← Back to Reviews
in
Shine
I had never heard of David Helfgott let alone heard of this film. I often like to go in blind with my movies, but since my ears were deaf to who Geoffrey Rush was in fact portraying while playing, I might have made it more difficult for myself than needed be… IMDb didn’t help much either, sporting a general summery that did not mention the true circumstances of this story. I thought this was a fictional work, though when actually watching it, I began to feel like this story might not have blossomed from merely a fragment of imagination…
In fact, the film didn’t seem to blossom at all, since it sort of failed to lay out the seeds needed for the story and characters to grow and unfold naturally. Something about the first half of the film felt like a job halfway done. David, an individual of both literal and cinematic potential, didn’t quite get the set off needed to emphasize the setbacks that preceded the otherwise brilliant character acting by Geoffrey Rush. However, I did like how the film opened in medias res with David racing through the rain as this mysterious figure with disfigured speech, who has lost his way literally as well as in figure of speech. Unfortunately, the film quickly fell into the banality of biopic storytelling, which in my opinion even had a slight feel of departure from realism at times. I don’t know if it was deliberate, as a way to direct attention to David’s distressing situation and complicated mindset or if it was more a “product of its time” problem. It wasn’t exactly distracting, just peculiar at times...
The themes of a child being raised by a strict father in a poor environment and a story about being pushed towards perfection isn’t exactly cutting-edge, but it is of course common for talented individuals to have such childhood. Therefore, I wouldn’t necessarily say I have a problem with the themes of the plot, but rather the treatment and structure of them. Because while Armin Mueller-Stahl did a terrific job as the father being both proud and disappointed, angry and affected, torturing and tortured, his arc could have been written more nuanced. Even so, he was almost a central character of the story, which makes sense because of the strong bond and eventual break between the father and son that is indeed extremely important for the story, but still doesn’t quite justify a film that should focus the most on David Helfgott – and that rest of the cast also fell totally into the background didn’t exactly help the situation either.
I honestly feel like the film fast forwards through some very important areas of David’s life story and I didn’t really receive proper understanding of who he truly was or the exact circumstances about his illness. While Geoffrey Rush perfectly embodies David’s speech pattern and mannerisms, the way the film portrays his particular sickness seems more like the director trying to read musical notes rather than playing them. It quickly begins to feel like an encore rather than something from the core. If it wasn’t for Geoffrey Rush, I wouldn’t have connected nearly as much with David as I did. It feels as if the incomplete picture of his past never propels the character to a potent start and I’m left with a build-up that evaporates before it really gets going. And when Geoffrey Rush finally rushes in – brilliant as he is – he is left with barely anything to go on. It’s a shame, because there was an interesting angle present during his early years, as well as his time as a teenager, which could have created a much stronger fundament for the rest of the film.
Admittedly, some later elements do elevate themselves and pull you in because of its connection with the past, but I feel like the emotion could have been greater and more powerful with a more precise plotting of his life… because honestly, David Helfgott is a very interesting and inspiring individual, who despite his talents and immediate affection for music seemed to aspire to satisfy someone entirely different than himself… his father. David is the product of poor upbringing in a poor environment, who quickly comes to have people around him who are constantly trying to “enrich” his life, but never lets the child, teenager nor man have a saying in any of it. He is the product of a power struggle between a father, a musical teacher and David’s own inner demons, who all fight for just a fragment of his musical and mystical mind. David is pulled in countless directions by people who find an interest in him, but despite a very long detour – that contains both an attempt at detachment, an unplanned derailment and a climax that ends in apparent happiness and closure – it is most of all a tragic story lying beneath the beauty.
What is happiness truly for this man? What kind of life is meant for him? Music was on his mind, for good and for worse, but then mental illness hit him and threw him off course. But was music ever truly his passion and course of action or did it in fact lie with the father’s love for music and David’s love for his father and the attempt to make him proud? Was that his true and perhaps only drive? And even for the sudden success so late in his life, has he truly accomplished what he wanted? Is sudden musical acclaim the success of David as a person or David as a personification of a musical talent beyond compare? In the end, with his father gone and his mind more or less the same, who is he really playing for and who of importance are paying attention to what really matters? So as with David Helfgott, the film itself also seems to find its greatest success a little too late and personally I feel very conflicted about such a fascinating story fumbling around in formulaic territory, tiresome clichés and all too confident character framework for most of the movie, holding it back from ever truly lifting off the pages and well… shine.
