Slumdog Millionaire’s child actors still live in ‘grinding poverty’ in Mumbai.
Slumdog Millionaire’s child actors still live in ‘grinding poverty’ in Mumbai.
Rubina Ali and Azharuddin Ismail, two of the child actors in “Slumdog Millionaire,” are still living in the slums of Mumbai, despite the film’s $14 million budget and worldwide success. Ali earned 500 British pounds ($710) for one year’s work and Ismail earned 1700 pounds ($2414), “less than many Indian domestic servants“:
Both children were found places in a local school and receive £20 a month for books and food. However, they continue to live in grinding poverty and their families say they have received no details of the trust funds set up in their names. Their parents said that they had hoped the film would be their ticket out of the slums, and that its success had made them realise how little their children had been paid.
Ismail is in fact “worse off” now, as his “family’s illegal hut was demolished by the local authorities and he now sleeps under a sheet of plastic tarpaulin.” Ali lives nearby — in a “hut.” A Fox Searchlight spokesperson said he is “proud” of their treatment and boasted, “For 30 days work, the children were paid three times the average local annual adult salary.”
UDPATE: ThinkProgress received statements from the filmmakers and distributors of Slumdog Millionaire, which we have pasted below:
FILMMAKERS STATEMENT:
From the moment that we hired them and long before the press became interested in this story, we have paid painstaking and considered attention to how Azhar and Rubina’s involvement in the film could be of lasting benefit to them over and above the payment they received for their work.
The children had never attended school, and in consultation with their parents we agreed that this would be our priority. Since June 2008 and at our expense, both kids have been attending school and they are flourishing under the tutelage of their dedicated and committed teachers. Financial resources have been made available for their education until they are 18. We were delighted to see them progressing well when we visited their school and met with their teachers last week.
In addition to their educational requirements, a fund is in place to meet their basic living costs, health care and any other emergencies. Furthermore, as an incentive for them to continue to attend school a substantial lump sum will be released to each child when they complete their studies. Taking into account all of the children’s circumstances we believe that this is the right course of action.
Since putting in place these arrangements more than 12 months ago we have never sought to publicize them, and we are doing so now only in response to the questions raised recently in the press. We trust that the matter can now be put to bed, and we would request that the media respect the children’s privacy at this formative time in their lives.
– Danny Boyle and Christian Colson
DISTRIBUTORS STATEMENT:
The welfare of Azhar and Rubina has always been a top priority for everyone involved with Slumdog Millionaire. A plan has been in place for over 12 months to ensure that their experience working on Slumdog Millionaire would be of long term benefit. For 30 days work, the children were paid three times the average local annual adult salary. Last year after completing filming, they were enrolled in school for the first time and a fund was established for their future welfare, which they will receive if they are still in school when they turn 18. Due to the exposure and potential jeopardy created by the unwarranted press attention, we are looking into additional measures to protect Azhar and Rubina and their families. We are extremely proud of this film, and proud of the way our child actors have been treated.
– Fox Searchlight Pictures, Fox Star Studios, Pathe International
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
I had been looking forward to seeing this movie. No more.
Slimy bastards.
January 28th, 2009 at 12:46 pmMan, even something that would seem exceptionally large to the families of these children would be nothing in comparison to the profit this film would make.
Pretty pathetic.
January 28th, 2009 at 12:48 pmWhy am I not surprised to see the name “Fox” mentioned?
PEACE
January 28th, 2009 at 12:55 pmAnd Republicans everywhere smile.
January 28th, 2009 at 1:00 pmI’m with Zooey. I was going to go see this but not anymore.
A small fraction, .0000052% of what this film will make will change the lives of their entire families, yet they’re defending, and even PROUD of how these young actors have been treated.
January 28th, 2009 at 1:01 pmZooey:
January 28th, 2009 at 1:02 pmHave you ever seen Born Into Brothels? I liked that film
This film has received international acclaim and there was more of a chance that it would have been a dud, even in India. Which brings up the question, what would have been fair wages to unknown child actors in an unknown film, that might not have been shown outside the Indian film industry?
Boycotting what has turned out to be a great movie is not the answer as it hurts many who rely on the success of a film for their livelihoods in one of the poorest countries on earth. If, however, HOLLYWOOD, could be called upon to apply pressure to the Indain producers to make things right for the actors….
January 28th, 2009 at 1:02 pmBefore we get too angry at the film’s producers, let’s look at some facts.
