Comments

1. Thea wrote:

   I think it’s pretty f-ed up that they can’t access the money
   1) until they’re 18
   2) and only if they stay in school.
   Especially point 2. As a thriving high school dropout, sometimes kids need to get out of school. It is condescending (both possibly ageist and racist) that what the kids may want for themselves (and know they need) is basically prohibited by this clause.

   And also, considering that the minimum wage in (for example) the province of Ontario is $8/hr, three times what many adults in Ontario make is $24/hr. Would we ever pay Dakota Fanning $24/hr to be in a movie?

   Wow, this actually makes me hopping mad.

   Posted 04 Feb 2009 at 12:06 pm ¶

2. Deaf Feminist Punk! wrote:

   ok, that comment made by SW was just… wow. Another typical, ignorant, whiney, half-assed privileged American who just have no bloody idea how good Americans have it.

   DON’T FUCKING TRY TO COMPARE YOURSELF WITH THE SLUM DWELLERS OF A THIRD WORLD COUNTRY, YOU BLOODY DOUCHE-BAG!!!!!!!

   My parents are from Bihar (the poorest state in India) and I’ve seen a lot of poverty in Patna (the capital of Bihar) and in villages. It’s depressing… I really don’t have anything clever to say here.

   But regarding the street kids in Slumdog Millionaire, didn’t something similar happen to the street actors in CITY OF GOD (the 2002 Brazilian film), who said they were underpaid? I heard that one of them was even shot dead over a drug deal gone bad.

   Using real street actors in films isn’t always a great idea, it can backfire on you.

   Posted 04 Feb 2009 at 12:36 pm ¶

3. nat wrote:

   As a brit I wouldn’t believe 50% of what’s written in British newspapers. I think it would be better to wait and see the actual facts before jumping on this story. Having had personal experience of a close friends family being lied about in 3 different newspapers in the UK, I would suggest that if a UK paper reported that the sky was blue, that you look up to check. They’re only interested in creating scandal and outrage.

   Posted 04 Feb 2009 at 12:36 pm ¶

4. Deaf Feminist Punk! wrote:

   Thea, didn’t you see the BACKPEDALING LINK?

   http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/01/29/child-stars-and-parents-h_n_162399.html

   Posted 04 Feb 2009 at 12:38 pm ¶

5. rob wrote:

   Three times the wage of a rickshaw driver or a cook for their part in a multi million dollar profit-fest. Whats that, a couple of euros an hour? These kids have been swindled. What happens to the trust fund if they dont stay at school?

   I have no sypathy for millionaire actors in pay disputes but these children, for the price of crumbs off the table, could have had their lives totally transformed. They are definitely not better off in the slums. It seems unbelievably mean not to to share out the loot a little more evenly. I wonder how much the director and producers made?

   Posted 04 Feb 2009 at 12:44 pm ¶

6. Cynthia wrote:

   It’s pretty standard for kid actors to have a trust fund, accessible only after they’re 18. Dakota Fanning probably can’t touch her (much) money either. Of course, there are exceptions to the rule, and to my understanding these kids (or rather, their parents) are getting some of the money. Just not all of it.

   Posted 04 Feb 2009 at 12:59 pm ¶

7. Maus wrote:

   “As a brit I wouldn’t believe 50% of what’s written in British newspapers.”

   I doubt it’s much better in the states, if at all.

   Posted 04 Feb 2009 at 2:09 pm ¶

8. Kaonashi wrote:

   I don’t know how true this is, but I heard that the reason why Danny Boyle set it up that way was because relatives were basically popping out of nowhere with their hands out, and it was the only way to ensure that the children would indeed KEEP the money that they earned. I believe they are also paying for their schooling now (and the expenses associated with that) until then.

   Posted 04 Feb 2009 at 2:10 pm ¶

9. Mary wrote:

   FWIW, I have also heard rumors that some of these stories have been publicized/fanned by rival studios, in hopes of influencing Oscar voters away from Slumdog.

   I’m NOT saying that automatically makes the stories untrue, just that there is another angle to consider.

   Posted 04 Feb 2009 at 3:04 pm ¶

10. Mary wrote:

    Oh, and it goes without saying that the snipped comment is just… *headdesk*

    Posted 04 Feb 2009 at 3:05 pm ¶

11. Paz wrote:

    @rob – I don’t want to romanticize slumlife, and having never visited India, I’m not the expert, but Dev Patel was on the Daily Show and was talking about his experience was contrary to the stereotype of a miserable existence. Not to say that the life is easy, but there is a sense of community and spirit.
    –Not all of the comments on EW were as asinine as the inbe posted. Someone wondered whether this dispute between the families and the studio would have happened if it had just stayed a small indie flick, instead of a big commercial success, which is certainly a good point to ponder.
    –EW reported: For 30 days’ work, the children were paid three times the average local annual adult salary,” and that the families have been given funds to cover “basic living costs, health care, and any other emergencies.
    –I actually think that Boyle is concerned for their well-being. If they were given a huge sum of money upfront, they could definitely be taken advantage of by others or be targeted by criminals.
    –A bit off point, but I am pleased that Danny Boyle had an Indian co-director.

    Posted 04 Feb 2009 at 3:06 pm ¶

12. Michelle wrote:

    In all fairness to Danny Boyle, he probably did the best he could. That said, his best might not have been good enough.

    I think the important thing is to ascertain the truth. However, whatever the truth is, we know that there is massive poverty and suffering all over the world. How do we deal with that? I know, big question, big problem. But these two kids might make it out because they are famous now, but what about the other little ones?

    Posted 04 Feb 2009 at 3:16 pm ¶

13. drydock wrote:

    These kids we’re a big part of a hit movie. They should be getting a better deal.

    Posted 04 Feb 2009 at 3:25 pm ¶

14. Elusis wrote:

    The source of the original accusations, The Telegraph, is effectively a media outlet for the British Conservative/Tory party. Buyer beware.

