childstars - Jezebel

posts about #childstars more →
Life After Slumdog
R.I.P. Virginia Davis
The Trouble With Lindsay
Living Lohan: Kids Grow Up Fast When You Put Them To Work In Vegas
Is Ali Lohan's Dream Really A Nightmare?
Stage Mother Is Clearly The Star Of I Know My Kid's A Star
The Enids & Rebeccas Of The World Will Miss You Most Of All, Brad Renfro
Puberty Ruined The Culkin Boys For Us

Your version of Internet Explorer is not supported. Please upgrade to the most recent version in order to view comments.

Dsmvwl Admin Promote to frontpage Approve user Ban user ×

clevernamehere
08/20/09

In reply to Life After Slumdog
Danny Boyle cast very poor children in his films and shot them very compassionately. During filming he made sure money was held in trust for their education. Since the movie did well, he has bought or tried to buy them bigger homes. Yet there has been loads of press on how he hasn't done enough.

Sacha Baron Cohen used poor Gypsies (adults and children) as part of a joke in Borat, calling them racist savages but not letting them no he was calling them racist savages. In exchange they were paid scale and the village got a few computers. Last I heard, they were trying to sue him.

I really do not understand why Danny Boyle gets so much crap for not doing enough (although this piece is interesting in showing the different ways the families reacted to the money) and so little was said about Sacha Baron Cohen.
Reply

clevernamehere was starred clevernamehere was unstarred

Luckwouldhaveit
08/20/09

@clevernamehere: Agreed. Danny Boyle had several choices when he made this film - he could have made it on a soundstage in London, with non-Indian children wearing dark makeup. He chose, I think, a means to make the most authentic and compassionate film, and he gets crapped on for it. I wouldn't be surprised if his next film is set in NY and LA, but shot in Toronto and Vancouver, with big-name actors, and a huge happy Hollywood ending.
Reply

rd2uk promoted this comment Luckwouldhaveit was starred Luckwouldhaveit was unstarred

rd2uk
08/20/09

@Luckwouldhaveit: with non indian children wearing dark make up? really? i beleive that is called black-face, and last i checked, thats pretty unacceptable.
Reply

rd2uk was starred rd2uk was unstarred

samethingwedoeverynightpinky
08/20/09

@rd2uk: Yeah, I don't think that was an option. Plus, there are plenty of actual Indian children in London, some of whom I'm sure would love to act, there's no reason to go painting non-Indian kids. I do think it's good that he used kids who were not just the appropriate ethnicity, but had life experience that reflected the movie. I guess my discomfort was more with the movie itself, and the fact that it did have a big Hollywood finish, and was billed as a feel good movie, which seemed to erase the reality of the slumkids it was about, none of whom were winning game shows. And I also do think there's something paternalistic about all the restrictions on the use of the kids' money. I understand the reasons for it, but I also understand why, especially given the historical context of colonialism, which treats grown people like children, some people would find it objectionable.
Reply

andBegorrah
08/20/09

In reply to Life After Slumdog
So suck it up, The Coreys.
Reply

andBegorrah was starred andBegorrah was unstarred

earthgirl
08/20/09

In reply to Life After Slumdog
But what about the third child?
Reply

Maritsa promoted this comment earthgirl was starred earthgirl was unstarred

solaana
08/20/09

@earthgirl: I think the 3rd kid was middle class already, so no big slum-related story to tell there.
Reply

Maritsa promoted this comment solaana was starred solaana was unstarred

Maritsa
08/20/09

@earthgirl: I am pretty sure he is middle-class and never lived in the slums.
Reply

Edited by Maritsa at 08/20/09 1:10 PM Maritsa was starred Maritsa was unstarred

tell Dolly Parton again
08/20/09

In reply to Life After Slumdog
Everything was true, Ziyan Contractor? Including the scene where the kid wins a million dollars and magically escapes from the gangsters on his long-lost love's tail?
Reply

annebreal
08/20/09

In reply to Life After Slumdog
I appreciate that Slumdog was a well-executed, well-scripted and well-acted movie, but this is exactly why I couldn't enjoy it. It was entirely too real. Personally, I watch movies to be entertained, not stressed out and horrified the whole time (same reason I couldn't get into No Country for Old Men). Sure, it shed light on very real problems, but I'm not sure that's really Hollywood's job. At all.
Reply

CurtCole promoted this comment annebreal was starred annebreal was unstarred

CurtCole
08/20/09

@annebreal: I disagree, art has always functioned on some level as a commentary on cultural and social issues. It mirrors society; how can in not then critique it on some level.
Reply

CurtCole was starred CurtCole was unstarred

nyc-caribbean-ragazza
08/20/09

@annebreal:

Hollywood's "job" is to make a wide range of movies. Some will be entertaining and expose you to a new world and others will be just mindless fun.

