What Does Slumdog Millionaire Owe Its Actors?
Slumdog's Success Sheds Light on India's Real Plight
"Slumdog Millionaire" has grossed $60 million in the U.S. alone, won 4 Golden Globes and been nominated for 10 Oscars. It has become a worldwide phenomenon, inspiring audiences everywhere to whet their appetites with a little taste of Bollywood magic. But a January 31 Washington Post report by Emily Wax proposes that the golden glow around the movie may be tarnished by allegations that the film's producers aren't doing enough for the child actors who helped the film's success.
It's a question many are asking right now- what do the people responsible for the hit movie "Slumdog Millionaire" owe the child actors they plucked from the slums and made movie stars? Some argue the children already received more than they ever dreamed; money, fame, experiences and most importantly, a way out of the slums of India. Others argue the producers are exploiting the very situation their movie brings to the public consciousness.
Paying Child Actors
Many of the actors in the movie are children from actual slums; Rubina Ali, who plays a young Latika, was paid $730 for her work in the movie. The Post also says director Danny Boyle is paying to send Ali to school for the first time in her life.
Azharuddin Ismail, the boy who played a young Jamil, was paid $2,475 for his work in the movie, presumably because he had a larger part than Ali. However, the Screen Actor's Guild rate for principal speaking parts is $2,634- per week.But according to the a popular Bollywood industry website, a spokesman for the American distributors of the movie said the child actors were paid three times the average local annual adult salary.
Who Should Be Responsible?
Detractors argue the filmmakers have a social responsiblity to improve the deplorable conditions these kids and their families live in. Supporters of the movie point to the salary and school stipends the actors received, as well as their happiness with being in the movie (Ali said she loved making the movie and meeting her Bollywood idols.)
All of this begs the question: Who holds the responsibility to better the sickening conditions these children live in? Is it Indian society? The Indian government? Or the filmmakers, who wouldn't have had a movie had they not used the heartwrenching conditions already in place?
Passing the Buck
Boyle is quoted in the Washington Post article as saying, "We want to do all we can for Rubina and Azharaddin, especially long term. And we have started the process of talking about what our responsibilities are. But at the end of the day, it is just a movie. In the end, india will have to address its own issues."
However, some critics feel that the magnitude of success the movie has attained changes Boyle's responsibility to his actors.
"It's a very delicate issue," said Krishna Poojari, a co-founder of a travel company that uses part of its profits to teach English in Indian slums. "If "Slumdog" wasn't such a big hit, what Boyle did for them would have been okay. But it's making so much money around the world. More has to be done."
Ongoing Controversy
A Google search of "Slumdog Actors Underpaid" brings up 41,000 results--clearly a controversial issue. But playing the 'blame game' is counterproductive to everyone involved.
Both the Indian government and the movie's producers need to step back and take a look at the crux of this matter: children in reprehensible living situations. It shouldn't be about passing the buck or how much money is changing hands (though that always seems to be a pervasive theme.) Both parties, who have the necessary resources, should be doing everything they feasibly can to shoulder the burden of what can only be considered one of the many humanitarian crises facing the world today...but they're not.
They're too busy arguing over who should.
Slumdog Kids
|
What do you think about this article?
More in Politics & Society
Latest Articles