HELFGOTT, David

Shine (1996)

Synopsis

David Helfgott (played as a child by Alex Rafalowicz) is a piano prodigy, growing up in Perth in the 1950s. His father Peter (Armin Mueller-Stahl) is a loving authoritarian, determined to keep his family together at all costs, a legacy perhaps of having lost family members during the Nazi Holocaust. In his teens, David (now played by Noah Taylor) is offered a scholarship to study in the US but his father forbids him to go. A few years later, David walks out on the family, to take a scholarship to the Royal College of Music in London, where he has a complete breakdown. He returns to Perth and spends years in psychiatric care and half-way houses. He is still estranged from his father, but he rediscovers his love of performing by playing piano in a restaurant. The restaurant owner (Sonia Todd) introduces him to one of her friends, an astrologer called Gillian (Lynn Redgrave), and a romance blossoms. Eventually, David returns to the concert hall, where he triumphs.

Curator’s notes

by Paul Byrnes

Shine is a universal story of great talent triumphing over great trauma, but it was controversial at the time of release because of a debate about what caused the trauma. The film appears to suggest that the father Peter, traumatised by the Second World War, damaged the son. One of David Helfgott’s sisters (see below) later claimed that this was not an accurate portrayal of her father. A different interpretation might also be drawn from the film – that David Helfgott’s illness was just that – an illness that had no external causes, but could be affected by stress. In any case, the film is less about the causes than the depiction of how David Helfgott survived and came to terms with his illness. That is what audiences around the world loved about Shine.

There are at least three great performances in the film, not just that of Geoffrey Rush (as the adult David). Armin Mueller-Stahl is superb as the father, a man whose capacity for love is as obvious as his inability to compromise or forgive. The third great performance is Noah Taylor’s as the adolescent David. In some ways this is the hardest role, because he has to take David from shy 14-year-old to the young man who touches greatness at the Royal College of Music, even as his mind is cracking wide-open. It’s the kind of eccentric role that Taylor has made his specialty, but he gives one of the best performances of what is now already a long career (see The Year My Voice Broke, made in 1987). Geoffrey Rush won almost every award possible in 1997, including the Oscar for best actor in a leading role. The performance made him an international star, with good reason. He makes Helfgott’s mania credible, without becoming self-conscious. He makes the character loveable, without making him pathetic. David’s intelligence is always visible through the fog of his word-plays, and Rush brings a further layer of credibility by playing the piano himself (although the soundtrack mostly uses Helfgott’s own playing). This was also the film that catapulted director Scott Hicks to an international career. He was nominated for an Oscar as best director, one of seven Oscar nominations for Shine. The others were for best film (Jane Scott), best original screenplay (Jan Sardi) and story (Scott Hicks), best supporting actor (Armin Mueller-Stahl), best original score (David Hirschfelder), best editing (Pip Karmel), and best actor (Rush).

The controversy over accuracy stems largely from a book written by David’s sister Margaret (Out of Tune – David Helfgott and the Myth of Shine), after the film’s success. She claimed the film was wildly inaccurate and demeaned her father, who died in 1975. Rather than a tyrant, he was a loving father and husband who was, if anything, too lenient with his wayward son. Scott Hicks wrote a letter to The Wall Street Journal in rebuttal, in which he said that other members of the family supported his depiction of Peter Helfgott and that he withheld far more serious accusations of abuse against the father, out of consideration for the family and the audience. Hicks said he stands by the research that informed the film: ‘I maintain that all of the actions of the character Peter Helfgott have their origins in real events’.

https://aso.gov.au/titles/features/shine/notes/

---

Title: The Book of David Author: Beverley Eley Publisher: Harper/Collins, 285pp, $14.95 Reviewer: Shira Sebban

THIS book often made me cringe with embarrassment at the washing of one family’s dirty linen in public. For in attempting to tell the story of Australian Jewish pianist David Helfgott, his biographer Beverley Eley is forced to find her way through a maze of often conflicting memories and beliefs held by Helfgott himself and by those who have known him. One Helfgott family member is often pitted against another, such as when Helfgott and his older sister Margaret — who has been elected spokesperson by the family — disagree as to whether their father told the truth (pp 80-81).

