Slumdog Has Officially Gone From Heart-Warming To Gut-Wrenching

@Dickdogfood: The trust funds don't mean anything if the kids are still living in abject poverty and can't access them until a certain age. In slums like Mumbai, there's no guarantee they'll even live to that age.

@fetishizedarmadillo: Also, there are boarding schools in India that accept people from all castes without segregation or discrimination (my roommate's father went to one such school). It would only cost a few thousand dollars a year to send these kids to boarding school - I'm sure the producers and director of the hit movie could scrape that together SOMEhow! - and it would be a good way to ensure that most of the money goes towards their care and education and isn't misspent by their parents.

Not that I'm saying the parents shouldn't get any money. The families were each promised a one bedroom apartment in Mumbai - we're not talking about Malibu mansions here! What's the hold up?!

@Itsjustcatnip: If they haven't given the kids OR their families any money yet (beyond the pittances they made for appearing in the film), they're making it a hell of a lot more complicated than it needs to be, which calls their motives and sincerity into question.

@alliotbarnes: Don't say that! It's still cool to hate Slumdog!

Presidentpez

@dolemite1975: Selling/trading your kid in them-there parts is not uncommon at all (and for a MUCH lower price, despicably).

You are the first commentator to "get it." As abominable as a wretch that asshole was for trying to sell his daughter, can we imagine how much more "despicable" it would have been if the trade had happened and he had somehow gotten less than that -- and the tragedy, the utter tragedy, it is that other get less than 300 grand for pimping off their child. I shudder at the horror of such such a thought.

You are the first sage to get to jist of what makes this so awful. But we can't loose all hope: maybe they can sell more children and get a little closer to $300,000. That would make it a little less "despicable," right? Just turn the frown upside down. :0)

@Yitzhak: Why, that's so kind of you, Yitzhak. It's good to know perverts are not limited to the Middle Eastern world. While, no 300 grand means no Rubina for you, I'm sure you can (and do) still frequent the Chuck-e-Cheese to show off for the kids your "adorable dog and kitten" while their parents are ordering the pizza or some such.

Nowadays it's so hard to meet such valorous gentlemen as yourself.

@Wrapitup: How is it possible that people didn't know that India is horribly, desperately poor before this movie? It's home to more of the world's poor, malnourished and illiterate than any other one country. The living standards of India's poor are entirely on a level with that of the poor in many sub-Saharan African countries, both in the villages and cities. How do people not know this?

fetishizedarmadillo

@MeanMadMargaret: That is a huge oversimplification (as someone else born in India)--caste is definitely not a huge issue in the slums of an incredibly multicultural, multifaith city like Mumbai (besides, the children are Muslim and therefore, do not adhere to the caste system). It's more of an issue in villages and other, more conservative communities. I'm sorry if this sounds snippy but I hate when the stock response to any report on poverty in India is "oh, but the caste system" and this kind of response seems to come invariably from people who don't know very much about it to begin with.

fetishizedarmadillo

@Amarain824: Congratulations, dude! :-)

That bastard tried to sell his daughter, the producers of the movie short-changed Miss Ali's family, but you, the cunning gentle(wo)man that you are, got one over all of them by not giving them your ten bucks. I'm sure presently, as the police dragged that whoreson Rubina called a dad off to prison, or if the offer had been made not by a journalist but some rich Oscar-fetishist asshole and the exchange had happened, the poor girl, even through her tears, would think fondly of how through your piracy you bested them all. Awesome, dude!

Selling/trading your kid in them-there parts is not uncommon at all (and for a MUCH lower price, despicably). If this movie had done shit at the box office, we (sadly) wouldn't be hearing about this at all. That doesn't justify anything, I'm just saying that this is common practice in that part of the world. Sad to say, but at least some attention is being paid to this problem.

I really hope those girls get taken care of.

Good God, this is horrible. Perhaps the only way this could have been any worse was if he tried exchanging her life for a Pop-Tart. So not yummy of him.
(Why, yes, I will take the window seat on my ride over to hell, thank you.)

Cost of girl: 300,000.
Cost of damage to soul: Priceless.

Oh, Ayn Rand would be so proud of Rupert right now. I just know she's looking up at him from hell and smiling warmly.

DrunkRobot

@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.

Who Wants to Be a $300,000naire? That mean Dad.

