Out of Tune (31 page)

But they do sound very similar to what Gillian relates in her book,
Love You to Bits and Pieces
: “By marrying David, I would not only confirm his trust in my commitment to him [but] make a gesture of validating him as
an individual wholly accepted and loved by at least one person on the planet.”

It doesn’t surprise me that the most hostile statements attributed to David in Gillian’s book are directed against Gillian’s
two main rivals for love in David’s life: Claire and my father. Claire is described as a “bitch.” As for my father, Gillian
quotes David saying: “Father’s just a hypocrite, he’s two-faced” and “Daddy didn’t have any contacts, he didn’t have any money,
he never had any money! But me, I’ve got money! I’ve got money!” He also talks of “Dad’s cruelty” and “rich Jews,” phrases
none of us had heard from him before Gillian came on the scene.

Some of the other things David has said about Dad in public are just vile. “My father castrated me,” he announced to one gathering.
Often, he’ll say something that is exactly the opposite of the truth. He’ll say: “Daddy wouldn’t let me play tennis!
Quelle dommage
! [What a pity],” when in fact the whole family can confirm that it was Dad who encouraged David to play tennis and David
who wasn’t interested. (Of course David never says anything horrible like this when he is speaking to me or his family.)

These words do actually come out of my brother’s mouth, but it seems that he may just be “following orders.” At a concert
in Perth in 1997 David announced that “Daddy was a bastard.” A shocked Leslie and Marie, who happened to be there, went up
to David and asked him why he said such a thing. He whispered to Leslie: “Because Gillian says so.”

It now also seems that David is forbidden from saying nice things about his family in public. When interviewed on
The South Bank Show
on British television on June 22, 1997, he told the presenter, Melvyn Bragg: “Margaret supports me. She came all the way
from Israel to see me last year,” and then he lowered his voice a little and said: “but Gillian doesn’t like me to say that.”

On the same program, after David said: “Daddy was cruel, Daddy was cruel,” Melvyn Bragg asked him: “But how was your daddy
cruel, David?” David was at a loss for words. He couldn’t answer him, because he knew in his heart that there was no truth
in what he was saying.

This denigration of my father and of the family as a whole coincides with Gillian’s own spectacular self-promotion. From 1986
onward, article after article stated that it was she alone “who restored his health.” At the same time, David’s reputation
was being hyped up. One article in Australia even said that not just Isaac Stern but Daniel Barenboim, too, had hailed him
as a genius. At the same time, Gillian became rather elusive about what was actually wrong with David. In a piece about Gillian
and David entitled “Cultivating a genius” in the May 24, 1986 edition of the
Western Mail
magazine, it was reported that “Gillian won’t let reporters pry into the cause of her husband’s mental breakdown. It’s too
complex to explain in an article without hurting people, but they were personal problems rather than professional problems,’
she said, denying that the pressure of his London studies caused the problem.” In direct contradiction to his doctors’ reports,
Gillian declared that David’s “health was not too good” during the period he was living at the lodge.

In her book, instead of giving credit to all the efforts his family have made for David over the years, Gillian lavishes praise
on people whom I have never heard of before. For example, she devotes several pages to someone called Nils Ruben, who Gillian
claims did a great deal for David’s career all over Denmark, and provided “precisely the type of musical interaction which
David had been longing for in Australia and which was so difficult to secure for him there.”

Gillian is attempting to ensure that David remains distanced from his family even in the event of her death. I am told that
in her will, she has left half of what she owns to David but it will be held in a trust to be administered by her children
from her first marriage. In other words, in the event that she dies first, her children will have more say in my brother’s
life than his own flesh and blood.

Above all,
Shine
portrays Gillian in an extremely positive light. When she met Scott Hicks, Gillian was already familiar with the world of
film. Her first husband, John Murray, is a film producer, her son Scott is a film director and her daughter, Sue, is Director
of Marketing for the Australian Film Commission. Hicks should surely have known better than to rely so heavily on Gillian,
who provided a version of events so utterly geared to promoting herself. Hicks’s other main source was David, who admits that
as far as his past is concerned he has what he refers to as a “fog in his head.”

In various interviews David has said: “It’s only a game, mostly a game; a great game, if you don’t weaken”; and: “I reckon
it’s a game, darling?”; and “You can do anything you like, is that right, darling? Up to a point, up to pun fun!” If this
is a game, it’s not a very funny one. Hicks should have checked out what David refers to as his “game” with others before
making a film and passing it off as a true version of events.

I am convinced that David’s game playing is motivated not by malice or cunning, but rather by his illness. When I compare
his condition during the period that the Reverend Fairman was supervising his medication to the way he is now, I wonder whether
he is receiving as effective a treatment as he was then. As I mentioned in the last chapter, I am very concerned that—to quote
News week (March 10, 1997)— “his meds [medications] are calibrated to keep him zippy enough to play.” In an extensive interview
with Gillian in the (London) Daily Mail, Jane Kelly writes about Gillian: “She had to take him [David] over. She cut him off
from his friends and family. All this was necessary to put him back on the road to performing. It was a hard slog. Gillian
gradually reduced his level of drugs…. ‘I’ve had to be firm with him and I’ve had to have control over him. But it has all
been worth it,’ she said. When she met him, he was thin, penniless … Now he is healthy, celebrated.” Although it is an appalling
concept, it can’t be ruled out that his medication is being deliberately adjusted so as to maintain his appeal as an eccentric.

