"Slumdog" child star's Mumbai shanty home torn down

Source: Reuters

MUMBAI (Reuters) – City authorities in Mumbai demolished the shanty home of a "Slumdog Millionaire" child star on Thursday, forcing his family into the streets months after the Oscar-winning film shot him to global fame.

Azharuddin Ismail, 9, played the character of Salim as a child in the film, a rags-to-riches romance about a poor Indian boy competing for love and money on a television game show.

Ismail's tarpaulin-covered home in a teeming slum was one of several shanties, illegally built along a drain, that were demolished by local authorities in Mumbai, India's financial capital and entertainment hub.

"When they came I was sleeping, they shook me awake and one policeman even threatened me," Ismail, surrounded by half-broken suitcases filled with clothes and utensils, told Reuters.

"What can I do if they have demolished my house? I will sleep out in the open."

A poster of "Slumdog Millionaire," signed by director Danny Boyle, fluttered from the only wall of Ismail's shanty still standing. Open sewers run nearby and it had no running water.

Read more: http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090514/people_nm/us_slumdog_dwelling

Time for some producer to PONY UP.

that should help a lot --in 9 years. :eyes:

When I get my paycheck, I get paid.

When movie stars get paychecks, they get PAID.

According to the UK newspaper The Daily Telegraph, Azharuddin Mohammed Ismail (who played Salim as a child) was paid £1,700 during filming, whilst The Economic Times of India claims he was paid £700<25> and Rubina Ali (who played Latika as a child) received £500 for a year’s work on the film. The children received considerably less than the Afghan child stars of The Kite Runner, who embarrassed their Hollywood producers when they disclosed that they had been paid £9,000, even though The Kite Runner was far less a box hit. At the end of the movie, both of the child actors continued to live in makeshift shacks in the slums of Bandra, a suburb of Mumbai, according to the The Daily Telegraph<26> and ABC News.<27>

On 26 January 2009, Danny Boyle (director) and Christian Colson (producer) released a written statement saying 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.” Boyle and Colson stated that they had "set up trust funds for Rubina and Azharuddin and paid for their education." The filmmakers noted that they had also hired transportation to get the children to a nonprofit English-language school for the next eight years,<28> and that both children would receive £20 a month for books and food.<29> The exact amount of the trust funds was not disclosed by the filmmakers. As Boyle explained, "We don't want to reveal exact figures about what's in the trust fund, what's in the bank account for them for when they leave school because it will make them vulnerable and a target really, but it is substantial, and they will hopefully gain benefit from the film long after the film has disappeared and long after the media who are chasing them at the moment sadly have lost interest in the film, and that's been our approach throughout and I think it's the right approach."<30> However, according to the The Economic Times, £17,500 had been placed into a trust fund for Azharuddin Mohammed Ismail which he will receive, plus interest, when he turns 18.<31>

Azharuddin Mohammed Ismail’s father, Mohammed Ismail, demanded more money for his son in light of the film's success. He stated, "My son has taken on the world and won. I am so proud of him but I want more money. They promised me a new house but it hasn't happened. I'm still in the slum. I want the money now, it is of no use later. Mr. Boyle should take care of my son."<32> He also claimed, “There is none of the money left. It was all spent on medicines to help me fight TB.”<33> Defenders of the filmmakers noted that there was no assurance that any money given directly to Azharuddin Mohammed Ismail would not be used by his father for his own purposes, as had happened with previous Indian child actors from slums.<[br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controversial_issues_surrounding_Slumdog_Millionaire

I haven't checked the sources.

I realize this is one kid in a world full of people who are suffering...but who do we bitch to about this?

Some indy studio made millions off that winning smile, and he's getting dick.

The boy in the article played his brother, Salim.

Not like it matters much though... I'm sure he was robbed by the film's producers as well.

Azharuddin Mohammed Ismail is the doe-eyed actor who plays Salim.

Thanks for the correction. :)

He did get paid:

(1) The film makers gave the family a bundle, which the Dad then blew thru.
(2) They set up a trust fund which the kid gets when he's 18.

I don't know what else they can do, like, kidnap him and give him to responsible parents? I am annoyed at how the knee jerk reaction seems to be to assume the kid was taken advantage of by terrible Westerners. It's his parents who are doing him dirt.

Provide a link the father blew thru the money. 20 euros a month? You got to be kidding me.

And the films producers did get PAID.

And by the way, I don't give two buckets of spooge about what annoys you.

1,700 euros according to one source, another source says 700 euros. Either way that is a far cry from a bundle of money.

Seriously. This is called "outperforming your contract."

it is generally 50 rupee to a USD and 1 USD is equal to 1.3 Euro. I know the Euro was worth more when the film was shot probably 1 euro = 2 USD.

I can get a good lunch for 2-3 rupee and my daughters trip to the London trained MD PLUS meds cost $3.50 USD or 150 rupee and some change.

1700 Euro= 3400 USD= 170,000 rupee
700 Euro= 1400 USD= 70,000 rupee

As a Nurse in India I would make between 414,385-1,339,899 rupee

http://www.payscale.com/research/IN/Country=India/Salary

But for a movie making millions by US standards he should be paid accordingly.

given to him. that's why they were still living there even if they already got some money.

Where is your link of this father bashing?

