First Shot: Slumlord millionaire? by Steve Schneider http://www.orlandoweekly.com/blog/c2g.asp?perm=1906
So the backlash has begun. A few days ago, the English press reported that the parents of the children who appeared in Slumdog Millionaire were less than pleased with the tykes' remuneration. "I am very happy the movie is doing so well, but it is making so much money and so much fame and the money they paid us is nothing," said parent Rafiq Ali Kureshi, whom the Telegraph described as a carpenter with a broken leg who lives in a hut with his daughter, Rubina, and her siblings. " ... I just had no knowledge of what she should have been paid." The filmmakers countered that the child stars of Slumdog had received more than three times' a Mumbai adult's yearly salary for their work (quick: What's three times nothing?), and that they had been enrolled in school at director Danny Boyle's expense. Their best interests, it was assured, had been a priority all along. Now, when I hear that a Western film crew is looking after poor Easterners' welfare, I assume one of two things: 1) Burger King is launching a new ad campaign; or 2) John Landis is about to kill somebody with a helicopter. So I was highly interested when, two days later, some of the same complainants went public with what sounded like a complete reversal. The filmmakers "are taking complete care of my child," Kureshi himself now claimed. "Whatever a parent could have done, they have done much more than that." What could have happened in the short interim to change his mind? Well, it might have had something to do with this pointed comment that was circulated by Fox Searchlight: "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." "Potential jeopardy"? "Protect"? "Unwarranted attention"? Tony Soprano couldn't have said it better. It's poetic justice for this controversy to have attached itself to Slumdog, a movie I enjoyed immensely but whose skyrocketing popularity nonetheless troubles me deeply. Among the almost universal accolades the film has earned, only Mark Harris in Entertainment Weekly seems to share my concern over its confused ideology. This, after all, is a picture that immerses us in repeated scenes of horrific socioeconomic devastation, only to imply at the 11th hour that all of that suffering can be easily redeemed -- or even forgotten -- if one guy wins an assload of money and scores a hot chick. In other words, it's the perfect feel-good exercise for that segment of the American audience that wants to believe its rapidly vanishing way of life is not only sustainable but applicable across the globe. So yeah, I'd almost feel vindicated at seeing Boyle and co. exposed as exploiters -- except that there's something about the timing of the controversy that hints at baser motives. Based on past evidence, you'd almost think that somebody stateside has a vested interest in seeing Slumdog brought low. Somebody with a competing movie in Oscar contention, perhaps. Harvey, is that you? --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to Mark Crispin Miller's "News From Underground" newsgroup. To unsubscribe, send a blank email to [email protected] OR go to http://groups.google.com/group/newsfromunderground and click on the "Unsubscribe or change membership" link in the yellow bar at the top of the page, then click the "Unsubscribe" button on the next page. For more News From Underground, visit http://markcrispinmiller.com -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