Per capita annual income in India stood at $797 in 2006/2007. It may have broken the $1,000/year mark in 2007/2008. $2,414 is a rather good salary for a years’ work. $710 is a bit below average, but still not a bad salary by Indian standards.
It’s also worth noting that there are 19 million people in the slums of Mumbai who also continue to live in grinding poverty. Sure, it’d be nice if these two children were given a better contract by the producers of this film, but the real issue here is the extreme inequality, poverty, and underdevelopment faced by the vast majority of Indians who haven’t been fortunate enough to star in a successful film.
January 28th, 2009 at 1:05 pmThat didn’t make any sense at all until I hit the word “Fox.”
January 28th, 2009 at 1:07 pmNice helping of perspective, HTH. Thanks.
January 28th, 2009 at 1:09 pmJoe Sixpack Says:
This film has received international acclaim and there was more of a chance that it would have been a dud, even in India.
January 28th, 2009 at 1:02 pm
__________
What’s quite interesting is that the film is being heavily criticized by Bollywood actors – including the most famous person in the world, Amitabh Bachchan – for portraying India’s poverty. Bollywood would apparently prefer to show the world only the perspective of the super-rich of India.
January 28th, 2009 at 1:10 pm“realise”?
January 28th, 2009 at 1:12 pmFrom the article linked above:
A Fox Searchlight spokesman said: “The welfare of Azhar and Rubnia has always been a top priority for everyone involved with Slumdog Millionaire.
“A plan has been in place for over 12 months to ensure that their experience working on Slumdog Millionaire would be of long term benefit. For 30 days work, the children were paid three times the average local annual adult salary. Last year after completing filming, they were enrolled in school for the first time and a fund was established for their future welfare, which they will receive if they are still in school when they turn 18.
“Due to the exposure and potential jeopardy created by the unwarranted press attention, we are looking into additional measures to protect Azhar and Rubina and their families. We are extremely proud of this film, and proud of the way our child actors have been treated.”
Last night, Mr Boyle and the film’s producer Christian Colson defended their arrangements for the children.
In a written statement they said that that they had “paid painstaking and considered attention to how Azhar and Rubina’s involvement in the film could be of lasting benefit to them over and above the payment they received for their work”. It added: “The children had never attended school, and in consultation with their parents we agreed that this would be our priority. Since June 2008 and at our expense, both kids have been attending school and they are flourishing under the tutelage of their dedicated and committed teachers. Financial resources have been made available for their education until they are 18. We were delighted to see them progressing well when we visited their school and met with their teachers last week.”
A “substantial lump sum” would be paid to the children on completion of their studies, the statement added.
January 28th, 2009 at 1:12 pmI realize it is off topic but what the hell is the deal with poorism travel? These folks have got to be total a-holes or am I missing something?
January 28th, 2009 at 1:15 pm– was it spelling out a-hole which landed me in carousel?
Hey Tilby, is there anything available at Fox Searchlight for me?
January 28th, 2009 at 1:16 pmI like to read blogs as well and LOOVE movies so I think I would be perfect for your department… correcting slights an whatnot…
Trickle down works so well.
January 28th, 2009 at 1:18 pmThe average Screen Actor’s Guild member makes $5,000 a year. Poverty is rampant among actors. And in this country it is now illegal for parents to pay for their living expenses off the earnings of child actors. Many actors, even though they are union members, work for “deferred” pay meaning that if the movie ever makes money then they’ll get paid, earning nothing up front. It seems unlikely that anybody negotiated for these children to make a percentage based on profits. They would have had to pay an agent 10% of their income and then hope he did his job properly, fat chance.
That’s Show Biz. The celebrities we see on the red carpet are exceptions. So while Fox is behind this thievery the entire industry is just this vile.
January 28th, 2009 at 1:21 pmhussein toasterhead Says:
What’s quite interesting is that the film is being heavily criticized by Bollywood actors – including the most famous person in the world, Amitabh Bachchan – for portraying India’s poverty…
Yes. I just saw on CNN the protests of the slumdellers there because of the use of the term “slumdog,” which it seems they found the term more offensive than the portrayal of their staggering poverty.
January 28th, 2009 at 1:21 pmdbadass Says:
“realise”?
January 28th, 2009 at 1:12 pm
British article, British spelling. It makes it more “colourful”.
January 28th, 2009 at 1:23 pmTilby Says:
“ Last year after completing filming, they were enrolled in school for the first time and a fund was established for their future welfare, which they will receive if they are still in school when they turn 18.