    Posted 04 Feb 2009 at 3:56 pm ¶

15. rob wrote:

    paz, there may well be community spirit etc in the slums but it is not a healthy environment for anyone. No sanitation, dangerous electical wiring and cramped conditions etc. Its a hard life.

    Planning should have been done to ensure that these kids were not damaged by their sudden fame and im sure some was but the wages paid seem very low indeed.

    Posted 04 Feb 2009 at 4:30 pm ¶

16. ceecee wrote:

    Those kids did such great acting, maybe it’s cos I love kids but little Salim was the best actor, his facial expressions were priceless. They do deserve more and I know Boyle and co probably could do better. I hope this shames them into doing better, $62 million already? sheesh!

    Posted 04 Feb 2009 at 4:34 pm ¶

17. A.D. Nix wrote:

    It seems like there is some seriously paternalistic shit going on here that I find unsettling. And I’m not sure I understand why these kids weren’t paid like equitable talent in a film produced and directed buy the same crop of people in the West.

    Posted 04 Feb 2009 at 5:02 pm ¶

18. Jess wrote:

    I think Paz brings up some very salient points here.

    Just look at what happens in the US sometimes when some kid gets a cr*pload of money and comes from a poor background.

    Either:

    a) every relative from here to tuesday — some you never knew you had — comes out of the woodwork. You can’t keep money no matter how much it is when people take it from you faster than it comes in and 100 people make you feel guilty for not giving.

    b) the kids don’t learn to handle it and become instant poster children for hollywood excess–until the money runs out and they are back at square one

    I did a little checking. Turns out, Boyle is covering the schooling for the kids. That means that unless they really mess up they are good to go for the real money when they turn 18.

    As it is, basically nobody can get access to the big payments, which in an indian context are pretty darn big, until the kids are 18. Honestly, that doesn’t strike me as a bad thing.

    This is NOT to say that the parents are stupid, or the kids aren’t worth it, or you can’t have an issue with the amount.

    But sometimes if you want to pay someone fairly, and that person is a minor, you can’t come up with perfect solutions. Boyle came up with something that I think

    a) offers a really good future opportunity at the expense of getting the money right this minute. I don’t think that’s bad, in the long run.

    b) prevents the kids from getting burned by the people that are close to them.

    Look, I am sure these kids have wonderful parents, but if someone offered my kid the equivalent of a college tuition when he got to be 18 in a similar situation, I can’t say I wouldn’t be all over that. Seems a win to me. And it sidesteps a problem common in many cultures in Asia where kids are expected to take care of older relatives.

    I’ve watched this happen with my in-laws — the expectation is that the kids help out the parents, which in and of itself isn’t terrible, but there’s no provision made for some realities of living in NYC and trying to hold down a job and a marriage and care for your own family. Sometimes people don’t think clearly all the time when the weight of custom and tradition comes crashing in on you.

    Also remember, the going rate for an indie film in the US wouldn’t be that much better (not in absolute terms, but relative to what you will likely get as a regular salary at a normal job). In fact, it’s even less.

    Why do I say that? 3x the average wage in the US is $120,000. I’ve known a few actors on Indie films here and there and nobody I knew ever got that much. Remember– nobody knows how successful a film will be ahead of time, and only Schwarzenegger and Stallone were able to negotiate a chunk of the gross proceeds. 99.99% of actors never get that.

    Would you give a preteen in the US –even one from the worst ghetto in the country– $120K? No strings attached? Give it to his parents? Have any of you seen what happens when a child actor becomes the breadwinner in the family? It’s scary. Were I in Boyle’s position I’d want to head off that kind of stuff.

    I don’t know exactly how much the kids got, but if it was anything like that — adjusted for what average salaries are in their area– I’d call it pretty reasonable.

    I know some folks will say he’s condescending to the families involved. But that’s not necessarily the case here — I mean, he may not be completely hip to the culture, the kids’ family dynamic, any of that. He is an adult, and paying these kids to work, and has a responsibility to them to make sure that the exploitation inherent in a working relationship is kept to a minimum.

    I think the solution he came up with was the better– maybe not the best — of a not-so-wonderful set of choices.

    I mean, we can criticize all we want, but what would any of us do? Really? Would it be that much different?

    Posted 04 Feb 2009 at 6:24 pm ¶

19. anon wrote:

    As a indian-american who hated this movie for its racist and sexist overtones, I admit I’m a little biased. Not only were the actors underpaid, it’s paternalistic for the directors to think they know what is the best way to pay the actors.
    Paz, if the directors were concerned about their well-being, and that they would be taken advantage off, that is incredible arrogant and paternalistic. Because obviously the stupid people who live in the slums don’t know how to protect themselves, obviously the best way to make sure they have no control over the money.

    The director, Boyle, took advantage of a lot of people in this movie, including his underpaid, underutilized Indian co-director, who is not in consideration for any awards. He didn’t do it “on purpose”, he is just so taken by his white privilege that it didn’t occur to him what the effects of his action were.

    Posted 04 Feb 2009 at 6:38 pm ¶

20. Paz wrote:

    @anon – Why is it arrogant to be concerned for the well-being of children?I didn’t mean that the (adult) people in the slums are so stupid they can’t take care of themselves. But if you give a child a huge sum of money, coupled with fame, that immediately puts them at risk to be taken advantage of by others. That doesn’t mean that everyone around them are bad or are looking to prey upon people, but they are still in a vulnerable position. You could argue that Boyle should have paid the parents or their guardians, but my guess is he wanted the money to go to the children, but when they’re old enough to handle it.
    BTW, out of curiosity, how did you find the movie to be racist? How should have it been made?

    Posted 04 Feb 2009 at 7:46 pm ¶

21. jstele wrote:

    The child actors’ best interests were considered. They were paid for the work they did. They were also given a trust fund and provided with expenses for medical care, emergencies, and other costs associated with schooling. I think people are expecting too much from the producers. Just because the film made a lot of money does not mean that they have to give MORE to the kids. The kids were paid for their work. That’s all the studio really owes them.