Acknowledging such difficulties, Eley tries to present and accommodate all views, often limiting her own involvement to posing questions and raising hypotheses. For example, she provides the reader with several possible explanations for Helfgott’s behaviour, before concluding that “I believe the answer is a combination of all these perhapses” (pp 10-11).

However, she also sometimes takes sides, condoning and condemning, while trying to explain what is perhaps unexplainable. Helfgott’s father Peter tends to be treated particularly harshly, arid is unable to defend himself, having died in 1975.

Eley displays some generosity towards him early on, dismissing as a “myth” the view that Peter was an “unyielding fanatic’’ whose influence made his son ‘different’, and pointing out that “apart from David’s comments … there is no hard evidence to support these claims”. She also states the rest of the Helfgott family’s view, namely, that “Peter was a loving and much-loved father and … David was born ‘different’’’ (p 12).

Yet, later on she writes: “Peter’s entrenched and authoritarian stance … would ultimately lead to the disintegration of his relationship with his ‘Prince’ (David)” (p 88). Blame is clearly being laid at Peter’s feet.

We will never know conclusively why Peter acted the way he did. Little is known of his early life, Eley resorting to a potted version of Polish, Russian and Palestinian history, in which she hypothesises as to the part Peter might have played (chapter 2). All we really have are the often differing opinions of his children and in laws.

As for his wife Rachel, other than her statement that “Peter contributed to increasing her self-esteem and helped her to regain her health” (p 31), her views are rarely mentioned. No explanation is given for this, other than to practically dismiss Rachel as “a woman who had accepted her husband’s direction as to what kind of apples she should buy” (p 231).

Although not a psychologist herself, Eley constantly subjects the reader to pop psychology and truisms in an attempt to explain the behaviour of Helfgott and his family. We are told that in a child, “talking and bladder or bowel control are determined by maturation and learning” (p 47), and that “for some, maturity comes with the years as easily as breathing” (p 192).

But for this approach to work, the book would have had to be written by a trained psychologist or psychiatrist, and preferably by a doctor who had treated Helfgott himself. This, of course, is impossible as it would have destroyed the confidential nature of the doctorpatient relationship.

The book was written in a hurry — and it shows. Eley may have known Helfgott for some time, but Helfgott’s wife Gillian only approached her to write the biography in late 1994. Eley did not agree to do so until July 1995, which means that she had to complete all the research and writing in less than a year, not giving her much time to reflect on and attempt to make sense of such a complex character.

The book would have benefited from more stringent editing. The author constantly jumps back and forth, repeating points just in case we’ve forgotten them. For instance, Margaret’s belief as to why her father didn’t let David study in America is repeated several times (pp 82-83, p 181, p 216). There are also some typographical errors (such as p 213 where the sister of Helfgott’s father is mistakenly referred to as his aunt).

Nevertheless, the book does have its strengths. Eley makes extensive use of Helfgott’s letters, enabling readers to hear his voice as a young man for themselves. She also traces his life in considerable detail, including his first frustrated attempts as a child to learn the piano, early successes and failures, four years of study in London, his return to Australia, many years of repeated depression and mental illness, his gradual recovery, marriage and return to the stage.

Eley clearly shows what a struggle life has been for David Helfgott. But perhaps his very fallibility and courage are what make him so liked by so many.

Australian Jewish News (Sydney, NSW : 1990 – 2008), Friday 23 August 1996, page 29

PLEASE allow me a comment on the film Shine.

The film is well produced and the acting is superb. The character of David Helfgott’s father, however, the late Peter Helfgott, has been horribly distorted and does him a great injustice.

