Photos
The home of Azharuddin Mohammed Ismail, one of the child stars of the smash film Slumdog Millionaire, has been razed by authorities as part of a slum clearing initiative. Showbiz! Whatever, he’s a movie star, he’s probably going to just fill the hole where HIS HOUSE used to be with a swimming pool in the shape of his face. Right? (Not right.) From the AP:
City workers bulldozed the home of a “Slumdog Millionaire” child star Thursday as part of the demolition of dozens of shanties in a Mumbai slum.
Azharuddin Mohammed Ismail was asleep when a police officer woke him up and told him to leave his family’s home, he said. Shortly after that, the shack and about 30 more were destroyed.
“A police officer took a bamboo stick to hit me, and I was frightened,” said 10-year-old Azhar.
If there’s one thing you can say about the child stars of Slumdog Millionaire it’s that they’re really down to Earth. They’re not being allowed to let the huge success of the film, including eight Oscars and $326 million dollars at the box office, change them. They still remember where they came from. Because they still live there. And it’s awful.
“They didn’t give prior notice. We didn’t even get a chance to take out our belongings,” said Shameem Ismail, Azhar’s mother, who has lived in the shanty town for more than 15 years. She has no legal right to the land.
“I don’t know what I am going to do,” she said, sitting on a bed she had dragged from the wreckage. Next to her was a plastic bag stuffed with belongings.
[Housing Official] Mistry said residents who have lived in the shanty town for more than 15 years–including Azhar’s family–would be resettled elsewhere in government-built housing. He gave no other details, and such official promises of resettlement often amount to nothing. When slum-dwellers are given housing, it is often in poor-quality buildings on the outskirts of cities and far from jobs.
My favorite part was the Bollywood dance sequence in the train station during the end credits when his mom was sitting on a pile of wreckage next to a plastic bag of her belongings, worrying about how she was going to take care of her family. Very dramatic. I give it 5 
‘s!
 |
 |
This has the makings of the best DVD special feature ever!
That’s fucking terrible. Thanks for breaking my heart over my morning coffee.
So, but, wait – weren’t the kids paid? Something? Scale? I don’t get why they’re still living in shantytowns.
http://thinkprogress.org/2009/01/28/slumdog-millionaire-child-actors/
They were paid hundreds and hundreds of dollars.
before you go on a self righout rant Gabe try doing a little research. read this article
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-1154667/Boyle-takes-Slumdog-children–film-bosses-pledge-buy-poverty-stricken-families-new-homes.html
Danny Boyle has been doing a lot to help these kids and is working right now on getting them a home. When he first found out about the demolition they sent money, but when the family got someone to help manage it he ran away with the money. They can’t just wave their magic wands and fix the problem, sending money to a family that has never had any and doesn’t know how to handle it won’t help. He is helping them get a new home and is setting up a trust fund for the kids. He also wants to insure they get an education and can be self dependent. These things take time and going through a lot of red tape.
Of course you asume the worst, because a rich white guy coudn’t possibly have a heart.
Oh whew, danny boyle solved poverty. C’mon gabe, DO YOUR RESEARCH.
Danny Boyle, is that you?
Well that’s the Daily Mail. They think third-world slums are what kids deserve for being born to such lazy parents.
they are also attending school for the first time and its being paid for by the movie
Fuck Danny Boyle
Look, I thought my film made it clear: poverty is awesome.
did I say danny boyle stopped poverty, no, but if gabe is going to blame every single problem these kids face on the movie, then use that as an excuse to bash the movie, then say things like the movie exploited these kids, then he should do research and find out that is not the case and that some people in hollywood aren’t selfish assholes and made a great movie while also helping the kids.
that is certainly more progress than gabe acomplished sitting and whining about the movie glamorizing poverty, which it did not, over and over again.
First of all, it is nonsensical, whether you like the movie or not, to say it doesn’t glamorize poverty. Is the movie vibrant, colorful and visually pleasing? Does someone in the movie claim that the slums are the true “soul” of India? Yes, and it’s called glamorization.
Secondly, I think you are ignoring the fact that Danny Boyle made millions and millions of dollars and the studio made back 20 times what they spent on the movie. Do you really think it’s fair that these children received several hundred dollars for their performances when the movie hinges on them?
Personally, I liked the movie when I first saw it, but now I am so sickened by the treatment of the film’s stars that I can’t watch it again. Plus I read about how he set up a fund for the actors that they can access when they turn 18 or something like that. What is that bullshit? Danny Boyle shouldn’t get paid until he’s responsible enough to stop being such a dick.