January 28th, 2009 at 1:12 pm
Which could be a good thing or bad thing. Considering that only 63% of India’s boys enroll in secondary school and 50% of India’s girls enroll in secondary school, let alone complete it, the chances that Azhar and Rubina will actually collect these funds are rather slim.
January 28th, 2009 at 1:26 pmData for my previous post: http://www.unicef.org/infobycountry/india_statistics.html
January 28th, 2009 at 1:27 pmBritish article, British spelling. It makes it more “colourful”.
–
January 28th, 2009 at 1:32 pmI sort of figured but wasn’t sure. Until someone tells me differently I remain convinced that poorism travel is waspy bullshit. Can I say bullshit?
Shayne, I’m a member of the Screen Actor’s Guild; a better way to look at the statistics is this:
98% of the members of SAG make less than $2000 per year.
January 28th, 2009 at 1:35 pmOh – and “deferred pay”? That means NO pay.
January 28th, 2009 at 1:35 pmIt’s interesting that they are paying for schooling for these children since they rarely shoot films with children in California because they have to pay for a tutor for the kids on the set if they do. By the time an actor if 16 unless you’re a celebrity you need to have a GED and be an emancipated minor to get a job so they don’t have to pay for a tutor or a per diem for the parents. Then instead of hiring a 12 year old they hire one of these who can pass for a 12 year old.
January 28th, 2009 at 1:36 pmI’m still not gonna go see it.
**stubborn**
January 28th, 2009 at 1:37 pmMy daughter is a member of SAG and AFTRA. She made about $300 last year. It didn’t cover her union dues.
January 28th, 2009 at 1:37 pmYou’re probably right Leftside Annie. The $2,000 was before Bush took office.
January 28th, 2009 at 1:38 pmI’m not going to see it either Zooey. United we stant!
January 28th, 2009 at 1:38 pmOT:
January 28th, 2009 at 1:41 pmI am home all day due to weather. I am thinking of risking the video store. Any recommends by anyone. I rewatched History of Violence and The Man That Wasn’t There last night.
Thanks
This is an incredible film, and I did not need to know this. Now I’m angry at the people who paid for its production >_>
January 28th, 2009 at 1:56 pmdbadass: “Galaxy Quest”, but you probably already own it. :)
January 28th, 2009 at 1:59 pmBelac, am I that transparent? Don’t know about Fox Searchlight, but why don’t you try Bill-O’s show? It may not be reading blogs, but you like to sit on your ass, puff yourself up with self-righteous, ineffectual anger, and make outlandish assumptions about people you don’t even know. Sounds like a good fit! Since you discovered my secret identity, feel free to use me as a reference.
January 28th, 2009 at 2:00 pmhussein toasterhead Says:
What’s quite interesting is that the film is being heavily criticized by Bollywood actors – including the most famous person in the world, Amitabh Bachchan – for portraying India’s poverty. Bollywood would apparently prefer to show the world only the perspective of the super-rich of India.
Hi HT!
Bollywood movies are meant to be escapism fantasies for the masses. They may be more important to the spirit and morale of their people than we realize. When you have less, you have to dream even bigger.
From an American perspective, I find Bollywood movies to be absolutely hilarious. The song and dance numbers get to be a bit much for me sometimes, and everything is over-acted and over-dramatized (in a William Shatner meets Disney sort of way). But I watch them anyway because ultimately the stories tend to be about the human spirit enduring, and even triumphing, despite great difficulty and great odds. In short, it could be summed up as a struggle between man and fate.
I haven’t seen Slumdog yet, but I can’t imagine that it’s trying to compete with the Bollywood genre. So, in that regard, Mr Bachchan need not feel threatened. I think his job and his legendary status will still be safe. LOL.
January 28th, 2009 at 2:02 pmExcellent selection Wayne A. Schneider. I wish I did own it. Problem is I do not think the road conditions will support a “cider run”
January 28th, 2009 at 2:03 pmdbadass, because we’re talking India, I loved The Darjeeling Limited.
January 28th, 2009 at 2:05 pmThis is truly sickening. Though a fantastic movie that brings the reality of the slums of Mumbai to the silver screens of the western world, it is certainly ironic and a disgrace that the cycle is only further perpetuated.
I have decided to provide the below contact information for both Fox Searchlight Pictures and Warner Bros for those of you that feel compelled to act. I know I did.
Fox Searchlight Pictures:
10201 Pico Blvd Bldg. 38
Los Angeles CA 90035
Ph. 310-369-2431
Ph. 310-369-4402
Warner Bros
Ph. 818-954-6000
Customer Service
Go get ‘em, people!