    As far as Boyle’s co-director, she was originally the casting director. She may have had some input in the direction, but Boyle was behind the main vision. It’s not like a Coen brothers’ thing. They weren’t equal partners. She acted more as a cultural consultant for Boyle.

    Posted 04 Feb 2009 at 8:46 pm ¶

22. pololly wrote:

    I’m sorry but it is *not* paternalistic to tie children’s money into trusts. It is done in AMERICA for all child actors. Most parents and children have shown themselves perfectly incapable of long term planning anyway.

    Most lottery winners go broke, many actors/singers file for bankruptcy, many millionaire entrepreneurs lose it all. This is fact.

    Throwing huge sums of money at people is often a bad idea, no matter what their color.

    And I’m sorry but the idea of it being ‘ageist’ to put restrictions on what a *7 year old* child can spend is ridiculous.

    Posted 04 Feb 2009 at 8:49 pm ¶

23. Rchoudh wrote:

    While it’s understandable why they put the children’s money into a trust fund for later usage, I’m wondering why they put that condition in there about the children obtaining the money only after they completed their education. I hope it doesn’t mean that the kids will run into difficulties acquiring the funds if they decide to drop out for whatever reason.

    I also think the moviemakers should try to avert more bad publicity over this issue by paying the children more now. Their unique circumstances (being slum dwellers) should allow moviemakers to make an exception over modifying initial agreements over pay and benefits. This is not a simple case of actors becoming greedy for more money after they find out their movie was successful. It’s obvious these children and their families do not have the luxury, unlike Western child actors, to search for acting gigs elsewhere and their living circumstances are pretty dire (the boy who played Salim lost his home recently and has to live by abandoned railroad tracks).

    @Paz

    The West does harbor this misperception that since 3rd World slum dwellers seem to be smile and get on with their lives that they are somehow content with their lot in life. Although I’m sure a few of them may feel this way, the majority would rather see their circumstances improve mainly through government intervention. The only reason they smile and get on with their lives is because they have to. But there are a great number of cases of people committing suicide due to their dire circumstances. India experiences a very high rate of suicide among its large poor farmer population for example. So it’s actually misleading to think that slum dwellers are content because their lives seem so much simpler than ours. That also causes people to overlook how good they really have it in the West in terms of standard of living.

    Posted 04 Feb 2009 at 8:56 pm ¶

24. A.D. Nix wrote:

    I really wonder how much Dev and Frida were paid.

    @ pololly: I’m sorry but it is *not* paternalistic to tie children’s money into trusts. It is done in AMERICA for all child actors. Most parents and children have shown themselves perfectly incapable of long term planning anyway.

    Is that really what’s being pointed to as problematic and paternalistic? That it’s in a trust? Or is it the sum + the stipulations put on access to the money? I mean really. No one is arguing that you give a 7 year old a few thousand dollars. No one said anything about ‘ageism.’

    And have a gander at the current global credit crisis. It looks like a lot of us will have to declare bankruptcy. Should someone step in and set up mandatory budgets for us all – since we’re collectively crap at it? Just like lottery winners?

    Posted 04 Feb 2009 at 9:45 pm ¶

25. jstele wrote:

    It was responsible of the producers to set the money aside for later when the children have finished school and matured enough to handle the money responsibly.

    I think people expect the producers to be the saviors of these children. The producers have set aside funds for the basic living costs of these children.

    http://itn.co.uk/news/d1d00cfdcf2d70a9eb7e091d655ba6fc.html

    Posted 04 Feb 2009 at 10:30 pm ¶

26. sprince wrote:

    I can’t believe some of these comments that I’m reading. I get the feeling that most people are unaware what it means to live in a slum. They are not places where someone would choose to live if they didn’t have to. No matter how much of a “community spirit” exists there. What good will the trust fund do if they kids are threatened daily with death by starvation, filth, disease, crime, etc? Get those little kids (with their families) out of the slums so they can have a real shot at life!!!

    I think in the US, only a portion of the child actor’s earnings has to go into a trust. Money is needed to ensure the child has the basics so that he/she can make it to adulthood to enjoy the money earned.

    Sheesh.

    Posted 04 Feb 2009 at 11:07 pm ¶

27. Maus wrote:

    “it’s paternalistic for the directors to think they know what is the best way to pay the actors.”

    Sounds like some weird Randroid screed.

    Child actors don’t do so well. This gives them much greater opportunities in the long run.

    Posted 05 Feb 2009 at 12:09 am ¶

28. Evan Carden wrote:

    @A.D. Nix: “No one said anything about ‘ageism.’ ”

    From Thea, very first post: “It is condescending (both possibly AGEIST [emphasis mine] and racist) that what the kids may want for themselves (and know they need) is basically prohibited by this clause.”

    On to the actual topic, I sort of oscillate between just paying the kids and putting it in a trust fund. Whenever you’re working with kids you have to handle everything with kid gloves (sorry about that). I think in the states there are specific Actor’s Guild requirements about how to handle child actors. Anyone know?

    Posted 05 Feb 2009 at 1:08 am ¶

29. anon wrote:

    paz,
    Sorry, I wasn’t clear. It’s not (necessarily) paternalistic to put the money in the trust funds. It’s paternalistic to decide unilaterally (the parents were unaware where the money was, and how/when/if they were being paid) which is the best way to pay the children. And for the directors to decide that the parents are not able to decide how to care for their children, or that they will not spend the money in the right way (or what the western world thinks is the right way), or that they would be overwhelmed by the money is really arrogant. It should not be the director’s decision how to distribute the money, it should be the parents.

