![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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).
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)
Hmm, is there a tag that indicates "very long quotes/text blocks, edition needed" or something? Medico80 ( talk) 21:44, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
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 Wikipedia: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)
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)
(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)
An anonymous editor inserted the following statement into the article:
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)
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)
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)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Shine (film). Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers. — cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 20:10, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 17:11, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
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)
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)