'Slumdog Millionaire' Kids Could Lose Their Trust Funds

By PopEater Staff Posted Oct 29th 2009 04:43PM

'Slumdog Millionaire' stars Azharuddin Mohammed Ismail and Rubina Ali -- who played young Salim and young Latika in the Oscar-winning film -- are in danger of being stripped of the trust funds producers of the movie set up for them if they miss any more school.

According to the terms of the trust, the two children must have a 70 percent attendance rate yet both are way below that number, FoxNews.com reports.

Azhar is showing up at school 37 percent of the time and Rubina only 27 percent of the time.

"It's pathetic," Noshir Dadrawala, who administers the Jai Ho Trust.

"They are constantly going to Paris and Cochin and Chennai. That's fine, but go over the weekend, not at the sacrifice of school," Dadrawala added.

Parents of the young actors both claim they will be attending more regularly, and blame family deaths and illness for the missing days.

http://xml.channel.aol.com/xmlpublisher/fetch.v2.xml?option=expand_relative_urls&dataUrlNodes=uiConfig,feedConfig,entry&id=761005&pid=761004&uts=1256849162

http://www.popeater.com/mm_track/popeater/movies/?s_channel=us.moviespop&s_account=aolpopeater,aolsvc&omni=1&ke=1

http://cdn.channel.aol.com/cs_feed_v1_6/csfeedwrapper.swf

'Slumdog' Kids

"Slumdog Millionaire" director Danny Boyle, left, speaks with a journalist as child actor Rubina Ali, center, looks on in Mumbai, India, Thursday, Oct. 29, 2009. The two child stars of 'Slumdog Millionaire' are at risk of losing their monthly stipend and their trust fund if they don't start attending school, a trustee for the fund said Thursday. (AP Photo/Rafiq Maqbool)

Slumdog' Kids Pics

New York-based Lebanese body builder George Farah, center, poses with "Slumdog Millionaire" child stars Azharuddin Mohammed Ismail, right, and Rubina Ali when they happen to meet at a hotel in Mumbai, India, Thursday, Oct. 29, 2009. A trustee for the child stars of "Slumdog Millionaire" says the kids' poor attendance at school is putting their trust fund at risk. The filmmakers set up the trust to provide an education, housing and a living allowance to the young stars of the Oscar winning film. (AP Photo/Rafiq Maqbool)

ASSOCIATED PRESS

TO GO WITH AFP STORY IN FRENCH BY BEATRICE LE BOHEC --- (FILES) This photo taken on February 26, 2009 shows "Slumdog Millionaire" child actor Mohammed Azharuddin Ismail waving to neighbours and wellwishers gathered outside his shanty after arriving back from the Oscars at the Behrampada slums in Mumbai. Azharuddin, 11 years old, is telling his short life-story in a book. More than six months after the success of the film, Azharuddin is trying "to bring a human dimension in an incdredible story, without making a 'success story' in the American style", sums up Mouhssine Ennaimi, a French journalist based in Bombay who wrote the tale. AFP PHOTO/INDRANIL MUKHERJEE (Photo credit should read INDRANIL MUKHERJEE/AFP/Getty Images)

AFP/Getty Images

TO GO WITH AFP STORY IN FRENCH BY BEATRICE LE BOHEC --- (FILES) This photo taken on May 30, 2009 shows Oscar-winning film Slumdog Millionaire's child star Azharuddin Ismail in a bed inside his shanty in Mumbai. Azharuddin, 11 years old, is telling his short life-story in a book. More than six months after the success of the film, Azharuddin is trying "to bring a human dimension in an incdredible story, without making a 'success story' in the American style", sums up Mouhssine Ennaimi, a French journalist based in Bombay who wrote the tale. AFP PHOTO/Sajjad HUSSAIN (Photo credit should read SAJJAD HUSSAIN/AFP/Getty Images)

AFP/Getty Images

TO GO WITH AFP STORY IN FRENCH BY BEATRICE LE BOHEC --- (FILES) This photo taken on July 4, 2009 shows Oscar-winning film Slumdog Millionaire's child star Azharuddin Ismail inside the compound of his newly allocated apartment in central Mumbai. Azharuddin, 11 years old, is telling his short life-story in a book. More than six months after the success of the film, Azharuddin is trying "to bring a human dimension in an incdredible story, without making a 'success story' in the American style", sums up Mouhssine Ennaimi, a French journalist based in Bombay who wrote the tale. AFP PHOTO/Pal PILLAI (Photo credit should read PAL PILLAI/AFP/Getty Images)

