Talk:Shine (film)

About the criticism section
The criticism section is all one sided. It is not objective in pointing out alternative views to the criticism. Furthermore, it is typical of movies to dramatize, but given, this might be all apparent to viewers. Either way, who cares what his sister and mother have said. The movie might be more from the perspective of David or the director's. I for one think it is someone's own choice to do what they will with schooling. Lots of kids are sent to boarding school or similar schools for forming careers. It is David's life, not his father's.

On the subject of David's music virtuosity, the argument from authority does not have firm ground. This is to say that the authority has not been established as good authority and the authority sources are not evident in the article.


 * Well, now the criticism section is thoroughly one-sided the other way. We have two very long rebuttals without knowing the initial criticism.   As to the question of good authority, the article is correct in saying that Dutton speaks for many critics.  As a matter of fact he speaks for ALL critics as you will not find a single review from a reputable critic that praises Helfgott's pianism (here's a typical review from the New York Times http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E05E2DD1230F935A35750C0A961958260&n).  I am a musician myself with music degrees and I don't know of anyone who thinks Helfgott is a remotely tolerable musician, let alone a great one.  He is regarded as the Paris Hilton of music -- famous, but not actually respected by peers for having talent.


 * I know this sounds very harsh. But listen to his recordings alongside one of the greats, and you'll hear that his performances are not only full of mistakes but are devoid of interpretation.  He struggles just to get through the piece.  Most first-year university students play better, but haven't had a movie made about them and so won't get recording contracts and concert bookings.  So people should know that this film mythologizes an emperor with no clothes.99.233.79.5 15:32, 29 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree. The anonymous editor who suggested "argument from authority" is simply wrong.. Firstly, it is not "from authority".. Dutton is cited merely to exemplify an overwhelmingly held viewpoint. Secondly, it is not an "argument" in the normal sense.. it is simply a notable criticism, not any kind of 'proof' of lack of virtuosity. Zargulon 10:02, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair use for sample of Piano Concerto no 3
A sample of the Piano Concerto no 3 is linked to from this page. However, I don't think that the fair use rationale is correct, given that Rachmaninoff and this precise recording are not associated with the movie (the fair use rationale would probably be stronger if the sample was actually taken from the movie, but nothing indicates that it is the case). Any opinion ? Schutz 22:09, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

"'Shine's irresponsible glamourisation of Helfgott's ability has attracted a new audience who are not deeply involved in the sound of Helfgott's playing, thereby drawing deserved public attention away from pianists who are more talented and disciplined.'"

So what? That's the music business. We can all think of musicians who have made a successful career despite limited talent, due to effective marketing, charisma, showmanship, "star quality", luck etc, and very talented musicians who scrape a living as music teachers.

Exile 08:29, 2 October 2006 (UTC)


 * True, but it's still a valid and notable criticism of "Shine".. What's your point, Exile? Zargulon 14:24, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

