Slumdog Millionaire is a wonderful movie – but it could be a movement
I saw Slumdog Millionaire last night at the theatre and I loved it. Not many movies move me but it did and I couldn’t wait to tweet praises for it. And I did.
I had left the theatre with a new appreciation for the conditions people are living in in India – appalling conditions – in the slums of Mumbai. I felt like I had taken part in an experience that, maybe if enough people saw it, something could change in the world. I wanted everyone to go see it.
Then I got a tweet from Mathew Ingram and it changed my whole mood.
The BBC story told of how some of the child actors were paid small amounts of money and were still living in the slums that the movie was shot in. Say what? The movie had brought in over $140 million and while some funds had been set up in a trust for the kids when they turned 18, they were probably going to be stuck in extreme poverty until that point.
Yes, film producers make movies to make money. Thankfully for them they did an amazing job and thus people are flocking to see it at the theatres. But they know they’ve create a powerful message that’s being carried by the film. This message is touching audiences in a way that makes them want change. It’s a similar feeling that fueled the Obama campaign. That campaign became a movement and we all know how this wonderful story ended.
Slumdog Millionaire has opened up a new story line and, in reality, that story doesn’t have a great ending. This movie has a chance to become a moment. Wouldn’t more people see a movie that promises 10% to a fund that promises to help change the situation in this slum to start with, others after. And that doesn’t mean just throwing money at the situation but finding resources to work with the inhabitants, to teach, to provide opportunities, to find ways to break the cycle they are stuck in.
So the question is, with the odds in Slumdog’s favor for an Oscar win, what do you think we’d all want to hear from the director during his acceptance speech? He can inspire a movement, but will he?
February 21st, 2009 - Posted in social media, twitter, viral | | 3 Comments
on February 21st, 2009 at 11:27 am
I think you need to do more research. The producers of the movie are working out ways already on how to invest some of the profits into various established programmes and charities to help improve life prospects of children in the slums. They have also done the right thing by the child actors and are determined to do the right thing by them over the long term. Painting Danny Boyle and Christian Colson as somehow neglectful and negligent is so far off the mark and unfair. Please read these articles.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/dean_nelson/blog/2009/02/19/giving_slumdogs_a_chance
http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/film/article5614162.ece
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/21/opinion/21srivastava.html?_r=1
The final article is the most illuminating. Mumbaikars who live in Dharavi and elsewhere don’t want anybodys pity. They are industrious and dignified people.
Finally, the success of the movie, and the media scrutiny of the kids has disrupted the long term plans for their education and upliftment. Considering all of these factors, maybe a starting point is to not project the producers of Slumdog Millionaire as being in some way neglectful or unaware of these issues. The humanitarian love of the movie is reflected in their personal responsibility and concern for the child actors and the long term consciousness of poverty in urban India that can accrue because of the movie. It would be nice if you could acknowledge that.
on February 21st, 2009 at 9:19 pm
Jay,
I appreciate your comment. In fact I have been continuing to read articles on how the director and staff of the film have been trying to do various things for the actors. In fact there was another article in our local paper today as a matter of fact that went into a lot of detail on the subject. http://telegraphjournal.canadaeast.com/magazine/article/578524 It’s a great article and yes I do appreciate what they are trying to do. And it’s very complex too, throwing money at the kids and their families won’t work. Forcing the kids and their families to leave their friends and relatives in the slums is not fair either.
Are the director’s hearts and heads generally in the right place based on what I’ve read. Yes, I think so. And I applaud them for not just dumping money on the kids and running.
However, like it or not they have opened Pandora’s Box on the lives of these children and the village they live in. They have shared the plight of these people with the world and the world has embraced it. And this embracing has meant the film will do very well for it’s investors and that’s a wonderful thing as well. But is the yin and the yang in balance as it continues to be more and more successful – I think not – and unfortunately like a bit of a curse I think those involved in the movie will feel it as well.