According to the UK newspaper The Daily Telegraph, Azharuddin Mohammed Ismail (who played Salim as a child) was paid £1,700 during filming, whilst The Economic Times of India claims he was paid £700<25> and Rubina Ali (who played Latika as a child) received £500 for a year’s work on the film. The children received considerably less than the Afghan child stars of The Kite Runner, who embarrassed their Hollywood producers when they disclosed that they had been paid £9,000, even though The Kite Runner was far less a box hit. At the end of the movie, both of the child actors continued to live in makeshift shacks in the slums of Bandra, a suburb of Mumbai, according to the The Daily Telegraph<26> and ABC News.<27>

On 26 January 2009, Danny Boyle (director) and Christian Colson (producer) released a written statement saying 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.” Boyle and Colson stated that they had "set up trust funds for Rubina and Azharuddin and paid for their education." The filmmakers noted that they had also hired transportation to get the children to a nonprofit English-language school for the next eight years,<28> and that both children would receive £20 a month for books and food.<29> The exact amount of the trust funds was not disclosed by the filmmakers. As Boyle explained, "We don't want to reveal exact figures about what's in the trust fund, what's in the bank account for them for when they leave school because it will make them vulnerable and a target really, but it is substantial, and they will hopefully gain benefit from the film long after the film has disappeared and long after the media who are chasing them at the moment sadly have lost interest in the film, and that's been our approach throughout and I think it's the right approach."<30> However, according to the The Economic Times, £17,500 had been placed into a trust fund for Azharuddin Mohammed Ismail which he will receive, plus interest, when he turns 18.<31>

Azharuddin Mohammed Ismail’s father, Mohammed Ismail, demanded more money for his son in light of the film's success. He stated, "My son has taken on the world and won. I am so proud of him but I want more money. They promised me a new house but it hasn't happened. I'm still in the slum. I want the money now, it is of no use later. Mr. Boyle should take care of my son."<32> He also claimed, “There is none of the money left. It was all spent on medicines to help me fight TB.”<33> Defenders of the filmmakers noted that there was no assurance that any money given directly to Azharuddin Mohammed Ismail would not be used by his father for his own purposes, as had happened with previous Indian child actors from slums.<
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controversial_issues_surro...[br />

will be a lot when he reaches 18 and they are paying for his education now. You can't get more fair than that.

These parents see their kids as a personal cash cows. We still occasionally have this same problem in Hollywood with child actors and parents mis approating funds. That is why we have some laws to protect children.

The movie could have been a flop and we wouldn't be having this conversation. Children and childhood is not as romanticised in India. Until kids can earn something-they are just another mouth to fee. Young girls are sold as 'brides' every day and young boys sold into slavery by parents (well intended or no). That is the real crime here-and those are the ones to be ursued by law. The fact that the government looks the other way makes them just as guilty.

The movies depection of childhood in the slums is dead on accurate so the producers did well and had the childrens long term and immediate interests at heart. They did more than the government or the child's family would have done for them.

pay him using the same scale the director is on, relative to other equally profitable films.

final answer.

When the child directs and produces a movie he can have the larger share of the profits. I spend more time with patients and do more hands on care than Docs do but they have the skills and should get a larger portion of the money. What a naive response.:eyes:

The sections in the movie where they beg, steal, and live a hand to mouth existence-that is true. I saw no one concerned about these kids when I was there. No government care, little private care. The directors were far more thoughtful of the children. They were fair, again final answer.

life in some places are cheap.
not everyone survives childhood.
those that live in poverty and are illiterate seldom know how to handle money effectively.
the poor seldom get past the first level of Maslow Hierarchy of Needs.



The producers really were concerned about the children's welfare and tried as best they could to structure long term help for them by giving them some money now and more for education later.

I remember seeing the gentleman that this was based on. All he has left of his winnings was one sad aquarium. It is just another way of thinking.

Hubby is from India and I see this thinking in some of his relatives. There is no long term thinking and planning beyond the weekend. It is just sad.

and no one can ante up decent homes for these kids? Talk about Indian child labour

You should get some facts.

"Articles in Britain's Daily Telegraph and India's Hindustan Times, quoting relatives of the actors, said Rubina Ali (the youngest Latika) and Azharuddin Mohammed Ismail (the youngest Salim) were both poorly compensated for their original, month long acting work and have not shared in the film's financial windfall; other media outlets and Internet sites either have repeated or linked to the allegations. The Telegraph article says Ali earned about $1,000, while Ismail was paid about $2,400. (According to a World Bank report last year, 75.6% of India's population lives on less than $2 a day.) Fox Searchlight, Boyle and Colson have declined to say what their actual compensation was."

http://articles.latimes.com/2009/jan/30/entertainment/et-slumdog30

So, that means that Ismail's family got just about 3 years worth of what 75% of India's live on. This contract was signed when no one knew if the movie was going to be a success or not. Not only did they give the kids 3 years "salary", but gave them monthly payments for their education and a trust fund for their education when they turn 18. What more did these people have to do? It was one month worth of work. I'm betting if the parents had been given a million dollars, they still would have ended up broke and homeless.

This is not a new phenomenon, this has happened before in India. http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1883809,00.html Time tells the story of other child actors and what happened to them.

zalinda

and so true. Thanks.

who beat him up for not whoring himself for the cameras spends it all on himself.

Rather than giving it directly. In all probability the father would have spent it all.

The trust fund is a good thing otherwise the kid would never see a dime of that money by the time he's of age.

These kids had bit parts that required a month of work and they were paid handsomely by their standards.