Slumdog kids

I just read this with my jaw on the ground. The little kids from the first part of the movie are still living in the slum and ramshackle conditions. From the studio, the producers and Danny Boyle on down, how can anyone who worked on that film allow that to be and live with themselves?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/7909660.stm

 

Well, who knows what deal they agreed to. They were poor and didn't have Brad Pitt's leverage and an agent and the producers had no idea the movie would gross a zillion dollars.

But now that they have made a lot of money, how big a deal is it for one of the producers who pocketed a lot of money to reach into his pocket and buy a few modest homes in Mumbai for the families? This definitely falls into the "How do you look into the mirror every morning?" category. It wouldn't take a lot to make a huge difference in those kids' lives and it isn't some random act of charity -- they have a connection to those kids and those kids obviously gave them a lot, that contributed to the movie's success, for very little. Why not reach into your pocket, do the right thing and feel good about doing it? This one boggles me.

 

1) Those kids are not extras. They carried half the film.
2) They are living in extreme poverty, beyond their control. They were born innocent into a slum.
3) Boyle doesn't have to support them. A relatively modest gesture on his part could have a huge effect on their lives.
4) They are CHILDREN. There are children people have less of a connection to than he has to those kids, which most people with the means would step up and help when the kids get close to them.

I am not singling out Boyle. There are just so many people involved that it boggles me. Hell, pass around a hat.

 

Uh huh. Because the first tenet of free-market economics is that everyone has to be an unfeeling asshole and not give a shit about children they have a connection to. :