The Ashkenazy performance of Rachmaninoff should be retained, but a performance of it by Helfgott added, so that people can hear for themselves. Anyone who hears Helgott side-by-side with a reputable musician will immediately understand the criticisms. It's night and day. Helfgott's playing isn't just mediocre, it's embarrassing. So yes, it is "irresponsible glamourisation" - it's akin to portraying some amateur athlete or dancer as a respected superstar just because they have schizophrenia and a feel-good story. 74.99.213.103 19:43, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Trauma model
Goobergeffer removed my internal link about the Trauma model of mental disorders. I have a lot of work to do in the real world and I’m removing this page from my Watchlist. I hope, however, that if s/he or another editor removes the trauma link again s/he will state the reasons in this talk page. ―Cesar Tort 20:59, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Rush's Playing of Music
Does anyone have any evidence that Rush actually played the Rach 3? First of all, Rush is not playing Helfgott in the parts of the film involving the concerto. Second, the credits list Helfgott, not Rush, as the performer for the piano music. I'm thinking that in fact Rush was his own hand double, but that what we hear is actually Helfgott playing. Msridhar 03:59, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Getting credited as hand double hardly is the same thing as playing the piece itself. Playing The Rach 3 would require years and years years of training.  Being a hand double is the equivalent of lip-synching.  So this bit of trivia is a huge leap in logic.74.99.213.103 07:14, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I have removed the claim about Rush playing Rachmaninoff, and added the best citation I could find about Rush's playing. Msridhar 16:11, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * This is still highly dubious. To say that Rush "did all of the filmed piano playing" and he "learned to play the piano for this role" suggests that he's a capable pianist and it's his music on the soundtrack.  Untrue.  In the source cited, the interviewer is the one who claims Rush played at a high level.  Though Rush doesn't deny it, he only claims that he had a tutor and he wanted to be convincing.  Like any actor playing a musician, he took piano lessons and learned enough to fake playing.  Adrien Brody did it for The Pianist, Tom Hulce did it for Amadeus, even Russell Crowe took violin lessons for Master and Commander.  None of them would've been able to perform a concert of standard repertoire.  It's ironic that as the film thoroughly exaggerates the abilities of Helfgott, we are now exaggerating the abilities of the actor who played Helgott.74.99.213.103 22:59, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Feel free to edit as you see fit; I have no desire to exaggerate Rush's skills as a pianist. I found some more info here , stating that Rush learned piano as a child and picked it up again for the film, so what I've written should be corrected in some way.  Msridhar 00:51, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Real music that Helfgott played before his breakdown.
I went to a Rachmaninoff concert a couple of years ago and the program mentioned something about the fact that Helfgott didn't have a breakdown after playing Rach 3 but it was actually another Rachmaninoff's composition.

I'm looking for a reliable source on this but found nothing. Does anyone know about this? if true I think it is worth mentioning here. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 201.212.160.239 (talk) 05:20, 21 February 2007 (UTC).

Musical credits section
Hi, I think the Musical Credits section is too bulky but not sure how to downsize it or whether to remove it entirely. Zargulon 00:32, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Long quotes
Hmm, is there a tag that indicates "very long quotes/text blocks, edition needed" or something? Medico80 (talk) 21:44, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Shine ver1.jpg
Image:Shine ver1.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 05:40, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Criticism section too large
This article is dominated by its criticism section. This is a work of fiction and the events have been dramatized. Its not a documentary. See Braveheart. See A Beautiful Mind. See almost any Hollywood movie which is "based" on a true story. This article should be more about the film and less about the "inaccuracies". DavidRF (talk) 14:41, 25 February 2008 (UTC)


 * The criticisms are valid. The events portrayed are overwhelmingly one-sided and doubtful, and his musical reputation could not possibly be lower than it is.  The reason the sections are far too large is that the first section is mostly a rebuttal to the actual criticisms. The rebuttals should be trimmed or included as a citation only.  18:24, 21 June 2008 99.233.78.251 (talk)


 * But its *not* a documentary. They are going exaggerate things.  They are going to make him seem like he's better than he is.  That makes a better movie! The article reads like its written by a person who has a personal vendetta against the guy.  Like there's this high paranoia that people will walk out of the movie thinking he's as good as Rubinstein.  People don't think that.  Check his website. He's playing at restaurants as a novelty act, not in concert halls.  He's the Paul Potts of his generation. DavidRF (talk) 23:55, 21 June 2008 (UTC)


 * The difference though is that Braveheart and A Beautiful Mind are about historically notable people whose accomplishments stand on their own. Helgott's sole accomplishment is having a fictitious movie made about him that grossly misrepresents his ability.  If this movie hadn't been made, Helfgott would be a little-known personality with minimal talent and a sad story.  All of the major points of the movie - his "talent", his supposedly father-induced schizophrenia, the family's Holocaust history, etc. - are all fabrications.  Just about the only true thing in the movie is that he married an astrologer.  The exaggerations don't enhance the movie; they ARE the movie. 74.13.237.43 (talk) 02:37, 27 July 2008 (UTC)