    As for the racism in the movie, imagine the movie was full of black people and set in Compton, with the same stereotypes, racial rigidity, and white saviors. And a heroine that fits western ideals of beauty (light skin, western hair, etc). The movie is unable to portray one colored person, aside from the hero, as anything besides either evil or pitiful. And that the people magically speak english, without addressing the difficulties learning the language, and the opportunities that are given only that. It suggests that any slum dweller (who BTW are not dogs), could get a job serving tea at a company, promoting the whole American fantasy, that working hard guarantees success. The slums are real, and should be addressed, but the movie seems incredibly voyeuristic. Many movies of the same topic, made by indians, are not given the same time and consideration, because they actually address some of the causes of slums, such as the government and British(white) colonism.

    I used the word racism, but really I mean prejudice against race, against foreigners, against people in different religions. There is a strong anti-hindu element in the film, that I’m not sure if westerns pick up on, probably cause they don’t know which characters are muslim and which are hindu.

    Posted 05 Feb 2009 at 1:50 am ¶

30. jessy wrote:

    please don’t compare american child actors to these children. there is a vast difference between them. seriously some of the comments here are so disgusting.

    Posted 05 Feb 2009 at 3:05 am ¶

31. jdmba wrote:

    I can’t believe this ish… Okay, well, I CAN believe it, but it p*sses me off to no end.

    I’d like to think that this would happen less, if we had more directors and producers of color, wielding some power.

    Posted 05 Feb 2009 at 3:26 am ¶

32. Paz wrote:

    @Rchoudh – Really? What I get from the West is that people in the “Third World” are all miserable.
    Slums are not all homogenous. They vary greatly on levels of development and available amenities. But I never meant that everyone is smiling and happy so it’s ok if a child doesn’t have access to clean water. I just mean that a slum does not necessarily equal a God-forsaken deathtrap with miserable, pathetic inhabitants.

    Posted 05 Feb 2009 at 3:33 am ¶

33. Elusis wrote:

    Do we know that the director *didn’t* say to the parents “look, what is the best way to compensate your kids?” with this being the result? Perhaps the parents said “if you pay a lump of cash, it will vanish. If you pay for their schooling, they may be able to hold onto the money and set up a better life for themselves once they’re adults.” Yes, it would be paternalistic to say “no no little slum dwellers, you don’t know what’s good for you; let us tell you.” But if the arrangement was made with the parents, that’s another story.

    AFAIK the co-director is not included in the nomination because of archaic MPAA rules that don’t recognize the title. I read her quoted as saying that she did not want a co-nomination, and felt embarassed about the furor people were raising on her behalf (speaking of paternalistic…)

    Posted 05 Feb 2009 at 4:31 am ¶

34. Jess wrote:

    rchoudh– take a look at the backpedaling link and do a search on some other sources– Boyle is paying or the kids’ current schooling.

    Like I said, there are issues with the amount, I suppose, but it isn’t like Boyle — or any director– cold solve all their problems.

    Y’know, it’s interesting, a lot of people here would rip into a film that portrayed a white actor coming in to save the ghetto people by handing them a load of money to get them out. Here in real life Boyle understands he can’t do that, and tries to do something a little different — and he gets ripped anyway.

    So I am asking: what would you all have him do? What would you do?

    Posted 05 Feb 2009 at 8:34 am ¶

35. pololly wrote:

    Actually A.D. Nix, the first poster called it ageist. I assumed I was allowed to respond to comments that I disagreed with, but I guess I need to get your permission first.

    >And have a gander at the current global credit crisis. It looks like a lot of us will have to declare bankruptcy. Should someone step in and set up mandatory budgets for us all – since we’re collectively crap at it? Just like lottery winners?<

    Well, to be fair, no one is asking that we are paid three times the annual salary of an average adult and much more than the average actor would be paid. If a movie shoots abroad, they generally pay local rates. This movie decided to pay much more than that and cover many many things, basically to give these kids a chance.

    I think the education stipulation on the money makes sense for the same reasons that tying a lot of the money into costs of living makes sense – freeloaders. An 18 year old is still pretty young. When a child gets to 18, or whenever the trust breaks, do you honestly think they can stand up to pressure from extended family, old friends and the rest. Education provides the structure and a fairly straightforward use for the money – they can use it to pay for college, etc. No one can really argue with that whereas otherwise they can absolutely be prevailed upon to invest it in this person’s business, or a distant cousin’s medical bills. Take it from a child of immigrants – extended family always put their hands out.

    @sprince

    They ARE paying living costs. Medical, housing, utilities, everything.

    Sheesh.

    @Rchoudh

    I think there’s an inconsistency in your argument. On one hand these kids live in dire situations in these slums and have very little chance of getting an opportunity like this again. Yet you oppose the education requirement. Well. it is pretty obvious that education *is* the only way out of these slums. Even if these kids decide to act, many actors are out of work and they would only get paid local rates anyway, which may not be much unless they became very successful. Realistically, these are unlikely to provide long term ways for them to better their lives. Education is a time tested way to lift people from poverty for a reason. These kids can make an informed decision as adults but in the meantime everyone has an incentive to keep the child learning and in a school.

    The reality is that in the West that incentive is still there! If you drop out of high school, statistically speaking you are waving goodbye to a big pile of money entitled future earnings.

    And remember, not idealizing the slums means not idealizing the people. Unlike in shiny happy movies, poverty does not necessarily bring out the best in people. It can make people desperate. Maybe the parents want to cash in on the kids new found fame and maybe they can do this by taking them out of school and taking them on tour or something. By tying the money to education, you increase dramatically the likelihood that they will be kept in the one thing that has a better rate of success at transforming lives than movies, the lottery, sports ability or singing ability – a good education.

    And if they fail at acting or whatever their goal is, when they hit 18, they have the foundation of a good education to go to college and the rest.

    It’s not paternalistic, it’s not bad. It is a good deal and, honestly, I’m not sure what everyone is complaining about.

    Posted 05 Feb 2009 at 9:20 am ¶

36. pololly wrote:

    Sorry, just reading the later comments – it seems like people are determined to blame Danny Boyle no matter what he does. If he gave the money to the parents and they spent it all, I’m sure he’d be blamed for not tying it in trusts.

    He’s literally absolved those parents of paying anything for their child til they reach 18.