This headline is terrible and confusing. I had to read it about five times to understand that maybe "jail" did not have to replace "girl" . Hyphens would have helped.

The nature of the story sucks, too.

ms_subways

@souldecirce: Zana Briski (and Ross Kaufman) received a backlash after their documentary Born into Brothels came out. They have set up foundations for the kids, got one of the kids to America (he's now at NYU, I think), and all sorts of other goodies. Briski and Kaufmann didn't shrink from criticism, but addressed it directly. They did what they wanted to do, and what they thought they needed to do. No more, no less.

souldecirce

@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

@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.

Always a downside to success...always.

This is the first time that I am sad to say, I called it.

I am now glad that I didn't spend any money to see this movie. I just downloaded it, take that suckers.

Amarain824

@Dagrolord: Fuck school, just give them the cash. Seems to work out well with the US lottery, doesn't it?

slainte_pants

@gonzosmom: A friend (born and raised in India) explained that it really does not matter how much money they, the children, made, because the are a lower castes (sp?). They, the children, family, would still be shunned because of the caste system. I am no expert on India and have not seen the movie. But my friend's explanation on the complex social hierarchy was very sad. I hope this has a positive outcome.

MeanMadMargaret

@Dr. Nick: Resounding yes to that suggestion. At the very least, the film's backers acknowledge that they paid the child star(s) too little. If they wanted to avoid controversy and insisted upon making the movie, then the least they could have done was pay more than what they "now realize was too little."

souldecirce

@PaisleyPajamas: "I'm trying to imagine how the producers could have avoided controversy, and I'm coming up empty."

Pretty simple solution, actually: MAKE A DIFFERENT MOVIE.

Obviously I felt intense revulsion upon reading this post, but after clicking through to the article, I'm not quite as horrified. It looks like News of the World basically engaged in entrapment, using a woman posing as a member of a wealthy Dubai family who wanted to give the girl a better life. That's tragic and terrible, certainly, but very different than the child slavery connotations that popped up (at least for me) reading what was posted here on Gawker.

Of course, maybe I'm just naive and the guy is just as scummy as he originally sounded.

Satyrica

@FormerEnglishMajor: I'm saying I think it's complicated, and if I was going to give those children more money, I too would be trying to make sure that it got to the child in question, not their parents, who are apparently willing to sell the child in question, merely for their own profit.

Itsjustcatnip

@Mount_Prion: +1

Yeah. Sometimes quips just don't stand the harsh light of day.

Dagrolord

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.

I'm perturbed at the jezebelification of Defamer.

Is this what happened to the kid from Jerry Maguire?

BenderingTimeV2

@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?

souldecirce

@FormerEnglishMajor: But how would giving the kids and their families apartments and allowances not also be a decision as what's "good" for them? Does that necessarily escape the charge of paternalism?

In any case, looking at the Wikipedia article on the movie ([en.wikipedia.org]), it seems as if the filmmakers have, among other things, set up trust-funds for the children.

Now I will never see this movie.

Christ, this is awful.

Rubina, I don't have $300,000 but you can come live with me. I have an adorable dog and kitten, and live very close to a Chuck-E-Cheese.

Yitzhak

From the UK's Times Online article-

"...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

Oh, urg. How awful.

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."

Spirit Fingers

I can't imagine a good outcome of setting up a child with a lot of cash and sending them back to their shanty.

@alliotbarnes: Not only that - if you read the BBC article on the father's version of things, it casts serious doubt on the reporter's behavior & ethics. Maybe the father did try to sell his daughter & maybe he didn't - but it is possible the reporters tried to cook a sensational story & bent the truth. Sad all around.

once

@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."

gawkimo

Perhaps the filmmakers meant that showering them with cash would not make a transformative impact, in that the kids would be robbed or otherwise exploited, and end up with nothing. That is giving them the benefit of the doubt, but it makes sense.

Still, if they wanted to intrude their Western culture on the kids / culture to make their film, then they should have gone whole hog, and got the kids out of there.

Officially glad that I never gave neither dollar nor time to this movie.

souldecirce

@ADismalScience: kidney selling, too

@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: I am become laughter, the devourer of worlds! Thank Kew.

@Wrapitup: You must have a very full life.