 * And this is worse than leading viewers into believing that William Wallace was the father of Edward III? I think its worse when its important historical figures involved and not some random person that nobody cares about.  And yet Braveheart doesn't dominate the article like it does here.  Similarly, the Walk_the_line section is extensive but so is the rest of the article.  Can't we just tersely state that Shine is a highly fictionalized account of Helfgott's life, list the major differences and leave it at that? DavidRF (talk) 03:12, 27 July 2008 (UTC)


 * At least two of the three "major points of the movie" as listed above are misrepresentations of what's actually in the film; i can't speak to the first point of "talent" (his quotes), but the other two deserve some clarification. The dad doesn't claim to be a Holocaust survivor; he obliquely mentions the extended family (grandparents, aunts), presumably either still in Europe at the time of the story, or recently deceased. And regardless of the nature/nurture debate, the film makes no direct mention of how influential his upbringing was on his mental illness: no doctors or mental health professionals even talk about it. Fhue (talk) 05:26, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) I contributed to this page at the beginning, and I'd be happier if the two long quotes in the criticism section were removed and put in a reference. Other than that I think the criticism section is fine.. if editors are unhappy with how much space is devoted to criticism relative to the rest of the page, a better solution might be to expand the rest of the page! Zargulon (talk) 19:00, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

anon "correction" reverted...
An anonymous editor inserted the following statement into the article:


 * David has been "diagnosed" by many experts - always differently. Even if we accept Margaret's somewhat distasteful public diagnosis of "schizo-affective disorder" (which is itself only a polite term for schizophrenia)((***CORRECTION, schizoaffective disorder is really quite different from schizophrenia. Schizoaffective is the combination of schizophrenia and bipolar disorder. See "Schizoaffective, a Happier and Healthier Life", by Mary Dodds 2007))

I reverted it because it seemed a bit "colloquial"... its an "edit note" and if there is something to be fixed than it should simply be fixed and not left as a note. The odd thing is that its inside the quote. What should we do here?

That brings up another point which I've mentioned in a previous section. Do we really need such large quotes? The section on 'inaccuracies' is dominating the article. Can't we just say that the movie is not a documentary and that Helfgott's life story has been dramatized for the purposes of making a better movie? Similarly, I think its pretty well accepted that he's not really a world class pianist. His appeal as a pianist is linked almost entirely to his personal circumstances. This film is twelve years old now. There may have been some worry when this movie was in theaters that those unfamiliar with the repertoire might overrate him, but not anymore. DavidRF (talk) 04:52, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

More focus needed on the film
Over two thirds of this article is centred around the impact of Helfgott's sister and a negative appraisal of his musical ability. Shine is a defining landmark in Australian cinema, making the focus on contiguous issues overly disproportionate to the focus on social, media and critical response. This is punctuated by the hysteria (within Australia) surrounding the film's dramatic prowess and Geoffrey Rush's subsequent Oscar win after it was first released. Readers would be highly interested in uncovering a more apt representation of this impact, inclusive of a larger Awards and Critical Response section. An example of a more satisfactory film article can be found in The English Patient (film). Over the coming weeks I will be adding to this section, and refocusing attention away from Margaret Helfgott. This will be presented free of bias, and as such will include any consensus over positive and negative aspects of the film. Gamaur (talk) 06:13, 25 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Perhaps here is a compromise: edit the quoted letters to 3 or 4 lines, with a reference to the entire letters.  They both address the sister's objections directly and, to my eye, in a fair manner.  Especially the end of the second one:
 * "There are those who resent David's success, and those who missed the opportunity to get on the Shine bandwagon early. They may continue to come forward, but let us hope they come bearing facts - not half-understood grudges and third-rate fictions."
 * Then you might also quote 3 or 4 more lines from the sister's book. Simply including references to any of these sources  seems like its either vastly restricting the film's context or else dismissing it. Fhue (talk) 05:29, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

More about the criticism section
The "Shiners" have gotten a hold of this page. Shiners are folks so taken in by the story of the movie (which is a story and even the director now admits was dramatized, as it notes in tiny print in the end credits) that they overlook reality. The reality is, Helfgott was a schizophrenic and schizophrenics can be amazingly manipulative people.

