Are movie-makers doing more harm than good when they take real-life kids out of destitute settings to play acting roles..? What are the ethical issues involved in making movies such as Slumdog, Kite Runner involving children? The psychological ramifications of having exposed children to the 'high life' and then putting them back into same settings is quite something to think about. Not to mention the probable exploitation that takes place. From the movie producers who might pay below-standard rates. To the parents of the children, well-intentioned as they may be, who might not have education as a top priority when poor health and malnutrition continue to ravage the family. Quite something to think about.
This article brings to light some of these issues. The producers may have been well-intentioned in setting up trust funds for the two child stars of this block-buster. But I have to wonder. Are the trust funds the best way to better the lives of these kids? What about the other children? Children who grew up around Rubina and Azharuddin? Are they not worth this education? Isn't the slum itself - home to thousands of people - the setting for this movie? If the slum and the sum total of its inhabitants make up the reason for this movie's existence, shouldn't a trust fund be set up for all inhabitants of said-slum?
Perhaps this is too lofty a request and the movie-makers did not mean to make this movie with a 100% altruistic motive. Perhaps the awareness generated around issues of urbanization and poverty is enough. Perhaps this is meant to inspire the local government to think of urban planning and setting up infrastructure for education and health as more and more people move to urban settings such as Mumbai in search of employment opportunities. However, I have to wonder is it too much to ask that a portion of the $150 million gross revenue go towards better health, better educational opportunities and ultimately a better life for the inhabitants (children especially) of the slums.