Film is a powerful medium. The business is already knee deep in mindless fun. Thank god once in a blue moon there is a film like Slumdog or No Country.
Reply

Little Green Frog (Wise Latina) promoted this comment

MissSunshine4812
08/20/09

@CurtCole: Truly. We have a plethora of mindless entertainment on both the big and small screens. Why on earth would we not want (and desperately) some form of content with real meaning?

More art should comment on cultural and social issues. As long as it's executed well (and even only decently), it's often more satisfying than the vapid films and TV shows out there.
Reply

Lymed promoted this comment Edited by MissSunshine4812 at 08/20/09 1:02 PM MissSunshine4812 was starred MissSunshine4812 was unstarred

annebreal
08/20/09

@annebreal: Absolutely it's commentary on societal issues and society as a whole. But condensing some 20 years of history in 2 hours isn't going to educate or expose anyone very much. I'm not nearly as educated in Indian history as I should be, but throughout the movie I was thinking "holy shit, WHY are they chasing those kids with sticks?" and the like. If Slumdog's aim was to make us aware and understand the plight of India's poor, I don't think they really succeeded. If their aim was to take you on a complete emotional roller coaster with beautiful imagery, then they absolutely did. I think movies work under too many constraints to encapsulate complex social problems. There's exceptions, sure, where some movies managed to be that thought provoking (I personally don't think Slumdog got there), but by in large I think there's way better places to go for enlightenment and education than a theater seat.
Reply

annebreal was starred annebreal was unstarred

CurtCole
08/20/09

@annebreal: Oh, I totally agree that it was a problematic film, but one would hope that some members of the audience would leave with the thought, "Hey, I don't know shit about India...I'm going to educate myself." Sadly, this is probably not the norm, but one can hope. I took issue with how neatly everything was resolved in the end, how it became a feel good movie for the last five minutes, as the characters that the audience sympathized with most got themselves out of the slum. So, movie goers could rest easy on their ride home not having to worry about those cute little kids, and as Katy has shown us, that is clearly not realistic.
Reply

CurtCole was starred CurtCole was unstarred

Hooplehead
08/20/09

@annebreal: I don't agree with that. I think there is certainly a role for the cinema in raising social awareness and humanizing problems. How much press was the situation in Mumbai's slums getting before Slumdog? For better or for worse, the film has put these kids' plight onto the map for a lot of people. I think it's valid that you prefer entertaining movies over documentaries and cinema verite. No one is making you watch them. But I disagree that there's no place for these types of films just because they are not what you prefer to see.
Reply

Hooplehead was starred Hooplehead was unstarred

willwriteforfood
08/20/09

@annebreal: "by in large I think there's way better places to go for enlightenment and education than a theater seat."

Sure there are, but most people wouldn't seek them out. One of the advantages of cinema is its wide reach, because nearly everyone goes to the movies and just might be accidentally exposed to what's going on in the rest of life outside their own neighborhood. To that end, cinema does serve a function in teaching us things we didn't know. And if you didn't know why the police were chasing the slumdogs with sticks in the movie, you just might get interested enough afterward to find out.

By your reasoning, Hollywood shouldn't make movies like Hotel Rwanda or Rendition and just stick to making movies like GI Joe, and I don't agree. I'd be hard pressed to find it fun to watch Hotel Rwanda again, but you can't deny it certainly raised awareness of the brutality and murder going on in the country at that time.
Reply

willwriteforfood was starred willwriteforfood was unstarred

clevernamehere
08/20/09

@annebreal: I think it did show the plight of the poor, what it didn't show was why things were so bad.

Schindler's List basically did the same thing. Its about concentration camps but its doesn't go back through the Nurnberg Laws, the Beer Hall Putsch and World War I to show how it all happened.

