Out of Tune (22 page)

The Reverend Fairman also described how in 1984 he went with his wife to David and Gillian’s wedding. “At the wedding reception
I heard Gillian say to David It’s toilet time, David. Come along to the toilet.’ David never had to be told this when he lived
at the lodge. He never groped women as he does in
Shine
. He did not babble as he does now. He talked normally. In fact, he was charming and a gentleman.

“I admire and love David Helfgott very deeply,” he added, “and it is greatly distressing to see the words now coming out of
his mouth. I think if he realized the hurt that these untrue things he is saying to journalists are causing, he would be deeply
hurt himself.”

By 1997, the Reverend Fairman had had enough. He fired off several angry letters to newspaper editors. The one to the
Los Angeles Times
read as follows:

“Dear Sir,

My attention has been drawn to an article in your newspaper (March 24, 1997) by Mr. Scott Hicks. In seeking to defend himself,
sadly he forces me to defend myself and my work among the emotionally disturbed. In saying that Mr. David Helfgott lay on
the floor,’ ‘abandoned,’ ‘out of sight’ of those who now ‘profess’ such concern for him,Mr. Hicksbetraysameanstrategy, namely
throwing muck in a different direction.

These unkind accusations were compounded by Mr. Hicks in a television interview in which he added ‘sick and dying.’ Nothing
could be further from the truth. David came to my home, discharged from hospital and almost immediately enjoyed a fairly active
social life. In my home he taught piano, as he did also in the home of Mrs. Dot Croft. Daily he caught a train to work as
a book binding employee. Most evenings he was out attending functions, or actually performing at some concert …”

It is not only the Reverend Fairman who is distressed at the falsities Gillian has been feeding the media. Writing to the
editor-in-chief of The Australian Women’s Weekly on June 26, 1987, Dorothy Croft said:

“I wish to protest in the strongest possible terms about your scurrilous and inaccurate article. The content is sickening
to those who know the truth about this pianist’s life … I can’t believe that a reputable magazine could lower its standards
by printing such things … David was not ‘locked up in a “cell, deserted and alone.’ He had security, care, and love.”

Dot’s letter goes on to outline in great detail David’s concerts, friends, and social and sporting activities. “David’s life
did not begin again when he walked into Riccardo’s restaurant in 1983. This myth has been promulgated in a large number of
articles that have been written about David Helfgott and it is high time that it was shattered into a million little pieces.”
The publisher of The Australian Women’s Weekly, Richard Walsh, confirmed in reply to Dot’s letter that information for the
article had been supplied by Gillian and David.

Later Dot told me: “In all the years that I knew David, he never once said anything derogatory about his father. I was amazed
when I read newspaper interviews in which he said things like ‘Daddy was cruel.’ I wondered why in the world he was saying
these things, and I can’t believe that they can be his own thoughts.”

It’s clear that the myth-making originates (to a large extent at least) from Gillian, while at the same time she promotes
herself as David’s rescuer. For example, describing the period between his return from London in 1970 and his first meeting
with her in 1983, Gillian is quoted in The Herald newspaper on May 30, 1986, as saying: “Imagine him locked up in an institution
for twelve years. Sometimes they wouldn’t even let him play the piano. He suffered from severe loneliness with no one to ever
care about him.”

In
Shine
, David is referred to as “a stray dog,” as he wanders into “Moby’s” by himself in 1983. Had Scott Hicks done his research
(or spoken to me or Leslie or others), he would have come across positive reviews of David’s music such as the ones already
referred to dated November 10, 1980. Now, as a result of the film, endless newspaper articles have stated with apparent authority
that David didn’t perform in public between his return from London and 1983, when he came “under the watchful eye of his wife
Gillian.” The magazine New Idea carried an article along these lines on August 24, 1985, under the title “The Love That Reclaimed
a Lost Genius.”

I have found that once journalists become familiar with Gillian’s and
Shine
’s version, it is very difficult to persuade them to publish the truth. The myths become the facts. Before his marriage to
Gillian, it was a different story. For example, The West Australian (December 17, 1983) praised “His girlfriend Dorothy Croft.”
The National Times (January 6, 1984) stated that “the dramatic turnaround in Helfgott has been wrought by his girlfriend Dorothy
Croft… and his manager Chris Reynolds.”

The many long letters David wrote to me in Israel from 1975 to 1983, most of which I have kept (but to which Gillian holds
the copyright), also tell a different tale. They are without exception upbeat and positive, with dozens of references to attending
or playing in concerts, to lessons with Madame Carrard, and to auditions at the ABC and elsewhere. David mentions his concerts
with Leslie, playing cards with Leslie, and going out dancing with Mom. He writes with enthusiasm of his leisure activities,
of the tennis he played and the Chinese restaurant he ate in. He also refers sympathetically to his first wife Claire, and
to the “happy days” of his childhood. He praises life at the hostel. His letter of April 4, 1977, tells about the “good friends”
he had made. On May 23, 1978, he wrote: “The hostel is very nice and I have good friends there.”

Leslie, who visited David throughout this period, confirms all this: “During the time he spent at the Reverend Fairman’s lodges,
David was very happy. He had good food, a good bed, and a piano. He had his independence. The lodge was the best place for
David to be at that time. It was very positive for his mental health. It was really excellent therapy and his condition improved
no end.”

This is the accurate version of events before Gillian entered David’s life. The distortion of the truth as presented in
Shine
has done nothing but hurt a great many decent people. The only person who has benefited is Gillian.

