|
|||||
|
Thursday, May 14
by
Suzette Valle
on Thu 14 May 2009 11:08 AM PDT
Thursday, April 16
by
Suzette Valle
on Thu 16 Apr 2009 10:07 AM PDT
The Huffington Post reported that $747,000 were donated to a children's organization helping Mumbai street children. Though it seems this money may help more than just the child actors, it is still unclear how much more the young stars are getting as a result of the trust funds set up to help with their education. Tuesday, March 31
by
Suzette Valle
on Tue 31 Mar 2009 09:46 AM PDT
The British paper The Daily Mail, reported that child actress, Rubina Ali, filmed a soft drink commercial with Nicole Kidman, and got paid more than the entire fee she earned for the Oscar-Winning film 'Slumdog Millionaire". Other comments in the article alluded to the mysterious trust fund, and poor follow-up of Hollywood execs. on behalf of the movie's kids. Sunday, March 15
by
Suzette Valle
on Sun 15 Mar 2009 05:36 PM PDT
I found some interesting information about the two "Slumdog Millionaire" child actors regarding the payment they received for their acting roles in the Oscar-winning movie, and the much-discussed trust funds established for them. The following is an excerpt from an article titled "Slumdog Robber Barons" at diversityinc: ""We took a look at published reports, and here's what we found: According to reports published by Reuters and the Los Angeles Times, the two 7-year-olds in question--Rubina Ali and Azharuddin Mohammed Ismail, both of whom come from the poorest slums of India--were both "poorly compensated for their original, monthlong acting work and have not shared in the film's financial windfall." The reports say Ali earned about $1,000 and Ismail earned about $2,400. In the United States, child actors are paid $2,634 per week for a speaking role, according to the Screen Actors' Guild. In India, 85 percent of the population lives off of no more than $2.50 a day--and the average salary nationwide is less than $1,000 a year. In the United States, the average salary per capita is slightly more than $26,000 a year, according to the U.S. Census Bureau's statistics for 2007. But Danny Boyle, the movie's director, and Christian Colson, the movie's producer, issued a joint statement indicating that the reports--which originated in the Daily Telegraph in England--are far from true. In fact, they say they've paid for the children, who had never been to school before 2008, to go to elementary school. They've also paid for them to go to secondary school and they've paid them for basic-living needs, healthcare and emergency needs. If the kids wind up going on to higher education, those costs will be covered by a fund set up by Fox Searchlight, the distributor of the movie. However, many children of the poorest regions of India never go to school and are destined for an impoverished life; higher education is rarely an option. So even if the children's educations are paid for in their earlier years, there remains a possibility that they'll never get access to the larger sums of money put aside for higher education. Fox Searchlight, meanwhile, issued a statement of its own, refuting the reports that the children were underpaid. "'The welfare of Azhar and Rubina has always been a top priority for everyone involved in 'Slumdog Millionaire.' ... For 30 days' work, the children were paid three times the average local adult salary," the statement read. "... We are extremely proud of this film, and proud of the way our child actors have been treated.'" Should these kids get a larger share of the movie's revenues, including sales of the DVD to be released March 31st, 2009? Or, were they fairly compensated? You be the judge... Wednesday, March 11
by
Suzette Valle
on Wed 11 Mar 2009 12:36 PM PDT
Director Danny Boyle and producer Christian Colson took home eight Oscars plus millions in box office revenues for "Slumdog Millionaire", the movie depicting life in the slums of
Azha Ismail AP Photo One week after the Oscars, the red carpet, parties and a trip to
Rubina and Azha back in the slums in India Photo Huffington Post It's been a scant two weeks since the accolades poured in for "Slumdog Millionaire", but for these children, having been yanked out of dire poverty, and thrust into the highest level of luxury and fame seen around the world, the wealth is not reaching them fast enough. And it remains to be seen if it will. "It's a really difficult situation that's spiraling out of control," Colson tells EW. "We've had to constantly reevaluate the challenge of: If you want to lift people out of poverty, how the hell do you do that?" "Nothing would be easier than to throw money at this," says Colson. "But we felt from the beginning that that would be irresponsible." Is it really that difficult to set-up a bank account, and deposit a fixed amount of money each month for the two kids and their families to live properly and secure the children's well-being? Frankly, it has taken two weeks too long for positive results about Azha and Rubina's present condition to show up in the media. I don't think they need to address the country's problems and try helping everyone there right away...for now, just the suffering-duo who helped Boyle and Colson become household names. Read a related post "Livin la Vida 'Slumdog'" at www.TheWrap.com Sunday, February 22
by
Suzette Valle
on Sun 22 Feb 2009 11:26 PM PST
The Oscars went to the dogs this year, SlumDogs that is! The $15 million budget 'SlumDog Millionaire' was expected to be the top winner of the 2009 Academy Awards, and it took the top prize as Best Picture for 2008. Winning 8 out of 10 nominations, Ben Stiller joked about the low-budget movie saying more » |
|||||
|
|||||