His concert tours and CD sales are all to Shiners, not classical music fans. No real classical music critics have lauded his music on its own merits. In classical music, you're either good or you're not. There is no "Pretty good, for a crazy guy" award. Your abilities in this field stand on their own, not "in spite of your background". We don't handicap professional musicians like they are golfers.

The criticism section is now overwhelmed with rebuttals, taken directly from letters written by the film's participants (which may be a copyright violation). I've noticed on the Amazon site for he Margaret Helfgott book, apparently the same person has submitted "reviews" which include these letters verbatim. Real original thinking there.

The criticism of his music and the portrayal of his family in the movie are valid and should not be drowned out by these cut-and-paste rebuttals from Shiners. But a paragraph on each is all that is needed.

The "rebuttals" overlook one salient fact: There was little economic motivation for Margaret Helfgott to refute the portrayal of her Father in the movie, nor for the outcry from many family members and other people who knew the Helfgotts. (the sales of Margaret's book likely barely covered printing costs).

However, there is a whole "Shine" industry today that is predicated on the story in the movie - an industry that to this day books concert tours and sell CD's for the "Shine" faithful. Burst the "Shine" balloon, and it all comes apart.

I would suggest deleting the verbatim letters part. State the criticisms by Margaret and perhaps a paragraph rebuttal and leave it at that.

However, I suspect the Shiners will continue to hack this page, much like the Scientology page gets hacked. Shiners are not rational people, and no matter what evidence you offer, it makes no difference - David Helfgott is a God to them. You might as well try to convince teabaggers that President Obama wasn't born in Kenya.

The Shiners seemed obsessed with making David Helfgott into some sort of unsung genius, when in reality, he was just a child prodigy (which rarely turn into virtuosos later in life) who became a very disturbed young man who later played piano at a pub, until some publicist decided to dramatize his life story and try to make us all feel sorry for him.

I'd edit the page, but what's the point? Some Shiner will just re-edit it back. Perhaps Helfgott himself is polishing his image here. Perhaps, like the Scientology page, this page should be locked from edits, once some balance has been re-established.

Joe Patent (talk) 01:52, 17 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I essentially agree with the above and will edit the page accordingly. Zargulon (talk) 13:23, 17 February 2010 (UTC)


 * It is standard practice for abusers to deny performing the abuse. Sure his mother may not have had much financial reason to deny claims of abuse but finances are not the only reason she would do so (don't know much about the $ involved, don't really care)... REPUTATION.  The evidence is pretty strong that schizophrenia is primarily caused by environmental factors and not genetic ones. 209.115.153.68 (talk) 20:32, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Shine (film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110723234802/http://film.vic.gov.au/resources/documents/AA4_Aust_Box_office_report.pdf to http://film.vic.gov.au/resources/documents/AA4_Aust_Box_office_report.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 20:10, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Shine (film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1285/is_n12_v26/ai_19121799/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 17:11, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Bias?
The Criticism section says "As happens with biographical films, the movie has attracted reproach from critics who struggle with the difference between an exacting documentary as compared to a dramatized story of a historical person's life. The criticism about the differences between a word-for-word history of David Helfgott and a work of drama focus on two main grounds...". The wording of this intro seems heavily biased against critics. It's unreasonable to suggest that they "struggle with the difference" between genres, or that they expect a "word-for-word history." No such thing as a "word-for-word history" could exist. The criticisms are noteworthy and have some validity. If they're worth including, they're worth including in a balanced, neutral manner. Sadiemonster (talk) 16:39, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Historical accuracy
Hello all, I have summarised the extensive section on the family squabble over the historical accuracy of the film, retaining the essential points. I have cut most of the sub-section on the subject's playing ability because it is only one critic's opinion WP:UNDUE. Readers can click the link if they are interested in the details of the critic's complaint. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 06:31, 27 June 2023 (UTC)