    Daniel Radcliffe was initially offered £125′000 for the first Harry potter movie., though obviously when it hit it big they named their price. Would that pay for living costs, education, medical bills and housing in England for over 10 years for him? I can tell you right now that it wouldn’t. How much money do people expect the movie makers to put down? Millions? What?

    Posted 05 Feb 2009 at 9:27 am ¶

37. A.D. Nix wrote:

    @ Evan: I missed that. Thanks.

    Posted 05 Feb 2009 at 10:08 am ¶

38. A.D. Nix wrote:

    @ Jess: Y’know, it’s interesting, a lot of people here would rip into a film that portrayed a white actor coming in to save the ghetto people by handing them a load of money to get them out.

    The kids earned the money. No one is just “handing” it to them out of the kindness of their hearts. That would even be true if these were, um, “the ghetto people.”

    So I am asking: what would you all have him do? What would you do?

    Money now, money in a trust accessible upon reaching adulthood (whether they finish school or not), incentive if they do finish school. And pay on par with players in the film who made a like contribution.

    @ pololly: There are lots of people who earn 3x what the average adult in the U.S. makes. And some of them (lots!) have fucked up too. The issue isn’t how much more than the average person one is being paid, but that, even with a paltry sum, you’re unable to manage it. So should someone manage it for them/you?

    The stipulation that the kids must finish school before receiving their lump sum (if that’s really the case), as opposed to when they turn 18, is still an over-stepping of bounds – especially if the parents were not consulted. It may not be “bad” (?) but it would certainly be paternalistic.

    If he gave all of the money to the parents (none set aside in a trust) and they spent it all, only someone who thought that Danny Boyle should know better than to trust (”slum-dwelling”) adults to act in the best interest of their children, would blame Danny Boyle. It’s possible that some might find fault with the parents who did the spending.

    And just because people disagree with you does not mean that they’re out to blame poor old Danny Boyle no matter what. It is, in fact, possible that they’ve looked at the (supposed) situation(s) and somehow, someway, managed to . . . . not agree with you.

    @ Elusis: No, we don’t. That’s why this is aaaaaall speculation.

    @ anon: As for the racism in the movie, imagine the movie was full of black people and set in Compton, with the same stereotypes, racial rigidity, and white saviors. And a heroine that fits western ideals of beauty (light skin, western hair, etc). The movie is unable to portray one colored person, aside from the hero, as anything besides either evil or pitiful.

    We’ve actually had loads of these. LOADS. Not all set in Compton, but the premise is basically the same.

    Posted 05 Feb 2009 at 10:47 am ¶

39. pololly wrote:

    @A.D Nix

    1. I’m sorry to be blunt but it is charity. If we got out a chart and looked at the local pay rates for acting, I would be happy to bet a lot of my money that the kids are being paid much more than they would ordinarily be paid as child actors in an indie foreign movie. They didn’t ‘earn’ the money, the actual movie they ‘earnt’ would have been tiny. And if this movie hadn’t been up for tons of Oscars, they probably would be recieving less than they are getting now. This is charity. It’s well intentioned but that’s what it is. Movie studios don’t run around setting actors up for life on the back of one moderately successful film. They didn’t work out a new pay rate. They felt bad and set up a charity. What happened to the little kids from City of God?

    2. Everyone immediately leapt to the conclusion that the parents hadn’t been consulted, why? The parents have come out and said they are happy. I haven’t seen any evidence that they weren’t consulted.

    3. You seem to agree there could be a financial ‘incentive’ for finishing school. So it’s the degree you disagree with, not the principle? Even attaching an ‘incentive’ to their ‘wages’ is paternalistic by the yardstick you set out.

    And if this is about ‘trust’, then any child acting trust is paternalistic and distrustful of parents because it assumes that the parent is an unfaithful steward of their child’s money.

    4. It’s not a paltry sum. Calculate all of your basic living costs, including paying for schooling for your children for 11 years. That’s a ton of money. It would literally run into hundreds of thousands of pounds for my family.

    If these kids have really struck it lucky then doesn’t it make sense to be over cautious rather than expect everyone to behave perfectly and honorably? I’m pretty sure the kids couldn’t clothe themselves and feed their family on your internet condemnation from half a world away in ten years, if extended family/friends do end up squandering the money/taking them out of school.

    Posted 05 Feb 2009 at 12:37 pm ¶

40. A.D. Nix wrote:

    @ pololly:
    1) They worked for the money. How is this not earning money?

    2) Because there was a chance the parents weren’t consulted? Is this meant to be rhetorical? The answer seems quite obvious.

    3) I didn’t say “financial incentive.” I said “incentive.” My parents made a deal with all of my cousins guaranteeing a trip to Hawaii for anyone who finished college in 4 years. Experiential incentive. A job guaranteed after you finish school? Experiential incentive. Money is involved (when isn’t it?) but it’s experiential, not merely financial. It’s fine to put a carrot on the other end but it should be a bonus – not what was rightly earned by a job done.

    4) If it were hundreds of thousands of pounds, that would one thing. It is not. But the studios are certainly collecting millions in pounds sterling for all of their “charity”. That’s certainly true.

    Posted 05 Feb 2009 at 1:59 pm ¶

41. Tracey wrote:

    @ A.D. Nix:
    Spot on.
    I totally agree that the majority of the money should be put in a trust fund until the kids reach 18. It’s practical and from what I understand pretty standard business practice regarding younger child/teen actors.
    However, the kids were paid for acting in a movie and should receive the money when they turn 18 no strings attached. If they want to offer a financial incentive for staying in school that is perfectly find, but from what I understand the price they agreed upon was for acting in a movie, not finishing school, therefore upon turning 18 they should be paid the agreed upon price for the work they did.
    For me the question is: Were they offered the sum for acting, or were they offered the sum for staying in school? If they were offered the sum solely in return for their acting then it is paternalistic and a overstepping of boundaries to tie a stay-in school stipulation to the money. As much as I hope they are able to stay in school and am glad their expenses will be paid, if the sum was paid for acting then they should receive it upon turning 18 regardless.