Indeed, on ABC television’s “Nightline Friday Night Special” entitled
Encore
, and broadcast just before the Oscars, Gillian refers to David’s medication and says: “David could be somewhat different
to what he is if his medication was increased, but then what is the outcome of increasing the medication? I could be robbing
him of his ecstasy, of his fantasy, of his journey into his musical world. He would perhaps be less exhausting in some ways
to live with, but at what cost?”

There is no cure yet for schizophrenia, but antipsychotic medication can now greatly help in controlling many of its symptoms.
Studies show that about one-third of those with schizophrenia or schizophrenia-related illnesses suffer from delusions and
feelings of paranoia, often directed against a family member. But as three leading experts, John Thornton, Mary Seeman, and
Elizabeth Plummer, of the Clarke Institute of Psychiatry at the University of Toronto, have stressed: “Delusional statements
should be heard, considered and rejected firmly and without emotion.” Gillian appears to be doing exactly the opposite.

I believe that the horrible, untrue things that David has started saying in recent years not only hurt and defame others,
but also have an unhealthy effect on David himself. I believe that on a deeper level, he cannot feel at peace about what he
is saying; this is not the real David. During our family reunion in Perth in August 1996, Suzie threw a party at her home
to celebrate Louise’s birthday, and Gillian and David came. We all had a lot of fun, playing the piano, singing, and laughing.
Everyone avoided mentioning Shine. At one stage I said to David, “You have done very well, David. Dad would be very proud
of you.” And David said to me, “Oh Dad, Dad, yes he would have been so proud of me.” Tears came to his eyes. I could see he
was very moved by that thought.

Being placed in a defenseless position, in which he has almost no choice other than to utter misleading and untrue statements
in order to please others, must have a debilitating effect on his health. I honestly believe that if David were to utter the
truthful words “Daddy was kind, Daddy was good” (which he knows in his soul and heart to be the case), then not only his medical
state but also his piano playing would benefit enormously. Saying things that he doesn’t really mean creates a dichotomy inside
his psyche, which damages him generally, and makes his playing so fragmented.

It is my firm belief that in spite of the negative statements about my father that have been attributed to him in the press,
my brother loves my father now as he always has done. I love David dearly. He is sweet-natured, generous, and courageous and
I do not believe he really knows or means what he says.

L
ate one evening in December 1996, my brother Leslie called me in a panic from Perth. He had discovered that the Australian
Teachers of Media (ATOM) had prepared a
Shine Study Guide
on behalf of Ronin Films,
Shines
film distribution company in Australia.

Ronin Films had already started sending the guide to Australian high schools. It consists of a video of the film, the screenplay,
a copy of Gillian’s book
Love You to Bits and Pieces
, and detailed study sheets for teachers and pupils. There are questions for children to work on and “issues” for class discussion.
Individual sheets have headings such as “Personal Development and Health,” “Studies of Society and Environment,” and “Psychology.”
The guide was destined for students of English, health and human relations, psychology, sociology, media studies, music and
the arts.

When Leslie obtained a copy and saw what it contained, he was aghast. It was bad enough that the guide included
Love You to Bits and Pieces,
but when he read what was written on the study sheets, he was on the verge of tears. It was the realization of our worst
nightmare.

The
Shine Study Guide
announces that “
Shine
explores moral and psychological issues,” and the discussion questions imply that the characters in the film directly correspond
to the real-life ones. The idea that generations of school children were going to be encouraged to answer questions, write
synopses, and then hold class discussions on my father’s alleged behavior was abhorrent. Questions include “Are the other
children subject to Peter’s strict control?” Children are asked to “make a list of words and phrases to describe David’s father,”
and to discuss “David’s banishment from home” and how Gillian brought “stability and love into David’s chaotic life … [which]
helped him to come to terms with … his father and resolve the traumas of the past.” Some statements contain completely unwarranted
assertions. The “Society and Environment” section begins: “Peter seems to want to punish David for the fact that he hasn’t
suffered in his life …
Shine
shows us how one individual’s world breaks down when he comes into conflict with his own father … Brainstorm some of these
points in group discussion and share your point of view.” It then instructs pupils to “consider the differences in the attitudes
of Peter and Ben Rosen toward religion.”

Under the heading “Family Values” is the statement: “Peter was a Polish Jew; he and David’s mother had reared their children
in poverty, but maintained a rigorous set of values.” Points for discussion are then listed. “Was the family destroyed by
David’s departure?” is one.

The “Psychological Breakdown” section fails to mention mental illness at all or to say that David has a recognized psychotic
condition. Instead, in the style of Gillian and Scott Hicks’s press conferences and media interviews, the guide repeatedly
uses the word “eccentric” to describe my brother. It also talks about his “recovery.”

The “Psychology” section encourages discussion of “Freudian developmental theory.” It states: “This film is a tragic story
of a father-son relationship … David and his family were under the influence of a very dominant, authoritarian father… yet
it shows us how an indomitable spirit may recover from even the most devastating of psychological setbacks.” There are questions
on “authoritarian parenting styles.” “Make sure you are familiar with the characteristics of the stages of alarm, resistance,
and exhaustion,” exhorts the guide.

In the “Personal Development” section is the statement: “In David’s earlier childhood he is clearly controlled by his father.”
The guide asks why Peter was “so obsessed about winning?” Students are asked to “write or orally present a character profile
of Peter.” Katherine Pritchard’s quasimother role in the film does not go unremarked. Questions for the students include:
“What part does the character Katherine play in David’s life? Why does Peter decide that Katherine is not acceptable?”