“Is the movie vibrant, colorful and visually pleasing? Does someone in the movie claim that the slums are the true “soul” of India? Yes, and it’s called glamorization.”
So is it glamarization when someone says that the soul of new orleans are those poor neighborhoods that have a unique culture and community. Do you ever hear people say that the soul of new orleans are the rich people? No. In the article it even mentioned that the father did not want to move far away from the slums, and that community is very important to them and that he grew up in mumbai and it is part of his childhood. They are very poor but that does not mean they don’t have culture and take pride in their neighborhood. This movie showed shocking scenes of poverty as well as the happy moments a child experiences wether they are poor or rich. Do you think that the children living in slums are misarable 100% of the time, no. And what does color have to do with it, should the movie have been shot in black and white. The colors did not distract from the fact that these homes where located on giant piles of trash.
If people did walk away from the movie with a sense that being poor is fun, which I don’t think many people did, then it it their fault, not the movie’s which showed many of the horrors and cruelties these children endure.
And you can make your own judgements about what is the right way to aid a family living in the slums, but you are not the one who is acually doing it. I can assure you it is more complicated than just giving them lots of money, because a family living in the slums is not equipped to manage all that money. Why do you think charities don’t just hand out money to people, because it doesn’t fix the problem.
So, all actors should be paid according to how much money the director/producer thinks they will be able to handle?
And if they are going by India’s work wages why wasn’t everyone involved in the movie getting paid by their standards?
but hey, if gabes loyal folowers want to believe everything he says, go ahead. I think he’s funny too but him blaming slumdog mililonare for indias poverty is getting anoying.
First of all, you make lots of totally valid arguments, “do your research gabe,” albeit valid arguments that could use a spellcheck and the watchful eye of the Grammar Police. But they would be a lot stronger if you used your own name. Signing thoughtful, argumentative comments with a joke name and no valid email or URL really undermines your potentially transformative position. What are you afraid of? Unless you are my mom. If you are my mom, I understand this smokescreen. Mom, you’re such a jerk!
The suggestion that I am arguing that Slumdog Millionaire is responsible for the poverty of Mumbai slums, or poverty in general, is reductive and stupid and not what you seriously think. Come on, now. Let’s paint, exercise, and use our brains. And the fundamental point you keep making over and over again is that abject third world poverty is complicated and not easily resolved, which I think we all agree on. It’s terrible. And we all know it. And none of us are really doing anything about it. And we should all go to jail. Me first.
But there are a few places where I think you fall a little short, “gabe do your research,” or at least your love for the movie clouds your judgment. For one, Slumdog Millionaire absolutely aestheticizes and glamorizes poverty. It aestheticizes and glamorizes the FUCK out of it. The movie is beautiful and sensual and depicts a world of magic and romance. Do people who live in poverty deserve a life of magic and romance. Sure. Do they usually get one? No. Does Hollywood bear some responsibility in not turning some of the worst living conditions on the planet into the colorful backdrop for a fairy tale about instant wealth and sexy pin-up caliber soulmates? Yes, I think that they do.
The children from the movie were chosen out of the slums because that makes a great media story (which is really useful when you are marketing a multi-million dollar but risky-for-mainstream-audiences movie), and because they’re fucking adorable. None of them even had any scabs or dried feces on their face! And while one could argue that the trust fund that Danny Boyle has set up for them, as well as the initiatives of the Jai Ho charity foundation (ugh) to better the children’s lives and the lives of those in their community is improving their situation from what it was before they were cast–which is a fair argument and one that at the very least demands the passing of time to judge–I don’t think it’s ridiculous to suggest that a lot of really awful things have also happened to them as a direct consequence of participating in the movie (family in-fighting, the promise of a different life only to have that different life taken away) and that those things might have been better anticipated and prepared for on the part of the film’s creators, most of whom profited greatly from the film’s success, and whose life changes were categorically positive (better film jobs offered, better party invitations, straight up cash, etc) and uncomplicated.
And if you find these posts annoying, I’m sorry. You are probably right. It is annoying to think about the terrible lives of people after we’re done enjoying the exciting tale of true love against all odds.
Really, though, “gabe do your research,” I think we probably agree on a lot of aspects of this discussion. And I welcome and appreciate your criticism. But please, I at least sign my posts. Show me the respect of signing your name to these comments. It is literally the least you can do.