After seeing the film, people seem to have the impression that David Helfgott’s breakdown was caused because his father placed too much pressure on David. Peter Helfgott was portrayed as having been too strict and overbearing. Those TV promotions for the film which I chanced to see, showed only the sequences which portrayed Peter Helfgott as a demon.

In a feature article printed in “The West Magazine” last year, Scott Hicks, the filmmaker, was quoted as saying — Shine is a dramatisation inspired by Helfgott’s life. It is not a documentary. It is a narrative, fictional, feature film.” If this were truly so, one would have to wonder why the filmmaker chose to use real names.

Please remember that it was Peter Helfgott who recognised his son’s talent and who made many sacrifices to enable David to develop his talent. Sadly history has shown that those blessed with great talent sometimes break down.

The filmmaker has offered an interpretation of David Helfgott’s life which lends dramatic appeal to the story, but the film portrayal has done untold damage to Peter Helfgott’s reputation. I just don’t know how such a great wrong can be redressed. Let us be mindful for the feel ings of Peter Helfgott’s widow, Rae Helfgott and her children and refrain from indulging in pop psychology. Let us not destroy Peter Helfgott’s Shern Tov, his good name.

Miriam London Menora, W A

A MAJOR concern with Ms Mar garet Helfgott’s campaign (AJN 22/11) against Shine is the way she talks about her brother David, as if he does not exist. David is indeed alive and well, and more than capable of making judgements about his own life and how it should be portrayed on film.

Shine, to a remarkably faithful degree, presents David’s perception of his childhood and his relationship with his father. Others might have different perceptions, but that in no way denies the reality of how David sees the events which played so important a part in his life.

Margaret is quoting medical sources about David’s mental history. And discussing very private and privileged matters without her brother’s permission. As well, Margaret’s reference to David’s “partial recovery” is not only ungracious but hardly the sort of supportive remark one would hope from a sister, who, like David, has had to endure many difficulties. Denial may be one way of coping, but it is not David’s and he should be supported in taking whatever healing path he chooses.

Gillian Helfgott

(David Helfgott’s wife) Bellingen, NSW

Australian Jewish News (Melbourne, Vic. : 1935 – 1999), Friday 29 November 1996, page 25

I WOULD like to reply to a letter from Gillian Helfgott (AJN 29/11/96) in which she objected to my quoting medical information regarding my brother David’s health. This seems strange considering that Gillian herself arranged for David to be interviewed by his psychiatrist, Dr Susanne Win on the Witness programme of August 6, 1996, with Gillian present, when the diagnostic details were presented publicly nationwide on television.

Secondly, I have no “campaign against David”, as claimed by Gillian. The film stands on its own merits as an excellent cinematographic work and crowd puller. This does not mean, however, that it is sacrosant regarding legitimate criticism. It depicts my father in a cruel and offensive way. My criticism is totally focused on the biased and inaccurate character depiction of Peter Helfgott who was, incidentally, not exclusively related to David, but to all those who treasured and loved Peter, including other children and his widow. Are our thoughts, hurts and distress of no consequence?

The pity is that this film could have been made without “speaking ill of the dead”, a strict tradition in Judaism.

Lastly, Gillian objects to David’s current state being referred to as “partial recovery” from his illness. Please God that his health will strengthen and increase until his recovery will be indeed complete. It is a great comfort to know that David is once again able to participate as fully in his beloved world of music.

Margaret Helfgott Israel

I SAW the film Shine on the Gold Coast with friends. I walked out of the theatre. The acting was very good, but the way the film portrayed Peter Helfgott was unforgiveable. I was a bridesmaid at the wedding of Rae and Peter Helfgott in Melbourne in 1944. Peter was a clever and gentle man and knew what was good for his children. He had a difficult time and friends let him down so he shifted to Perth. Times were very hard then for the family.

I am very sad at what this film has done to Peter’s reputation as a fine and kind man.

Miriam, Lemish Doncaster

This correspondence is now closed. The Editor

Australian Jewish News (Melbourne, Vic. : 1935 – 1999), Friday 24 January 1997, page 16