In an act of paternalistic generosity, the producers of Slumdog Millionaire sent the child stars from the film to Disneyland after they pocketed every conceivable Oscar on Sunday. How nice, right?
Trouble is, now they have to go back to the slums of Mumbai where the youngest cast members are still living in lean-tos and shanties. Executive producer Christian Coulson has made vague claims that he’s deposited a “substantial” amount of money into trust funds for the kids, accessible only when they graduate from school. But for the time being they are still living in poverty:
The filmmakers also paid the children for 30 days of acting work, give the families a small monthly stipend and set up trust funds that Rubina and Azhar can tap once they graduate.
Colson describes the amount in the trust as substantial, but won’t tell anyone how much — not even the parents — for fear of making the kids vulnerable to exploitation.
Some reports say the youngest stars were paid between $700 and $2,400 apiece for their work on the film, which passed the $100-million mark at the box office today.
Take a good long look at the Magic Kingdom, kids, because it’s five ’til midnight and you’re riding in a pumpkin coach.
UPDATE: Good Karma of the Year Award goes to Christian Coulson and Danny Boyle, who announced tonight they are buying the young stars some sweet-ass apartments in Mumbai. Seriously, that is awesome. Deceiver-worthiness redacted!
Related posts:
- Mumbai Child Actors Still More Slumdog Than Millionaire So right after the Oscars, I questioned the fairness...
- Disney Star Vanessa Hudgens to Play Hooker in Next Role Vanessa Hudgens belongs to that cadre of people I never...
- Jude Forgets, Remembers, Love Child This week, professional tool Jude Law is finally visiting his...
- Mel Gibson Demands Paternity Test on Mistress’s Child So you all know by now how I feel about...
Yea! I love Disneyland. The only thing that would make it better is if they had Keggerland. THEN, and only THEN would it be the “Happiest Place on Earth”
They’re back living with their families, were involved in something beautiful, helped shed light on their plight, got a vacation of a lifetime, and made more money in 30 days than their parents make in 2 years.
What exactly are you saying here, “shame on the producer for not adopting all of them!”?
I can see where someone might exploit the kids but couldn’t they at least get them out of the slums.
I’m asking what a kid from Orange County would be paid for a starring role in an Oscar-collecting film that grossed more than $100-million. Or a kid from Compton, for that matter. I also don’t think the producers would have attached any sort of education strings to that payday.
Whatever. As long as they didn’t damage their sewing hands.
Having been an extra on a TV show, JAG because they used to film the outside scenes at Pt Mugu, I was paid a total of $115 for 6 hours of work. Of course, I didn’t have a speaking role and while I was ready for my close up Mr. DeMille, I’m quite sure that I ended up on the cutting room floor. While Christy hit it on the head, a kid from the OC or Compton would have agents lined up to negotiate fees and the such for the kid. Not to mention that the parents would be heavily involved. The producers had no idea that the movie would be as big as it is and set the fees accordingly. If the producers had any morals/soul, they would fork over a few more Rupies to the kids once the final money count was completed.
I’ve promised my own kids substantial trust funds.
Now I don’t have to feed, clothe, house, vaccinate, or educate them.
Trust me, they’re much happier with this arrangement.
So what happens if those kids don’t go on to get an education?
Holly, they wouldn’t hire a kid from Compton. That’s too “real” for those Hollywood types. How many actors, outside of rappers turned actors, come from the “hood” so to speak.? I can’t think of one. And if they did actually hire a Compton kid, he would be a gangbanger who dies a tragic or heroic death. Also, they’d probably pay the kid less than the Slumdog kids.
I thought by now Angie and Brad would have adopted them.
Is there a reason for putting their money in a trust? Maybe their situation in India demanded it, as the producer said, the way it wouldn’t for U.S.-based child actors.
Swede, I want Gin & Tonicland right next to Keggerland. I might never go home.
They should have just paid the kids in cigarettes.
Isn’t India a caste system? Although trying to change that prejudice slightly?
I’m guessing there is a lot in play here to consider. The fact that is was originally a straight-to-DVD release, the fact that $2400 is a lot of money for ME much less a kid living in the slums of India. There might be cultural backlash or something in the law that says these kids can’t have this money now.
Honestly if anything the execs might give them some retroactive pay considering how unexpectedly well the movie has done, but I agree that it’s not like they should adopt them or anything.
Seeing as the budget for the orginal film was a little under 10 million dollars, I don’t see anything wrong with the children being paid 2,4000 for their work.
Also, I think the education clause was important. The third of the movie that is in Hindi had to be filmed in that language because the children had never been to school and did not speak English. I think it’s wonderful that the producers are paying for their education, and I also read that they paid for a rickshaw service to pick the children up and take them to and from school.
I agree that it looks really bad to send the kids to the Oscars, Disneyland and then back to the slums, but I don’t think it’s a case of the producers being heartless, greedy, and mean-spirited.
Retro-active back pay is a great idea in light of all the wins, though.
I’m not sure how I feel about this, but I would certainly want to go to Gin and Tonicland.
Pasta, you made me larf right out loud. Heh. And yet it is wrong. I am conflicted.
AAW: I thought the exact same thing. How come that stupid lazy crotch in CA didn’t ADOPT a herd, instead of homegrowing them?