I appreciate your response gabe, I didn’t think you would. I still disagree that this movie glamorizes poverty because when I was done watching it I was thinking about how horrible these children?s lives can be, and it was something I was mostly unaware of before. And I think it brought attention to this issue for a lot of people who where unaware about it before.
I think you are lumping everyone in Hollywood together and not looking at individual directors. Hollywood as an industry may only care about money but I think the individuals involved in this, like Danny Boyle, honestly wanted to make a movie that explored the issue of poverty in a thought provoking way. If he didn’t use local actors or shoot on location people would accuse him of being inauthentic, he did use local actors and he is accused of exploiting them despite what seems like an ongoing effort to help them.
It also seems like you believe there should be one ending to this movie, a realistic and therefore sad one. But the great thing about movies is that it can take the unrealistic or impossible and make them a reality. I mean maybe you would want to watch a movie where nobody succeeds and the kids continue to live on the streets, but most people wouldn?t. I don’t think he was trying to put across the message that this is any kind of reality; it was very much a fantasy.
You are a very cynical person and for that reason I don’t think any movie about poverty would get a good critique from you. You think Hollywood is evil and that the world is a horrible place and that no movie made by rich people could possibly help matters. You seem to think that rich people should stick to filming what they know best. But if that where the case these issues just wouldn?t be talked about.
p.s. Nobody uses their real names on here, why should I? and that is my valid e-mail, I really do love pie.
No, I don’t think Hollywood is “evil,” and it’s not fair to say that I would never give a movie about poverty a positive critique. Those are absolutist statements based on basically nothing. Sure, I write a lot of negative commentary about stuff, because there are a lot of things that are bad. That’s not my fault, and it doesn’t mean that I’m not hopeful every day that I’ll be surprised and excited by things that are good. It is condescending to dismiss someone as cynical because that word has become pejorative and derogatory in a way that’s not supported by the word’s actual meaning. By using it in that way, to make blanket statements about me and what you think I would feel in any given situation is to suggest that you, by not being cynical, are somehow better or more open to the world than I am. A: False.
As far as Slumdog Millionaire glamorizing poverty, you’re just wrong. I’m really glad that the movie opened your eyes to the situation in the third world, but a lot of people knew about that before seeing the movie, and you can’t hold them to the same standard of awe and surprise at seeing a highly aestheticized rendering of a horrible thing they already knew about. And YES, I am highly suspicious of the motivations of multi-millionaires who make movies about poor people for a multi-billion-dollar industry. This was a piece of entertainment, not a work of charity. Everyone is completely entitled to enjoy it and the movie itself is not necessarily responsible for any of the conditions that the movie exploits, but let’s not pretend that it wasn’t hugely profitable to a lot of people who were already doing pretty well in the first place.
Moreover, the problem with movies like this is that they provide catharsis for an extraordinarily uncathartic situation. The movie ends happily, and we all go on our way. Fair enough, most movies do that, even movies that take place on yachts and in New York penthouses. But the illusion with a movie like Slumdog Millionaire is that it somehow makes you a better or more caring person because you watched a make-believe fairy tale that involved poverty, when the reality is that you’re no more pro-active or charitable than you were after Fool’s Gold starring Matthew McConaughey and Kate Hudson. It’s a false sense of relief and self-satisfaction. It’s not your fault for feeling that way. We all do. I’m not really doing anything more than you are to make the world a better place. But it’s still important, I think, to at least be aware of these kinds of situations.
As far as using your real name, sure, point taken. But the larger issue is that you’re not even using a registered, consistent fake name. You’re just making up a new reactionary joke name for every third post as a joke about the point you’re trying to make. Tomorrow you’ll be on a new thread with a new moniker, making more unsubstantiated points. You’re unreliable and unaccountable for what you say, and sure, so is the rest of the internet, but that doesn’t make it right, mom.
This is basically the abortion debate of the entertainment world.
Hollywood is Evil. It hurts so good.
These comments are going to CHANGE THE WORLD!!! Yay!
My heart hurts, but I laugh.
tottal neglegence on everybodies part
If American children were in this movie. They would get at least a couple of million dollars. The children in this movie were taken for a joy ride. The filmmakers of Slumdog Millionaire used these children to save money. The only reason they got paid so little was cause they were already living in the Slums of India. Were do Children s rights fit in with this film. I don’t think they do.