Slumdog Millionaire

It reads almost like an article in The Onion.

According to the AP’s Erika Kinetz (via USA Today), young Slumdog Milionaire star Azharuddin Mohammed Ismail and his family were recently kicked out of the shanty they lived in before it was bulldozed in advance of monsoon season.

Sadly, they were only one of thirty such families to have lost their homes in the Mumbai slum where even people who have homes have it rough:

“Azhar’s neighbors have less to look forward to. Homeless mothers nursed their babies Thursday in what little shade they could find in the 100-degree heat. Nearby, a 98-year old woman lay listless on a metal bed frame scattered with rags. A pregnant woman carried two large jugs of water, trying not to trip. A man on crutches hobbled through rubble littered with stuffed animals and children’s shoes.

Some sang Jai Ho, the Oscar-winning song from Slumdog Millionaire. Others tried to cook. Children struggled with unwieldy bundles of clothes tied together with old sheets.”

With the sad picture of Azharuddin standing below a rumpled Slumdog poster (signed by Danny Boyle) comforting his pet chicken (he lost his kittens), it’s tempting to lay blame at the feet of the film’s producers for exploiting the children in the first place and the article seems to want to do just that.

The thing is, life was rough for the kids and the millions of others like them before the movie and it continues to be rough after the movie. The problem isn’t the movie. The problem is audiences seeing the movie and then sleeping well at night feeling they’ve done something to help solve the world’s problems.

What’s disturbing is even the AP article feels like it’s exploiting tragedy. Read it and tell me I’m wrong.

7 Responses to “‘Slumdog’ kid even loses half-eaten crap sandwich”

  1. This has been going on forever and not just in this country but all over the world. And you’re not wrong about the article.

    I was not one of the people on the bandwagon for this movie. It was enjoyable and well-made, end of story.

  2. I know there was a big fuss leading up to the Oscars about the kids’ trust fund and all that, but it’s sad that things just seem to be rolling downhill.

    On one hand, you can blame the filmmakers for exploitation, but on the other hand if it wasn’t for that film, we wouldn’t even be having this conversation. AP wouldn’t be telling these stories about the real slums of Mumbai.

  3. These slums have always been there and people have known about them, certainly journalists. They just didn’t feel it was important enough to report on before. True the film brought this to people’s attention on a more immediate level, but there is still an element of exploitation. The whole thing kind of leaves a bad taste in my mouth. Maybe I’m just too pessimistic.

  4. I’d suggest there’s probably a psychological aspect to this. I think reporters don’t cover it because people don’t want to read about it. Nothing is less sexy or marketable than poverty and despair.

  5. Yeah, I’m confused. In this country if you get a speaking role in a movie, you can live off that for months in Los Angeles, one of the pricier world cities. Why is this kid still living in a shanty at all?

  6. He blew all his earnings on strippers and hard liquor. Black humor helps me cope better with the tragic reality of the story.

  7. Save me a spot on the couch in hell, Sartre. :)

Leave a Reply

Tiny Subscribe to Comments

  • LiC on Twitter

  • Archives

All material copyright 2007-2012 by Craig Kennedy unless otherwise stated