January 28th, 2009 at 2:06 pmTilby~
Fair enough, I am sorry Tilby, I apologize a trillion times…
although, to be fair, I was never angry although I am often ineffectual and self-righteous… hmm, I might need that recommendation after all- who should I call at Bill-O’s office?
(P.S. I keed, I keed…)
January 28th, 2009 at 2:10 pmScaryBrownHusseinChick (ThinkOutsideTheBush) Says:
Bollywood movies are meant to be escapism fantasies for the masses. They may be more important to the spirit and morale of their people than we realize. When you have less, you have to dream even bigger.
From an American perspective, I find Bollywood movies to be absolutely hilarious. The song and dance numbers get to be a bit much for me sometimes, and everything is over-acted and over-dramatized (in a William Shatner meets Disney sort of way). But I watch them anyway because ultimately the stories tend to be about the human spirit enduring, and even triumphing, despite great difficulty and great odds.
January 28th, 2009 at 2:02 pm
_____________
Good point – there’s definitely something escapist about Bollywood. I’d known these movies were popular there, but didn’t realize the scale of it until I went to Kolkata and met children who’d spend their days begging or making sandals or picking pockets, primarily to pay for movie tickets.
And I certainly don’t want to disparage the genre. They’re completely over the top, extremely predictable, ridiculously over-acted, and I love watching them. They’re just a stark contrast to a reality that’s already full of stark contrasts between rich and poor.
January 28th, 2009 at 2:22 pmfolks…look to the Indian authorities rather than the filmmakers before you start boycotting the film or being generally oi=outraged.
The movie depicts the appalling poverty and social repression that arguably half the Indian populations has been living in for decades, despite India;s general economic advancements.
Despite India being “the world’s largest democracy” there is in fact very little direct representtion and massive ignorance due to the maintenance of the caste system.
January 28th, 2009 at 4:12 pm5th Estate, it is not about India’s general economic state. The discussion on the table here is that these children were gravely underpaid for their roles in the film. I do not disagree that the larger picture is, of course, the vast amounts of people who are currently living in poverty.
January 28th, 2009 at 4:20 pmPicklee Says:
5th Estate, it is not about India’s general economic state. The discussion on the table here is that these children were gravely underpaid for their roles in the film.
January 28th, 2009 at 4:20 pm
_____________
Were they? I’d say they were paid pretty well, by Indian standards. As such, it’s all about India’s general economic state.
January 28th, 2009 at 4:53 pmAlright…3 times an adult salary..an adult living in abject poverty..Education for a child living in abject poverty…without a roof over their heads…..and the producers and director who will be making millions on this project pass themselves off as GOOD GUYS…Let the Oscar organizers know about this ..spread the word ..demand accountability…Pass it on…BOYCOTT THE OSCARS…..
January 30th, 2009 at 11:20 amMr Hussein,
Population of Bombay is 19 million and you are suggesting all of them live in slums? Recheck your posts before you submit. You have used a lot of statistics but I don’t get what your point is. There is a very good quote about statistics. “Do not put your faith in what statistics say until you have carefully considered what they do not say.” I am actually not clear what you are trying to say through your messages.
I am from Bombay and it was painful and super annoying to see how the city was depicted in the movie. I guess it’s natural to have that kind of feeling for anyone who love their city/country. The movie isn’t showing everything that is real. It’s added a lot of spice by blowing things out of proportion. There is no doubt that it’s true to some extent about people living in slums and suffering.
There are various reasons why the slums still exist. Of course there is poverty. Some good politicians in the government actually provided lot of slum dwellers housing in good apartments but the slum dwellers sold it off to some other folks to make profit and returned to their slums. One of the bigger reasons is political will. Each slum area is a big vote bank for politicians in that area. It’s easy to con uneducated slum dwellers who are poor and their votes can be easily won by small amounts of money, so most politicians benefit from people staying in the slums rather than caring for their progress.