@ADismalScience: Sadly, you could theoretically control the money, but ultimately money's just a proxy for a power differential -- and that's what allows this predation to occur (and as you said, it usually ends up being lives that are the currency used).

Depressing...

@Itsjustcatnip: Read the articles. Nothing has happened - the families don't have anything, still. They SAID they were going to set these up but did not.

@gonzosmom: Me too. It is so little money and it isn't just this movie that will make profits - D. Boyle now has a "name" and will get green-lighted more easily in the future. He is the Scumdog.

Hey we have a Murdoch theme going now: Lachlan invested in SpotRunner.

I respectfully disagree, Hamilton.

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.

@Dickdogfood: I guess I don't see how Boyle gets to decide what is or is not "good" for this child and her family.

He hired them, thinking sprinkling a few dollars would help them, and they would go back to anonymity and obscurity, while he wins an Oscar and takes his back-end. I no longer have any respect for him. Doing the right thing means getting an apartment and setting up a monthly allowance for these 2 families and keeping tabs on them.

Hollywood guys do this for their mistresses - apartments and allowances - I daresay the "Slumdog" teams have the wherewithal to do it for the poverty-stricken children they used in their film.

@FormerEnglishMajor:

It would actually cost about 50¢ a day. This is the kind of issue that is gut wrenching.

While Rome burns...

gonzosmom

@gonzosmom: "Transformative impact" means "twenty bucks is a lot of money to these people, so we kept the rest."

@gonzosmom: I don't think the Slumdog folks' actions are something that is that easily condemnable. They gave them money, trust funds and set up their educations. All of it being unrequired by contracts set up at the time of the movie filming.

Itsjustcatnip

It's a hard world for little things.

@gonzosmom: Gotta say WTF on this too - isn't that the POINT - to transform people's lives who live in a garbage dump? You plucked these children quite literally FROM THE GARBAGE - you are SUPPOSED to transform their lives!

How much could it possibly cost to feed and house this family for 15 years in India? Compared to, say, DVD sales from Scandinavia alone.

That's not really the whole story. The director set up trust funds for the kids and their education is paid for, along with an apartment for each kid. The kids were taken care of, but greedy family members were not.

kjack

Actually if you read to the end of The Times article you will see that the filmmakers have done quite a lot to provide for the children.

alliotbarnes

Between this guy and the Somali pirates it's pretty easy to see that if you leave people in desperate circumstances they try to form their own economies. And the goods they trade are unconscionable - their own lives, the lives of children.

I wish I understood money to the point where it was possible to divine some way to prevent it from being used as a tool of predation. Somewhere Western currency is flowing into filthy hands for all of this to happen. Perhaps as a condition of our surrender to public funds our banks, who are on the forefront of database and monitoring technology, should be given more of a role in preventing this particular form of horror.

@Aaron Altman: In the movie when the kid fell into shit we laughed, this just stinks.

Well, I think state and national lotteries have provided the world with examples of people's lives being ruined by unexpected windfalls. (See: [www.rotten.com]) I suppose something like that might've been what the filmmakers had in mind: in that case you could say that's paternalistic, maybe, but not necessarily exploitative or stingy.

On a vaguely related note, you need to be a member of Gwar to actually be a Scumdog.

Hurray for Bollywood!

Wow, her dad is almost as scummy as the filmmakers, who gave them nothing. Nice. Real classy. Way to go, Danny Boyle.

Eastcoaster

@formerly it takes a lot to laugh: "Alms for an ex-leper?"

I don't know, even if you gouged her eyes out with a spoon, I doubt she could earn $300,000 begging.

@gonzosmom: Exactly--isn't that the kind of "transformative impact" that good humans are supposed to want to have on other people?

DahlELama

In this case, life almost imitates art.

Oh, shit: Would HATE to have a transformative impact on THEIR lives.

Where have I heard that before? Oh yeah: in nearly ever justification of Third World exploitation.

"Transformative impact" - does that mean they would start depending on eating on a regular basis? I see why they wouldn't want to spoil them. The next thing you know, the neighbors would be stopping buy asking for a cup of grains. Thank god these kids are shielded from that.

gonzosmom

This just makes me want to vomit all over everything in life.

DahlELama

He's the Indian Blagojevich!

I think it's good they didn't shower the shantytown with luxuries. It's called income inequality and it creates and provokes social tensions.

oneinsixbillion