    Posted 05 Feb 2009 at 2:46 pm ¶

42. Paz wrote:

    @anon – Sorry, a bit late reading your comments.
    –Who is the white hero? The only white people were the tourists, and even though they give him money, I wouldn’t call them heroes. I saw them as naive tourists. I would say Jamal was the hero.
    –I concur that I was a bit disappointed that older Latika was much lighter skinned. But what is Western hair? Or Indian hair? I have a number of Indian friends, and they all have different hair textures.
    –I agree, the English was not plausible. And serving tea is a stretch. But I feel like in some ways it was a bit of a fairy tale with the whole love story element, so it did require a suspension of disbelief.
    –I don’t think that Salim was evil. He was caught up in the lifestyle, but they show scenes of him praying (for repentance, I assume) and in the end he shoots his boss and lets himself be killed. In my opinion, the only “evil” ones were the gang leader and man who took in street children. I didn’t view anyone as pitiful, but I suppose that is all subjective and depends on the viewer’s past experience and/or ignorance.
    –As for the Hindu/Muslim thing, I don’t know, I thought it to be sympathetic to him as a Muslim, but I didn’t see it as bashing Hindus, but maybe I’m missing something.
    –The term “slumdog” is insulting, yes, but as the host calls him that, it reflects how the people of the slums face prejudice, most evident in the fact that the police think Jamal cheated.
    –I suppose though that a viewer’s take on the film is going to vary depending on their cultural understanding.

    Posted 05 Feb 2009 at 3:22 pm ¶

43. Jess wrote:

    A.D. Nix-

    look carefully, and you’ll see the following:

    1. The kids got paid for their acting. A good rate, too — at least as good as ay actor in a film that was low-budget would expect

    2. Boyle did what is often done for American kids who act, which is put the money in trust. He also went another step — he is paying for them to go to school. And some of their expenses. That’s a good deal, no matter how you slice it. So the stipulation that they stay in school — assuming that is really what it says (I haven’t been able to track down the actual wording of the agreement) is less of an issue. In addition, the parents have to agree to any such stipulation under the conventions of most labor laws. India, AFAIK, is actually a signatory to many international norms regarding child labor, and movie studios with high-profile people (like Boyle) aren’t going to risk running afoul of the relevant laws.

    3. Sorry about the ghetto people remark, I was trying to get across idiotic “white person saves the benighted kids” stereotypes in movies like Dangerous Minds.

    4. So, given the above, what would you do differently again? These kids got a fantastic deal by any standard. Boyle went above and beyond the call — he could have paid the kids (really, their parents) and walked away. He didn’t. If every director in the US did that for the kids in their films you’d have a lot fewer Cory Haim stories.

    Posted 05 Feb 2009 at 5:25 pm ¶

44. pololly wrote:

    Ok reposting actual post

    @ AD Nix

    1) They worked for the money. How is this not earning money?

    I left a job recently (I know, crazy ITE). They gave me a big bonus at the end. That money was above my normal salary. The money these kids are receiving is above the normal salary for their job. It is WAY above. Hell, I know people who acted in indie movies in New York who made less than these kids! The studio is packaging a bonus as a salary. It is a gift to the kids. So they have the right to put as many stipulations as they like.

    2) Because there was a chance the parents weren’t consulted? Is this meant to be rhetorical? The answer seems quite obvious.

    Everyone here is speaking for the parents. Just wondered if anyone knew something that’s all.

    3) I didn’t say “financial incentive.” I said “incentive.” My parents made a deal with all of my cousins guaranteeing a trip to Hawaii for anyone who finished college in 4 years. Experiential incentive. A job guaranteed after you finish school? Experiential incentive. Money is involved (when isn’t it?) but it’s experiential, not merely financial. It’s fine to put a carrot on the other end but it should be a bonus – not what was rightly earned by a job done.

    This makes no sense. An experiential bonus would cost money as you said. That money would either belong to the actors or not. If it belonged to the actors, it is their salary, regardless of how it’s packaged. So they deserve it whether or not they finish school, just like the rest of their salary if you are right. If not, then it’s paternalistic to decide that they need to go to Hawaii or whatever, instead of giving them that money to deal with teh poverty in teh slums or whatever. If the studio can cough up a few grand to send them on a trip, it can pay them a few grand more, right? So experiential incentives would be paternalistic too. In other words, you can’t have your cake and eat it.

    4) If it were hundreds of thousands of pounds, that would one thing. It is not. But the studios are certainly collecting millions in pounds sterling for all of their “charity”. That’s certainly true.

    It is comparatively hundreds of thousands of pounds because it is paying for all the things that hundreds of thousands of pounds would get me, and dollars would get you *hint: difference in living costs*. So it might as well be hundreds of thousands of pounds to them.

    And yes the studio is collecting a profit on a movie. I almost pissed my pants in shock. There I was thinking they were non profit corporations. The idea that because the kids didn’t make millions on a movie that earned millions is kinda like saying that an analyst in Microsoft should earn billions cos Bill Gates is worth that much. Maybe you’re right, maybe he should. But capitalism is wrong, fine, but no one is *actually* being underpaid.

    Posted 05 Feb 2009 at 6:38 pm ¶

45. Rchoudh wrote:

    @Paz

    What I meant by Westerners thinking slum dwellers lived simple contented lives, I was talking about some of the ones who claimed that after visiting or living in India for some time. For example I remember reading about an aid worker saying that he was always amazed at how often Indian slum children laughed and played in contrast to how miserable and depressing their poor Western counterparts always seemed to be. While I agree with you that not all slum dwellers live in deathtraps, this attitude and amusement displayed by some Westerners undermines the fact that slum dwellers, like all human beings, deserve to have better opportunities in life.

