Notice the trust fund payouts at age 18 have been attached to a 'still in school' contingency that seems highly problematic. I'm advocating a G.W. Bush Administration style water-boarding of the producers of Slumdog Millionaire until they admit that they're parseltongued weasels.
04/20/09
04/20/09
04/20/09
I don't know what the solution is here. I'd like to be angry at Hollywood's arrogant interference into these matters having no clue about the gravity of which they dabble. Hollywood filmmakers are not the United Nations or some other ambassadorship entity. They're about making money. That's it. I'm not saying this scumbag father wouldn't have ultimately engaged in the horrible deeds reported here, but I do think Hollywood needs to think more closely about what they do, and the affects it will have on the lives of the people involved long after the awards have been handed out and they're off to make their next feature film. You can't just thrust a whole cultural society in the limelight, highlighting the good and the bad, slap five when the money is made, and leave the rest in ruin. Where's the responsibility here? It's not about trust funds and pats on the head saying "Good job."
04/20/09
04/20/09
04/20/09
There is one good thing to come out of this movie for me at least. I have the misfortune to know many reality-challenged, smug ex-hippies. They would gush on and on that India being the land of Gandhi, maharajahs, Kamasutra and yoga is exclusively a spiritual utopia of great peace and social justice. And where all the people without exception are spiritually advanced, highly evolved souls who have fantastic tantric sex and are adept at balancing their chakras.
Slumdog took all that away from them. As a bonus, they feel terrible liberal white guilt about feeling outraged against all the various atrocities in the film. It has been very beneficial for my inner peace to watch their worldview and their identity as good, non-judgmental liberals get fucked with. Oooommmm.
04/20/09
04/20/09
04/20/09
Plus: your vision about how liberals view India hasn't been valid since 1968. If anything Thomas Friedman's Flat World vision of India is the new "wrong way of viewing India."
04/20/09