My point behind this post and the tweets I’ve done on Twitter is to basically ask – can more be done? Should more be done? Will more be done?
The director and those involved are not villains. Far from it. Inversely they have the opportunity to be saints. It’s up to them if they choose this path. If they don’t the world will go on and the plight of those in the slums of India will hopefully gradually improve with each new generation.
So what could be done to help not just the 2 children but the village without causing unexpected negative imbalances to occur. As one of the articles points out the state has ignored them and they have miraculously adapted.
What could funds from the movie help provide?
- infrastructure like fresh water and sewage
- free healthcare for those who can’t afford it
- education opportunities
- scholarships for those who do well in school
- micro loans for people wanting to expand their businesses.
Stuff that many other charities attempt to provide all over the world. So partnerships could even be formed with such organizations.
And let’s not forget the one opportunity that could be gained for the investors. People want to feel they are doing good in the world. The opportunity to finally attend a movie where 10% goes to improve the lives of those featured in it is a fantastic idea. I think, especially with today’s generation, they don’t just want to consume but they want to make a difference. And just imagine the win-win if Slumdog Millionaire won for best picture at the Academy Awards and the director announced that 10% of all sales from that point on would go to help the village the movie was based on. More people would rush to the movie, sales would soar, funds to help would build and maybe just maybe the world would be on its way to be a little bit better than the day before.
Bottom line: I loved the film, I applaud the director and staff for starting down the path to do more, and I only ask if maybe taking it up a few more notches could end up benefiting many more and a way no one thought was once possible.
Thanks for the comment Jay, you’ve helped me think harder on my original post and I’ve come away even more excited about the opportunity I hope the movie producers will reach for.
Thanks, David
on March 4th, 2009 at 11:39 am
David,
I commend you on a well written article. I joke daily about my throw away clothing from Primark etc and come to realise the way that we shop, eat, live in general is propped up by the imbalance between the oh so rich and the oh so poor.
The sight of pot belly Africans, Romanian babies, slum children of India, and the human rights of the Asia annoys me more now than emotes me. Why….well simple I don’t give to charity and never will, as 60%+ of my donation goes on administration. When my money actually gets there, corruption will get in the way etc etc.
The other problem is in the DNA of some of these cultures. They have come to depend and expect that they will get handouts from the west and they will always be poor ( funny that, cause its the west that influences most of the poverty around the world).
There really is two kinds of help that we can give.
1: Help people to help themselves, through the education of the upcoming migrant generations in the West and encouraging migration back to their motherland to change, influence and develop their own culture. Look at whats happened in a China…a lot of the development has come through Chinese kids studying in the UK and America and returning home to develop businesses, bridging the gap between their culture and ours.
2..STOP WITH THE NEGATIVE IMAGERY. There is more to these countries than poverty. We get sad and emotional on Red-nose day, from Slumdog the film, etc., we then give once our conscience is clear. Maybe we should develop a way to get across empowering captions of such cultures to entice people to partake, develop and integrate in these lands. Remember everyone wanted to move to Tuscany in the 80’s 90’s, well that’s because of the olive groves we were sold. What’s to stop us being sold the beautiful beaches in Africa, the rich cultures and foods of India and so on. We are in a global explosion, where most of the unknown cultures will become known, propaganda will influence yes but people like you and me will start to realise what else exists rather than the sad imagery we are sold daily by charities. Don’t get me wrong I think charities aspire to good things but people change people, while charities comfortise people. As the saying goes ” give a man a plate of food he will eat it and come back for more; show him the way on how to grow, harvest and regrow his food, he will not only survive but find his own taste, develop his own flavour and pass it on”
To conclude, we as westerners are so caught up our own humdrum daily routine, that when we see or hear things like this we cannot believe that is possible, as we are so free comfortable and rich. Well maybe at school we should be sent out to other cultures for 1 year to be educated about what else is out there and stop being so bloody closed minded. I hope my response puts a different spin on things.
SC
Tweet me at @sillycows