    @ Jess

    I wasn’t implying that the movie makers should take care of all these kids’ problems. I think that based on their special circumstances, some leeway should be given towards helping them out a little more financially. The way these children live is a bare bones existence; if one of the other children involved in the movie (who are all middle class Indians) demanded more pay based on the movie’s success I, like the movie makers, would refuse to pay. BTW, I’m curious to know how much the actor who played the youngest Jamal got paid (he was from a middle class background). I hope he didn’t get paid much more than these kids simply because he shared alot of his screentime with them.

    @pololly

    Just to clarify I was in no way saying that the education incentive shouldn’t be there with regard to the trust fund. I pray that these kids do stay in school and become successful afterwards because of receiving that education. What I was saying was that oftentimes students don’t want to continue their education for whatever reason. If it so happened that the children, upon growing older, decided to stop going to school for whatever reason, would the trust fund still be available? Like AD Nix said, I’m curious to know if education is an absolute requirement for these kids in order for them to receive their hard earned money later on.
    Also in regard to their schooling, I read somewhere that they were attending a public school for the poor. Now being South Asian I know that these schools are run on a shoestring budget and don’t have committed teachers and administrators running them. If these kids are going to that type of school, their motivation to stay in school might be lost, leading them to contemplate dropping out. If that so happens, I think their trust fund should be available to them for them to do what they want with it. After all at 18, they’ll be old enough to make financial decisions on their own and hopefully they can spend the money wisely, even if it’s not towards pursuing higher education.

    Posted 05 Feb 2009 at 7:02 pm ¶

46. Zara wrote:

    As someone who is of South Asian descent, and has spent time volunteering in certain poverty-stricken areas in Bangladesh, I thought I would offer my perspective on a few issues:

    Firstly, as a side note, it does bother me that so many people have made such a big deal about adult Latika’s skin tone and “Western” hair. Yes, the child/adolescent Latika was tanner. However, that doesn’t necessarily mean that she would retain the same skin tone as an adult, regardless of her lifestyle. And, really, “Western” hair? South Asians have a wide range of skin tones and hair textures. In fact, it is more common for us to have straight/wavy hair than curly hair.

    Anyways, I started hearing about this scandal a few days ago, and I noticed that the majority of individuals who were outraged by the terms of payment for these children were not South Asian, and had probably not ever seen a “slum” in their lives. Like a few of you have mentioned, the level of poverty in these areas varies greatly from one place to another. In some areas, the slums literally become communities of interdependence, with individuals often contributing whatever they earn to a community “pot”, which is then divided. Other areas, however, are much more cutthroat, and similar to what is depicted in the movie. If a certain individual earns more money than he/she normally does, other people (usually relatives) will steal their income, claiming they are equally entitled. I remember speaking to a man who, one day, earned substantially more than he normally does when he delivers goods from a small market. He mentioned how happy he was in passing to another woman in his community, who subsequently told her husband and brother-in-law. The two men assaulted him and demanded that he not only give them the extra money he earned, but the rest of the money as well, as punishment for not sharing the money in the first place.

    From my personal experiences, I believe that Danny Boyle and Loveleen Tandon have stipulated terms that may not be the most ideal, but are definitely the best way to ensure these children are protected. Paying them a lump sum of money at once would threaten the welfare of these children, because they would immediately be targeted if other members of their community found out. I don’t necessarily agree that the children should have to complete their schooling before they are given the rest of their pay, mainly because there is no guarantee that schooling is the best option for them. However, I do believe that it is reasonable to pay for whatever expenses the children may incur until they turn 18, and then provide the rest of the money.

    The lives of these children and their families are much more complicated than most people assume. It’s easy for us to be outraged and demand that they be paid more, but will that alleviate their poverty? In the short term, perhaps. But what happens afterwards?

    Posted 05 Feb 2009 at 7:08 pm ¶

47. Zara wrote:

    Wow, I was NOT expecting to write so much )

    Posted 05 Feb 2009 at 7:09 pm ¶

48. Kaonashi wrote:

    Corey Haim, the Different Strokes kids, the poor girl on Family Matters who ended up in porn after all her money was seized to pay for her asshole parent’s debts, the list goes on and on. It seems like the only child actors who made it out okay with some money intact where those who had their cash socked away for college/in a fund that their parents couldn’t touch (Blossom, all the kids on the Cosby Show, Mary Kate and Ashley, etc) or they go the Scarlett Johanssen/Macaulay Culkin route and get emancipated. If it comes down between placing a child’s earnings in a fund that only the child can access after a certain age or in the hand of parents, I would err on the side of the child every single time. It may sounds harsh, but if a parent wants money they should get a job. They should not be living off their children.

    As far as the “controversy” goes methinks this is yet another smear tactic to prevent “the little brown movie” from winning more awards.

    Posted 05 Feb 2009 at 8:17 pm ¶

49. jstele wrote:

    I think the producers have paid the children’s salary just by paying for living costs until they are 18. So it doesn’t matter whether they get the trust fund. No one is forcing an education on them.

    I think people are just to quick to paint the studios as the bad guy because they want to see corporations as evil.

    The child actors got paid and more. Whether they finish school or not, they will still get paid more than they earned.

    The studio is making lots of money, but they are not a bank.

    The producers looked out for the children’s best interest, not the parent’s best interest.
    If the parents are not able to support themselves, how can one really expect them to handle their children’s money responsibly?

    Posted 05 Feb 2009 at 11:36 pm ¶

50. jaye wrote:

    I saw Patel on The Daily Show too…and what struck me was Jon Stewart asking, Are the people in the slums pissed off? And he wasn’t asking like it was a scary thing or how dare they be angry…he was asking because he felt like they had a right to be, and he almost seemed like he was supporting them and wanting to join them in their anger. And Patel said the politically correct thing and the only thing he could say for the kind of movie he was in…that there’s such a sense of aliveness and community there, they persevere, they’re happy. And of course there is, they’re human beings, and they make the best of what they have, as people through history have always done. But when you give an answer like that, it almost defers responsibility for doing anything about it. Well, since they’re so happy…guess we’ll just leave them there.

