Slumdog Millionaire by Danny Boyle

Huy Vu said:
MINOR SPOILER
I also feel there was a contradiction in tone that was never quite resolved. For a "fairy tale," the films goes into some dark territory (torture, child prostitution, implied rape, arson, violence etc.) but the ending was wrapped up nice and tight with an extra sprinkling of sugar on top. I mean, was it REALLY necessary to have him correctly guessed the last question? He already got the girl and having him hit the jackpot as well just seems too nice and tidy for a film that went as dark as mentioned. I felt like it would have been a better ending for him to lose but still gets the girl he loves.
Click to expand...

I think that we are so used to seeing the lead actor die or suffer some lost ( especialy in movies that are nominated for some a big award )that when this doesn't happen whe are like what's the meaning of it all ,this aint real.

This is just the way Bollywood movies (fairytales )are, they start out with dark and disturbing settings and can quickly change to innocent and romantic scenes. The hero as they would call it always gets it all in the end.
The movie ends with a dance bit F.C.O.L.:)
Boyle may have directed it but it still feels like a Bollywood movie, which is not a bad thing.
 
Last edited:
Really good movie, now I see why its getting all the awards, a must see. The characters really draw you in, especially the scenes with the young kids, I felt sad, joy and pain for the characters, when a film does this to you, you know its something special.

And Danny Boyle does a great job of directing, before I saw this, I thought Fincher should get best director for Benjamin, but wow, Danny deserves it.
 
I liked the film, despite the somewhat conventional, and dare I say, a little predictable third act. I did like the film as a whole, but the scenes of their childhood were much more interesting. The flashback/question structure worked very well. And of course it has great, classic Danny Boyle visuals.
 
"Rubina was paid £500 for a year’s work while Azharuddin received £1,700, according to the children's parents."

Man, I'd make more money videotaping a wedding.

“There is none of the money left. It was all spent on medicines to help me fight TB,” Azharuddin’s father, Mohammed Ismail, said. “We feel that the kids have been left behind by the film. They have told us there is a trust fund but we know nothing about it and have no guarantees.”

They need to pay these kids fairly, and not based on anything to do with the annual salaries of people living in some of the poorest slums in the world. That is the argument made by people whose business models are based on sweatshop labor.
 
Jim Klatt said:
"Rubina was paid £500 for a year’s work while Azharuddin received £1,700, according to the children's parents."

Man, I'd make more money videotaping a wedding.

“There is none of the money left. It was all spent on medicines to help me fight TB,” Azharuddin’s father, Mohammed Ismail, said. “We feel that the kids have been left behind by the film. They have told us there is a trust fund but we know nothing about it and have no guarantees.”

They need to pay these kids fairly, and not based on anything to do with the annual salaries of people living in some of the poorest slums in the world. That is the argument made by people whose business models are based on sweatshop labor.
Click to expand...

Exactly. It's not as though these were five minute cameos or background players. The success of this story has A LOT to do with those kids. The audiences emotional investment depends on their portrayals. If they weren't as good as they were, the film wouldn't have worked nearly as well. They should've been paid AT LEAST as much as Dev Patel and Freida Pinto were paid.
 
They were paid three times the average local annual adult salary.
They worked on the film for 30 days.
Sounds pretty fair to me (and to the kids...after all, they signed on).
Now that the film is a hit, they want more?:huh:
 
CallaghanFilms said:
They were paid three times the average local annual adult salary.
They worked on the film for 30 days.
Sounds pretty fair to me (and to the kids...after all, they signed on).
Now that the film is a hit, they want more?:huh:
Click to expand...

They were exploited because they didn't know what they should be paid. The producers DID know, and paid them significantly less than any other actors because they could get away with it.
 
filthrich said:
3 times the local annual salary sounds like good money to me.
Click to expand...

Sure, if you don't live in one of the poorest slums in the world.

Without those kids and access to their neighborhoods and community, Fox Searchlight does not make 43 million dollars (so far) or get nominated for an oscar. The slum and the kids are the heart of the film.

The honorable thing to do would be own up to a)own up to the the contractual, educational trust funds that were supposed to be set up and b)be dignified about it and at least pay them on a non-3rd world slum model.

This is so thick with irony that they made this film about kids who are exploited and don't really have a chance. Fox Searchlight and Danny Boyle should call themselves SlumLord Millionaire's.
 
If they were so good, shouldn't they get bigger and better offers? People agree to do jobs for X amount of $ for any number of reasons/motivations (exposure, a "foot in the door", contacts, you name it...)


Why they agreed to work for a price is irrelevant...The fact that they did agree, on the other hand, is.
 
Jim Klatt said:
Fox Searchlight does not make 43 million dollars (so far)
Click to expand...

85 million worldwide!...They should have been paid wages at least equal to the other actors in the film. How much do you guys think this actor made in the film?
iifa_gallery_05_470x320.jpg

I imagine if they offered him the kids salary, they would have gotten one of these--
middle_finger.jpg
 
CallaghanFilms said:
Leo only got $2.5 million for Titanic...should he be making a stink too?
Click to expand...

If the average person in the usa made thousands of trillions per year then he should.
But they don't, 2.5 million dollars is more than most people make in their lifetime so your argument doesn't make any sense.
 
CallaghanFilms said:
Leo only got $2.5 million for Titanic...should he be making a stink too?
Click to expand...

The issue for me isn't whether or not they deserve a cut of the profits. They were never properly compensated to begin with, at least not an amount commensurate with their contribution to the film. These weren't struggling young actors in Hollywood looking for exposure. These were people looking for nothing more than their next meal. And this wasn't some threadbare indie. This was a 15 million dollar film. How much do you think Danny Boyle made, or the DP, or the key grip? Probably a lot more than the kids did, and their work was just as crucial to the success of the movie.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top