There are clearly a lot of things wrong behind the movie and also the interpretation of the viewers from the US which cause pain to most Indians. The movie has only shown slums the entire time. India and the city of Bombay has made considerable progress and is no different if not better from the major cities of the world. Of course there are issues with any big city but our country’s problem is our population. Anyway the movie never tries to show the better part of the city which only proves how the movie makers tried to sell “poverty porn”. This is the problem I have with movie makers. Now for the audience in US and some other countries whose citizens don’t know much about the world outside their countries. I saw this movie when I was in US and saw how the folks enjoyed the movie. I am sure if I was one of them, it would have been entertaining for me as well. The problem now faced by a lot of Indians is most Americans assume that all of us have come from the slums. Most Americans have no clue about the world outside their states so it’s comes down to ignorance but I am describing how one of my friends faced this real problem in her work place. She was shocked when some ignorant people saw this movie and assumed she came from the same slums. Although the movie benefits from the showcase of “poverty porn”, it actually paints a wrong picture of “reality” in India.
The movie isn’t that real after all. As far as I see it’s a dream of a slum dweller rather than anything real. The “slumdog” is shown to have traveled to Taj Mahal and able to trick some westerners in believing that they are guides to that tourist spot. The slum boys are able to make a lot of money too as a guide. Maybe Danny Boyle was tricked by a guide in such a manner and it could be possible considering his intellect. Then suddenly these slum boys recognize some of their old friends even after some years have passed by. Apparently faces changed in the movie but they were still easily recognizable. The slumdog can also recognize his lost girl friend immediately even though the faces have changed completely. The best part is the casting. Suddenly as the slumdog grows up he gets a western accent. How do you explain that.
I am no movie critc or understand movie making in great detail but somethings about the movie are just incorrect. Anil Kapoor who is hosting the show “Who wants to become a millionaire” is extremely rude to the slumdog and calls him that on the live show. This show runs in India with Indian hosts and none of those celebrities have ever insulted a contestant on the show. Simply incorrect and unseen in real life but of course the movie is assumed to be “real”. I am amazed though that the movie bagged so many awards even though it has major errors and now nominated for 10 oscars.
I think the movie might have still been entertaining if there wasn’t so much “poverty porn” depicted. The concept of the movie is brilliant but it’s not made in good taste. Of course without the poverty the movie wouldn’t be that interesting. I also understand it’s made to sell and not to please Indians. Indian movie makers were asked in TV shows why are they not able to make such a movie. I agree with some of the answersI heard. Indians are aware of the reality. Movies in India are more for entertainment and to get away from reality. Most people want to see dreams being realized and even people living in slums don’t want to see a movie with blown up reality. Indians don’t need to be reminded of the religious riots (one sided) that were shown in the movie. People have been through this and want to forget it and lead a happier life. Movie goers are out for entertainment and that is what Indian movie makers try and make. They don’t do a very good job because most Indian movies suck but they are still not hurtful and not made in bad taste.
As I said earlier, I probably didn’t enjoy the movie because I am from Bombay. The movie has a great concept but could have been more entertaining than being repulsive to most folks from Bombay (at least who love the city). Movie making is of course a business and people will make what sells. A $14mn movie has made around $60mn so far. Not bad business eh?
Kamlesh.
January 31st, 2009 at 4:40 pmThank you Mr. Kamlesh – I agree with what you said. I am from the US, and I was not entertained by the movie. My friend and I wanted to walk out but wanted to see how that movie could have been nominated for ten oscars. For me, watching children being abused is not entertaining. I totally agree with you as well about the ridiculous idea of recognizing kids that the characters knew years prior, much less finding them in the crowded conditions. How they managed to travel around the Country was quite a feat. In the end – it made no sense with them dancing at the train station – I liked the dancing the most of everything in the movie though – because at least the characters wound up happy after the misery they had endured. I think the authors wanted to portray the will of the human spirit, but to show the horrible child abuse and only the slums was awful – at least for me as a viewer. I felt sick when the boy was blinded, and when the kid’s mom was murdered. Why did people like that movie so much? I have to admit I don’t get it. And I am not one to think that all of India is like that – I have observed the culture although I have not been there, I didn’t think it was like that. JB
February 5th, 2009 at 10:48 pmHey all, I have been reading this blog with interest. I recently saw something on the DubbaWallahs of India, on PBS, and I thought that was a more balanced perspective – it shows how some basically illiterate people in Bombay are able to operate a business that has been classified as a Six Sigma business by Fortune magazine and studied by many business people. It cheered me up whereas I suspect Slumdog might be a bit of a downer.
I do think that the producers of Slumdog, now that they have made so much money, should use some of it to help the poor who helped make them a success. If they’ve already set up a trust for the two kids, that’s great, but maybe also give an additional payment to the families so that they might have some immediate help. Given the cost of living in Bombay, the additional payment wouldn’t have to be very large. Also, they might want to consider doing something to help the poor in general – perhaps setting up a fund to provide vaccines for kids, or school books, or setting up a foster home for abused kids. If they took just 1% of their profits, they could help a lot of kids in these slums.