+
I had never heard of David Helfgott let alone heard of this film. I often like to go in blind with my movies, but since my ears were deaf to who Geoffrey Rush was in fact portraying while playing, I might have made it more difficult for myself than needed be… IMDb didn’t help much either, sporting a general summery that did not mention the true circumstances of this story. I thought this was a fictional work, though when actually watching it, I began to feel like this story might not have blossomed from merely a fragment of imagination…
In fact, the film didn’t seem to blossom at all, since it sort of failed to lay out the seeds needed for the story and characters to grow and unfold naturally. Something about the first half of the film felt like a job halfway done. David, an individual of both literal and cinematic potential, didn’t quite get the set off needed to emphasize the setbacks that preceded the otherwise brilliant character acting by Geoffrey Rush. However, I did like how the film opened in medias res with David racing through the rain as this mysterious figure with disfigured speech, who has lost his way literally as well as in figure of speech. Unfortunately, the film quickly fell into the banality of biopic storytelling, which in my opinion even had a slight feel of departure from realism at times. I don’t know if it was deliberate, as a way to direct attention to David’s distressing situation and complicated mindset or if it was more a “product of its time” problem. It wasn’t exactly distracting, just peculiar at times...
The themes of a child being raised by a strict father in a poor environment and a story about being pushed towards perfection isn’t exactly cutting-edge, but it is of course common for talented individuals to have such childhood. Therefore, I wouldn’t necessarily say I have a problem with the themes of the plot, but rather the treatment and structure of them. Because while Armin Mueller-Stahl did a terrific job as the father being both proud and disappointed, angry and affected, torturing and tortured, his arc could have been written more nuanced. Even so, he was almost a central character of the story, which makes sense because of the strong bond and eventual break between the father and son that is indeed extremely important for the story, but still doesn’t quite justify a film that should focus the most on David Helfgott – and that rest of the cast also fell totally into the background didn’t exactly help the situation either.
I honestly feel like the film fast forwards through some very important areas of David’s life story and I didn’t really receive proper understanding of who he truly was or the exact circumstances about his illness. While Geoffrey Rush perfectly embodies David’s speech pattern and mannerisms, the way the film portrays his particular sickness seems more like the director trying to read musical notes rather than playing them. It quickly begins to feel like an encore rather than something from the core. If it wasn’t for Geoffrey Rush, I wouldn’t have connected nearly as much with David as I did. It feels as if the incomplete picture of his past never propels the character to a potent start and I’m left with a build-up that evaporates before it really gets going. And when Geoffrey Rush finally rushes in – brilliant as he is – he is left with barely anything to go on. It’s a shame, because there was an interesting angle present during his early years, as well as his time as a teenager, which could have created a much stronger fundament for the rest of the film.
Admittedly, some later elements do elevate themselves and pull you in because of its connection with the past, but I feel like the emotion could have been greater and more powerful with a more precise plotting of his life… because honestly, David Helfgott is a very interesting and inspiring individual, who despite his talents and immediate affection for music seemed to aspire to satisfy someone entirely different than himself… his father. David is the product of poor upbringing in a poor environment, who quickly comes to have people around him who are constantly trying to “enrich” his life, but never lets the child, teenager nor man have a saying in any of it. He is the product of a power struggle between a father, a musical teacher and David’s own inner demons, who all fight for just a fragment of his musical and mystical mind. David is pulled in countless directions by people who find an interest in him, but despite a very long detour – that contains both an attempt at detachment, an unplanned derailment and a climax that ends in apparent happiness and closure – it is most of all a tragic story lying beneath the beauty.
What is happiness truly for this man? What kind of life is meant for him? Music was on his mind, for good and for worse, but then mental illness hit him and threw him off course. But was music ever truly his passion and course of action or did it in fact lie with the father’s love for music and David’s love for his father and the attempt to make him proud? Was that his true and perhaps only drive? And even for the sudden success so late in his life, has he truly accomplished what he wanted? Is sudden musical acclaim the success of David as a person or David as a personification of a musical talent beyond compare? In the end, with his father gone and his mind more or less the same, who is he really playing for and who of importance are paying attention to what really matters? So as with David Helfgott, the film itself also seems to find its greatest success a little too late and personally I feel very conflicted about such a fascinating story fumbling around in formulaic territory, tiresome clichés and all too confident character framework for most of the movie, holding it back from ever truly lifting off the pages and well… shine.
+