I think most well done political films work on two levels- the entertainment level (or the gut wrenching pain level) and the socio-historical level (but only if you're pretty familiar with the history already). People who don't get the socio-historical level can decide to learn more after seeing the film.
Reply

clevernamehere was starred clevernamehere was unstarred

NefariousNewt
08/20/09

In reply to Life After Slumdog
"No one ever asked who I was or what I thought about anything."

And eventually, like so many child stars, her life may return to that, when the luster wears off and the movie is long forgotten.
Reply

NefariousNewt was starred NefariousNewt was unstarred

LindsayJoy's MBP is into S+M
08/18/09

In reply to R.I.P. Virginia Davis
Wow she was that pretty when she moved and all that jazz!
Reply

JennaW
08/18/09

In reply to R.I.P. Virginia Davis
Wow, she looks exactly like a John R Neill picture from the Oz books. Princess Ozma as I live and breathe!
Reply

JennaW was starred JennaW was unstarred

valleyval
08/18/09

In reply to R.I.P. Virginia Davis
My grandpa is going to be 90 next year and it makes me so sad that we are losing this wonderful generation of people. These are the people that were born in Depression, went to World War II, saw the invention of the television, saw a man walk on the moon, etc etc. Imagine all of the stories they could tell. People - talk to your grandparents and preserve these wonderful histories!
Reply

sympathyforthebasementcat promoted this comment valleyval was starred valleyval was unstarred

Zombie Ms. Skittles
08/18/09

In reply to R.I.P. Virginia Davis
Don't you kind of want to just snuggle her half to death in that picture?
Reply

randomnessish
08/18/09

In reply to R.I.P. Virginia Davis
Virginia Davis: the original Miley Cyrus? But as far as I know, she never flashed her knickers a la Britney Spears.
Reply

randomnessish was starred randomnessish was unstarred

goodcheapfun
04/05/09

In reply to The Trouble With Lindsay
Post-teens don't appear to have any dignity and self-respect. I wouldn't humiliate myself by talking trash about an ex (except to my friends, who know it's part of moving on). It makes a person look petty and ridiculous. Cue to you Lindsay.
Reply

goodcheapfun was starred goodcheapfun was unstarred

BAngieB
04/05/09

@goodcheapfun: What is a "post-teen"?

And there is no ugly talk about my pretty, pretty girl.
Reply

BAngieB was starred BAngieB was unstarred

opalmarie
04/05/09

In reply to The Trouble With Lindsay
A colleague worked with Lindsay's publicist Leslie Sloane for years during Lohan's crazy/cokey period. Apparently Lindsay came out at like 16, Dina freaked out and had her PR cranking out the slutty manwhore image and the faux boyfriends for the next four years. Lindsay was of course a miserable mess, became a raging cokehead and cutter. After the last round of rehab her career was so damaged she had no need to hide the Samantha thing. I feel for the girl and though she's made her mistakes she's had a lot more to deal with than the average 22 year old. She's still incredibly young, fairly talented, and will hopefully get her shit together and learn to accept herself eventually.
Reply

opalmarie was starred opalmarie was unstarred

BAngieB
04/05/09

@opalmarie: Such as.

My pretty, pretty girl is going to be just fine.

Reply

BAngieB was starred BAngieB was unstarred

Hooplehead
04/05/09

In reply to The Trouble With Lindsay
Interesting that her idol is Marilyn Monroe, a lovely, marginally talented actress known more for her substance abuse and her notoriety than her work. And possibly prescient, considering MM's untimely end. But I kind of feel like we haven't seen rock bottom from LL yet. If she actually is back on the drugs and borrowing fancy cars from porn producers, I have a sickening feeling about how ugly it's going to get for her before it's over.
Reply

Hooplehead was starred Hooplehead was unstarred

lalaland13
04/05/09

In reply to The Trouble With Lindsay
Last night there was a rerun of SNL from 2005 or 2006, maybe. The one where Amy Poehler brilliantly plays the ghost of Lindsay Future. She's hosting Night Passions on Cinemax and married to Tommy Lee. At the end, LiLo asks "Am I happy 30 years from now?" and Future LiLo says "30 years? I'm from the year 2007."

So prescient.
Reply

lalaland13 was starred lalaland13 was unstarred

Earlier discussions Other discussions Show all discussions Show featured discussions only Start a new discussion

SUBSCRIBE TO Jezebel

Login

Reset Password

Register

Submit Your Comment