AFP/Getty Images

FILES- This file picture shows Mohammed Ismail, father of "Slumdog Millionaire" child actor Mohammed Azharuddin Ismail resting inside his shanty while waiting news of the Oscars, in Mumbai on February 23, 2009. Mohammed Ismail died of tuberculosis at the family's home in Mumbai on September 4, 2009. AFP PHOTO/INDRANIL MUKHERJEE (Photo credit should read INDRANIL MUKHERJEE/AFP/Getty Images)

AFP/Getty Images

FILES- This file picture shows Mohammed Ismail (R), father of "Slumdog Millionaire" child actor Mohammed Azharuddin Ismail resting inside his shanty while waiting news of the Oscars, in Mumbai on February 23, 2009. Mohammed Ismail died of tuberculosis at the family's home in Mumbai on September 4, 2009. AFP PHOTO/INDRANIL MUKHERJEE (Photo credit should read INDRANIL MUKHERJEE/AFP/Getty Images)

AFP/Getty Images

FILES- This file picture shows a photojournalist taking a picture of Mohammed Ismail, father of "Slumdog Millionaire" child actor Mohammed Azharuddin Ismail as he rests inside his shanty while waiting news of the Oscars, in Mumbai on February 23, 2009. Mohammed Ismail died of tuberculosis at the family's home in Mumbai on September 4, 2009. AFP PHOTO/INDRANIL MUKHERJEE (Photo credit should read INDRANIL MUKHERJEE/AFP/Getty Images)

AFP/Getty Images

MUMBAI, INDIA - JULY 07: Mohammed Azharuddin Ismail, child star of the Oscar winning 'Slumdog Millionaire' celebrating his newly allocated 250 square foot apartment by 'Jai Ho' trust in Santacruz in the Western Mumbai Suburbs with his family on July 7, 2009 in Mumbai, India. (Photo by Ritam Banerjee/Getty Images) *** Local Caption *** Mohammed Azharuddin Ismail

Getty Images

Tags: Azharuddin Mohammed Ismail, AzharuddinMohammedIsmail, rubina ali, RubinaAli, Slumdog Millionaire, SlumdogMillionaire

Comments

(22)

Thursday 29 October

By Lin

Vote down Vote up Report this

Sounds like a bunch of bull to me. Only attending school 27% & 37% of the time. Just how many relatives do they have that died that would put them at that percentage? I don't believe that one. Obviously, they broke the contract....take the money away!

Monday 07 November

By Kathi

Clearly spoken like a bonehead American who has never left his backyard. I've lived in India, and I can tell you the poverty that exists there would make any kind of normal living next to impossible, including the ability to concentrate for school. Did you NOT watch the movie? What do you think that was just a sound stage? NO bonehead - THAT IS THE REALITY OF LIFE THERE FOR MILLIONS.

By they r slums

High Rank Vote down Vote up Report this

If the contract was to stay in school 70% & they have both been going only 37% and below, why hasn't the funds already been taken away? They already have broken it.

By LA

Lowest Rank Vote down Vote up Report this

They broke the contract. Take the dollars away. They are nothing but slum dogs!

By Joe

WOW the rich get richer...I think they did their job and made the movie now leave them alone..20/20 had something about the movie makes trying to screw the kid's out of this cash. It seemed that the people that had the trust couldn't show any paper work or reports for the two kid's trusts.So I bet the people keeping the cash which was not mom and dad took all the cash and now their looking for a way to say they can't have it anymore. Can you say screwed over.

By Sue

Highest Rank Vote down Vote up Report this

Joe, I completely agree. I saw a story about the little boy right after the movie won the award. The boy was still living in a make-shift house without running water, electricity, or plumbing in the slums. The floor was dirt; their "stove" and "lighting" consisted of a broken gas lantern of some sort; and their bathroom was the ditch right behind their "home." These kids were completely exploited. Maybe the reason that these children haven't been in school is that they have to help the family earn what little money they can each day so they can eat. Maybe the kids aren't in school because they get sick often, and medical care is a completely foreign concept in their world. A child cannot learn in a school if that child does not have a safe & secure home environment. Education becomes just a dream when one must fiercely struggle just to survive each day. If they want to see the children in school 70% of the time, they need to do something to help those children NOW and not 10 or 15 years from now.

By Marie

Please do not take the fund away. That was an excellent film. Whomever manages the fund should keep in touch with the family. Children should not have to suffer for the acts of their parents. I ask that the fund remain intact until they are of age. Like others before me, how many deaths are there. If they must go back home, let the trust remain in the United States under an honest administrator until they are of age. The parents should not get it.