Holly wrote: “I’m asking what a kid from Orange County would be paid”
not sure ’bout OC, but I remember reading somewhere that in the UK the actor’s minimum waige is £350 per week (I think it’s roughly $500)…so unless it took 1.5 – 5 weeks to make the movie, they were outrageously underpaid
“Film Bosses Buy “Slumdog” Kids Apartments In Mumbai”
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/02/24/film-bosses-buy-slumdog-k_n_169598.html
Even if the above weren’t true, the kids were given a great opportunity and were well compensated. Your argument about what would a kid in Orange County or Compton would’ve gotten paid; would their families have received a monthly stipend?
Like Chronic, I’m kind of conflicted on this. It’s certainly not the first thing of this kind (*cough* images of Ashley Judd kissing aids vict… I mean, girls… come to mind) but the film did make its money off of their plight. However, you could take it farther and argue most people anymore make money off of exploiting poorer countries, and that if all these millionaires actually did something with their money a lot of the world would be better off… but then I start to sound liberal, and it all goes downhill from there.
I’d like to cast my vote for Rumland
Then we can walk around asking why the rum’s gone.
A — thanks for that article, the news must have broken right after I wrote up my post. That is great news for the kids and their families. About the monthly stipend though: The Telegraph article I linked to in my OP says they were getting £20 per month for books and food.
I wonder if they had to act 18 hours a day?
I don’t drink, but I could deal with Keggerland and Gin and Tonicland…as long as it was next to Big Breastland.
Hey, we all have our own preferences.
I’m still conflicted about it all, but would like to point out that unless they are so poverty stricken that they are on the verge of death, the parents aren’t just going to give them up for adoption, nor should they. Just sayin’, since adoption was being thrown around up in the previous posts.
I think that the trust thing is a pretty standard arrangement for giving underaged children large quantities of money (I use “large,” “quantities,” and “money” rather loosely), but what I don’t understand is why the parents can’t know how much is in them. At this point, it sounds like they’re embarassed at the relative low fee they gave and don’t want it to get out–but cf. Swede’s statement about them having no idea the movie would be so big. The correct response would be to pay them more, which sounds like the action that ended up being taken. So . . . good!
If you pay attention in the IMDB trivia, you’d be surprised at the surprisingly low numbers actors earn on films that were surprise biggies. I mean, for Star Wars (arguably among the biggest films of all time) Harrison Ford (arguably among the biggest actors of all time) only made $650,000.
It’s great that they’re getting a new home, but what about the millions of other poverty-stricken children in the world? Just because those two were in a movie doesn’t mean they’re the only ones anyone should be worrying about.
Here is another story on them being moved
‘Slumdog’ child actors to be moved out of slums
Officials say stars’ current dwellings ‘cannot even be classified as housing’
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29381739/
Pastafarian…that was hysterical!
I have to agree with the directors on not stating how much is in that trust. It is easy to forget that in area’s of extreme poverty the crime rate is huge. These kids and their families would be targets for kidnappers, blackmailings and other types of crimes. I was actaully surprised that the directors would even think to send them back to the slums because they and their families would be walking targets.
thatgengirl… while it’s very sad that there are poverty stricken children in the world, it is not up to the Slumdog folks to take care of each and every child. That’s like saying that if you adopt one child, you have to take every last one out of the orphanage too. The children involved with this movie were fortunate to have been involved and were compensated for it. Whether that compensation was enough or too much is not for me to say, as I am a bit conflicted with this story as it is. However, it is very unfair to suggest that the Slumdog folks now suddenly have a bigger obligation than anyone else in the world to take care of poor kids.
My issue is, they should enjoy the fruits of their labor because they helped make Slumdog a huge success. By all accounts, these kids worked really hard. They did a wonderful job. If they hadn’t, a major portion of that movie would have fallen completely flat and wouldn’t be a money making, Oscar winner. I’m glad they now have a decent place to live due to their work.
You make a compelling point Queen Bee, about them being able to enjoy the fruits of their labor. However, I think that the trust is the best option to help the kids have long-term success. It would be tragic for the kids and their families to end up like those lottery winners who blow their millions inside of five years.
With the trusts and the apartments it really does look like the producers are going out of their way to treat their little stars right. It warms the cockles of my heart.
Glad they won’t have to go back to those shantytowns. I just hope those kids take advantage of the good fortune that fell into their laps and don’t end up back in that kind of poverty. You can only give someone the opportunity after all.
It is interesting that they got the families apartments only after there was a public outcry. How long is it since they finished filming?
Chronic, you misinterpreted what I was trying to say.
Everyone is up in arms over these particular two children, but only because they were in a movie. No one seems to care about the millions of other children living in poverty.
thatgengirl said:
“No one seems to care about the millions of other children living in poverty.”
http://www.savethechildren.org/
http://www.christianchildrensfund.org/
http://www.catholiccharitiesusa.org/NetCommunity/Page.aspx?pid=897
http://www.care.org/
http://www.heifer.org/
No one?
thatgengirl…I think MC Mom answered that for me.
Nope, that didn’t answer it at all. There are organizations, I agree, and they’re wonderful – I contribute annualy – so why aren’t all the newspapers and gossip sites advertising these organizations? Why aren’t they writing articles about them. Why is the plight of Octomom and two child actor garnering more ink than them? Apparently, you need to be in a hit movie before anyone asks if you’re getting enough to eat.