W
hile I was on a visit to Perth in June 1986, my sister Suzie was contacted by a film director who was in town. He said he
was going to make a movie about David and the Helfgott family, and wanted to talk to us about it. When Suzie told me about
this, my initial reaction was to be cautious. I had no idea who Scott Hicks was, and I thought that a stranger wanting to
put our family in full view of the world might well result in an invasion of privacy. We were not, after all, public figures
and had not sought a life in the public eye.

Hicks said he had already spoken with Gillian and David, but they had not mentioned anything to us. I thought it would have
been more appropriate to ask us first. I was also a little wary because of the articles that had been appearing in the press
since David met Gillian, which had distorted David’s past. At the time I attributed these distortions to media exaggeration,
rather than to any kind of deliberate attempt to build myths around David. Still, Suzie and I decided that if a film was going
to be made, it would be better to cooperate and ensure that it was accurate.

Hicks said he had come up with the idea for the film after reading a newspaper report about David and then attending one of
his concerts. He interviewed Suzie and myself in his hotel. I told him about Dad’s life in Poland, the family background,
our childhood, and so on. I asked him what sort of movie he had in mind and whether it was meant to be a real life story or
a work of fiction, but he didn’t give me a clear answer.

We heard no more and after some time I assumed the project must have been dropped. Then, more than two years later, in August
1988, Leslie, Suzie, and Louise contacted me in Israel. They were very distressed. They said that some advance publicity for
the film had appeared out of the blue, and that it contained some very disturbing phrases in connection with my father, such
as “from patience to tyranny”; it also said that our family had “shunned” David on his return from London. I wrote to Hicks
straightaway, telling him that I was concerned about these statements. I told him that my father had been “a man of talent,
strength and conviction, with a capacity for great love” and that he “absolutely adored David.” I asked him not to “detract
from the truth,” and I said that I was worried that there might be negative repercussions for David’s fragile state of health
should his life story be handled in the wrong way. In addition I asked him if he could kindly show me a copy of the script.
Leslie also expressed his objections to Hicks.

I had heard that Gillian was involved in the film project and so on the same day I wrote to Hicks, I also wrote to her. I
told her how worried I was by the film’s promotional material. “I would feel so much more secure,’ I wrote, “if I could know
that you would not let anything appear in the film that might harm David, the other Helfgotts, or my father’s memory, something
that would be regretted later, and which may cause irrevocable damage to David.”

It was not until the following year—more than four months later—that Hicks replied to my letter. On January 6, 1989, he wrote
to dispel my fears. He said: “It is not my intention to be judgmental in the portrayal of Peter Helfgott … I would ask you
not to attach excessive importance to the wording you quote from the brochure as this is a very brief summary intended only
to attract interest in the idea, and conveys none of the balance of the approach.” He reassured me by saying that the more
communication there was among all of us, the greater the chance that the “true” story would be told. But despite his apparent
desire for closer ties, this was the only letter I ever received from him. Rereading it today, I realize that his interest
then had not been in “balancing the approach,” or in increased communication; he had wanted to soothe me and keep me quiet,
rather than to seriously consider my objections.

A few days later Gillian phoned to inform me that a journalist, Kirsty Cockburn, would be writing a book about David and our
family. When Kirsty called me the following week and told me she had been commissioned by Gillian, she was genuinely surprised
when I told her I had only just heard about it. She thought I had been involved in the project from the beginning. In retrospect,
I realize the plans for a book and a film were linked. It seems that in both cases the idea was to tell David’s life story
from Gillian’s point of view, to promote his career, and to portray herself as his savior.

I wrote to Gillian on January 22, 1989, saying that I did not think signing contracts for films and books without first talking
them over with the rest of the family, was the best way of going about things. At the time there were rumors in the family
that Gillian and David would get a 5 percent share of the profits of the film and apparently this had then been reduced to
21/2 percent, which had upset Gillian. Gillian wrote back to me on February 18, 1989, denying that contracts had been signed.
(I have no evidence whether they actually had or not.)

A great deal of correspondence then took place between myself and the family, and also between Gillian and myself. Leslie
said he was not opposed to a book or a film as long as it was a truthful account, and did not contain the kind of lies that
had been written about my father in the advance publicity. Leslie, Suzie, and I made legal inquiries, and discovered that
one cannot defame the dead, only the living. This came as a shock to me. It meant that anyone could make a film or write a
book about someone precious to you and say whatever they liked, and you could do nothing about it.

Some years passed and, to my great relief, I was told that the film was on hold because Hicks had failed to raise sufficient
finance. Then in December 1994, I received a letter from Gillian and David letting me know that the film would be going ahead.
(At that stage Gillian and I were still maintaining a regular and fairly amiable correspondence. In effect all David’s letters
since 1984 had been written by Gillian—he no longer wrote me letters of his own.)

Gillian told me that the film would be made with the backing of Pandora Films in Paris, the BBC in England, and the FFC in
Australia, and that actors had been cast. She wrote that the film’s main theme, apart from the music, would be David’s relationship
with my father. She also told me that at the end of the film there would be “a most moving and beautiful resolution of the
relationship with Peter.” She went on to say that David “feels very deeply that your father would be pleased about the film
and he also feels a great peace with Peter.” She mentioned that Leslie, Suzie, and Louise had raised some questions about
the film and expressed a wish to see the script. She had read the first version of the script and she told me that it would
not in her opinion “cause pain to anyone portrayed in it.” She added that Scott Hicks would be flying to Perth to “personally
share with the family his concepts and also discuss any matters the family want to share with him.”