In defense of Republicans – I tend to vote Republican (though I consider myself an independent and have voted for Dems and Libertarians). I also give to charity on a regular basis. If you look at personal charitable giving among Republicans, it’s actually higher than among Democrats IN THE SAME INCOME bracket. This is not to say Dems are cheap, but I think it’s also wrong to say Republicans are uncharitable. I volunteer once a month at a local Mission feeding the homeless, and I spend an hour a week tutoring disadvantaged kids, and most of my fellow volunteers are conservatives.
One reason I liked the PBS special on the DubbaWallahs in Bombay – it shows personal entrepreneurship. These guys deliver lunch boxes to office workers in Bombay. To get a route, they buy it from a guy who is retiring. They work to get additional customers. They keep the profits, except for a percentage that goes into a pool. This pool is used for things like helping with emergency medical bills. The DubbaWallahs vote for their own President. Because they are OWNERS, not employees, they are more motivated, I think.
One problem with many “help the poor” ideas is that they don’t really help the poor. For example, in the US, Congress is about to vote a massive stimulus package that provides a lot of “give-aways”, but most of it will not actually help with creating jobs. Most poor people would rather have good jobs than welfare checks, so a better stimulus package would be one that, while still providing a safety net, would create more jobs. However, the stimulus plan will just saddle our children with a huge debt while doing very little to actually stimulate the economy.
At any rate, my personal opinion with the poor of Bombay – I think it’s good that their plight has been publicized because there is a huge disparity between the rich and poor in India, and I do think it would be good if perhaps shame would motivate some of the rich, including Bollywood movie stars, to do more to help the poor. I know in the West, in the US, this is one reason many of the rich were charitable – Carnegie, for example, donated huge sums to set up libraries all over the US, “the inimitable” Molly Brown helped poor survivors of the Titanic find jobs, etc.
One thing that might help the poor more than anything – getting rid of the corruption in the police system and among politicians in India. India has good laws that protect people, including children, but many poor people are not educated about these laws, and there is corruption that disproportionately hurts the poor. Helping to create a more fair justice system is one thing many Indian celebrities could do if they cared about helping their people.
Also, helping develop more home-based businesses, something Mahatma Gandhi was trying to do with his spinning wheels, would be helpful to poor people. Right now, there are programs that give small loans to third world people to develop their own home-based businesses.
Actually, I think that idea would also be great in the US – instead of giving out more money for various pork-barrel projects that will not stimulate our economy (they set aside something like $300 million for STD prevention – which includes buying condoms for people – can’t people buy their own condoms?) – why not instead use the money to set up no-interest loans for poor people to start their own businesses, along with mentoring from entrepreneurs so that the people learn how to write a business plan, manage their finances, etc.
February 7th, 2009 at 11:19 amAlthough this movie was hard to watch due to the violence and treatment of children, it did shed much needed light on children. One major difference between a Bollywood and Hollywood films, excluding the business itself, is that Bollywood actors make a lot of money but do not contribute their success, wealth, influence, or power to help the community. Most of Bollywood films turn into happy ending and rarely portray the reality as this movie did. I believe the producers and director of this movie could have done a better job in helping the children through media campaign in addition to raising the awareness. Regardless, we do not need to feel powerless. Each of us can do our own part in helping children. Nonprofits such as Pratham have done a great job in providing education and skills to children in India. Please do your part (I do): visit http://www.prathamusa.org or http://www.pratham.org if you are in India.
Gautam
February 15th, 2009 at 5:07 pmI am supposed to go see this film this weekend but have now changed my mind. I refuse to put another penny into their coffers! How slimy can you get??? Big deal, they are getting some education. Their entire families should be lifted out of poverty, provided education and some real comforts in life. And that would only be a fraction of a percent of the profits of this movie!! I WON’T see it and I will never see another movie made by them ever!! DO THE RIGHT THING!!!
February 20th, 2009 at 2:59 pmOne more thing: How absolutely cruel to bring these children to the Oscars and show them all the decadence of the industry and money that their exploitation has brought to others …..and then send them back to their huts or worse. What kind of people do THAT???? Not anyone I would support by even ever buying a movie ticket, or watching the Oscars for that matter!!
February 20th, 2009 at 3:13 pmOne more thing….BOYCOTT THE OSCARS!!!
February 20th, 2009 at 3:27 pm