    I guarantee you, 99% of those parents would give up their children in a second if they thought doing so would give them better opportunities elsewhere. I’ve had parents in India beg me to take their children back with me, and I’m sure these parents loved their kids and that there was a sense of community wherever they were living. But they knew the reality of their life and their future, and they understood the extremely limited possibilities for their children, unemployment, backbreaking work, violence, starvation, disease, powerlessness. So to romanticize life in dire poverty gives people an excuse not to do anything about it and alleviates guilt and responsibility. Those kids, all these people, should not be living in slums, period. It is insane that we all watch this happen and pretend that if they’ve got such a sense of community and happiness, well then, maybe it’s not so bad.

    Posted 06 Feb 2009 at 4:01 am ¶

51. jaye wrote:

    And as for the amount of money the kids got…I hope Boyle did all he could for these children under the circumstances, I really don’t know whether he did or not. And I’m not blaming Boyle because he’s probably limited in what he can do for these kids as an individual, but to compare Rubina and Azharuddin to actors in the U.S. or U.K. is stupid…kids in the West, if they don’t make it in movies, can go back to school, get a job in IT, become a nurse…they will still enjoy a certain standard of living and have a lot of job opportunities in life open to them. Rubina and Azharuddin are at risk of extreme poverty and death, and for a studio to make millions off the backs of penniless children…I really don’t care what the “going rate” is for American actors, you can’t compare it. And really, seeing what a raw financial deal unknown Western actors get through movie studios just highlights how unfair and exploitative a lot of our economic systems are in the first place. Just because Western actors can’t figure out how to get compensated properly for their work in an internationally successful Oscar-nominated movie, doesn’t mean that therefore street kids from India should abide by the same exploitative standards too.

    Posted 06 Feb 2009 at 4:09 am ¶

52. Fire Fly wrote:

    People arguing that the kids got a good deal (pololly and Jess) apparently cannot use Google. The parents have publicly objected to the pay and working conditions for the child actors: http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/parents-blast-slumdog-millionaires-producers/2009/01/27/1232818435810.html

    Posted 06 Feb 2009 at 8:33 am ¶

53. pololly wrote:

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/01/29/child-stars-and-parents-h_n_162399.html

    And they’re being paid another lump sum when they finish and money every month. It sounds terrible but that article is exactly why the money should be in trust. That family would spend all of the money on TB medicine for the father, which is fine, and then it would be gone.

    Posted 06 Feb 2009 at 10:47 am ¶

54. anon wrote:

    Sorry for the delay, don’t have regular access to the internet.

    I think what i meant by white heros, was that the only people who had money from an honorable way were white. As for the white tourists, I found it silly that the only people rich enough to steal from were white.

    The heroine was very light in the end of the movie. What I meant by Western hair, is her hair is only possible for the average indian to have if they use Western products. It’s similar to black people using relaxors/products to get hair that is “acceptable” to the western perception of beauty. (I know I’m greatly oversimplifying a complex issue, but I’m not trying to diminish the black experience)

    I thought the way India was portrayed was intended to pity all people who live there, but I know I’m biased there.

    As for the Hindu/Muslim thing, there are many small examples, but one that pops to mind is that the screenwriter changed the names to be distinctly Hindu/Muslim. In the scene that Salim (a Muslim) rapes Latika (Hindu name) there is a huge amount of religious context, to people who are from that area. It would be showing a movie where a black man rapes a white women, then claiming there is no racial innuendo of the stereotypes of a black man.

    I know my view of the film is biased on my experience. But I dislike how most of the western media doesn’t acknowledge many Indians discontent with the movie. We are the one who get to decide if the movie is prejudice. The majority doesn’t set the terms on which they will accept racism exists.

    (side note- I find as an Indian American, a lot of people don’t understand the racism we face. I like to use analogies to black Americans, because more people are willing to acknowledge racism existing against that community. I’m trying to do so in a way that is respectful, but not sure if I’m succeeding. Any tips?)

    Posted 06 Feb 2009 at 4:19 pm ¶

55. alli23 wrote:

    as an indian-american also, i want to say that it is possible to have Latika’s hair texture naturally, i do and most of my family does, even the cousins in india

    Posted 07 Feb 2009 at 5:41 pm ¶

56. onely wrote:

    In addition to these alleged mistreatments of the child stars, the producers of SDM also changed the role of Latika from the original book. In the book, she ends up becoming a lawyer and saving Jamal whe the game show hosts beat him and charge him with cheating. As we know, in the movie, she’s a passive beauty object buffeted around by various evil and good men. If the films’ creators are capable of such blatant sexism, I’d almost expect them to treat other marginalized participants in the film unfairly as well. Disgusting that they are being rewarded with all these honors.
    –Christina

    Posted 08 Feb 2009 at 8:26 pm ¶

57. DivergentDana wrote:

    “Yes, the child/adolescent Latika was tanner. However, that doesn’t necessarily mean that she would retain the same skin tone as an adult, regardless of her lifestyle.”

    But without cosmetic “intervention”, people darken as they age, not lighten. Unless she’d had the good fortune to acquire a middle class/upper class lifestyle that allowed her to spend the majority of her time indoors in the interim period, if anything, Latika would be darker as an adult than in her childhood.

    Posted 09 Feb 2009 at 4:31 pm ¶

58. Nina wrote:

    Juut saw the movie last night and loved it. There i said it. I agree with many of the posts above that your feelings about the movie really depend on your experiences, racial identity and knowledge of the culture.

    I am not going to weigh on on the issue of the child actors salaries, but the movie did get me thinking about the recent discussion here about the upcoming movie “Push.” In both instances we are arguing about the representation of an underrepresented group and in both situations we are arguing against mainstream media’s obsession/romanticization of the suffering of poor people of color. The denouement in both films is basically “we shall overcome” At any rate I think that a lot of parallels can be drawn between the movies and the comments/reactions of posters.

    Posted 17 Feb 2009 at 11:01 am ¶