By vickie

Low Ranked Vote down Vote up Report this

OH WELL

america will just save them again, and give them more money...

By jaguar6cy

It is obvious the terms of the Trust were written to ensure the money could soon be taken back by the production company. Unforgivable legal theft.

By thnkugal

I refused to see this flick knowing this is EXACTLY what would happen. Arrogant, greedy filmmakers fishing around in poverty ridden foreign streets for legally unrepresented youngsters to exploit for financial gain. Then, lift them up to stardom- dangle 'trust fund' to get them to salivate to make some outrageously unfair monetary "deal" as their form of 'pay'. Great. Leave it to the White Anglo Saxon establishment to plunder and ruin the lives of the poor- again. GIVE THEM THEIR PORTION OF WHAT THEY EARNED YOU NIMRODS AND GET OUT OF THEIR LIVES. You've ruined them. IDIOTS.

By Bill

Good Idea.

By rf

screw these dot heads!! give the money to american unemployed!! the movie sucked anyway.

By LJ

These kids do not live a "normal" life in the American sense of the word. They come from poverty stricken homes and education there for this sort of person is NOT the norm.They may be needed to help their families make ends meet. They worked for the money and it should be theirs. If the movie folks in their ivory tower really wanted them to be educated , they should have footed the bill for a good boarding school for them.

Friday 30 October

James, they are jetting around because the producer/director is using them for publicity. The parents allow their children to go because they probably get some paltry sum for it, and they hope that maybe the exposure will help the family in some way. These children are being completely exploited and strung along.

By jones

If the people posting on here are so truly concerned about the welfare of these children, why don't all of you send them YOUR money so they can go to boarding school, and have electricity and plumbing in their homes. The money these children were already PAID by the producers of Slum Dog for their participation in this film was probably much more than they see in a year as it is. Why is it that they are automatically owed more money because the film happened to be a box office hit? When an actor is booked on a film, he/she is offered a specific amount of money up front (if they are big enough stars they might have it in their contract to receive a certain number of "points on the back end," which means they will actually get a cut of the box office receipt. If that is not in your contract, you DO NOT get more money if the film is a box office hit, and likewise you DO NOT have to give back any of the money if the film is a box office bomb that loses money.

By tom

Jones- that is a disgustingly clueless post. You sound like a pretty dumb fella. And about as financially exploitive as those big headed millionare producers. Hate to break it you but, here in the developed world (where, infact, the film was legally financed and produced, not India) the leading actors (those 'kids' you put down as 'just kids') would be paid ACCORDING TO BOX OFFICE profits- regardless of age or ethnicity (darn). So, attempting to lower their status according to nationality (a very poor one at that) doesn't wash. They are owed a percentage of total profits. The weenie filmmakers are just that- weenies. I too, boycotted this film- knowing it was a huge undertaking in humanitarian fraud for the benefit of sleazo Hollywood. So glad I opted out. We can only hope those kids find a way to put these self serving idiots exactly where they belong. In court. Nothing would please me more.

By shykiss3

I recently watched this movie. It was okay but I didn't see what all the hype was about. The media made this movie out to be like it was the best movie ever. All the awards this movie received I thought i was going to be wowed by watching it but it was just another movie. I didn't see what was so great about it, because they were regular people from those neighborhoods. The are a lot of movies where they use people from their neighborhoods. I don't know maybe its just me but I watched it and moved on to something else.

By Phil

The kids should go to school - but the trust is grossly unfair. They did the work when they made the movie, and just like adults, deserve to be paid for their work. I could see the possible fairness of distributing the balance only if they graduate high school, and lowering their stipend somewhat until they attend the required number of hours - as that is assuring they get some kind of schooling, but to totally take it away because of an excited binge of post movie travelling is theft. I don't know of any other actor in a major film that would accept a contract clause like that.

By Tim

Some of you people are really dumb. The money was put into a trust to keep the parents from squandering it or losing it to nefarious "investments". The educational requirement of the trust was to make sure these kids got an education. The threat to take back the trust has worked. The parents will now ensure the kids go to school. That was the whole point. It was not to rip off the kids.

By renuelcrow

It is not fair to be so rude to these children. They are under the control of their parents and I am sure the movie companies are eager to take their money back. Did they worry about whether these children were in school while they were filming?? I would hope so but....Amazes me how rude people are--even to children--if you want their millions then get yourself an acting career.

Page 1 of 2