list http://www.spout.com/ Recent community activity around Shine on Spout Copyright 2005-9 Spout, LLC Spout RSS http://www.spout.com/images/SpoutLogoRSS.jpg http://www.spout.com/ 136 30 http://www.spout.com/films/Shine/92718/default.aspx Title: Shine
Year: 1997
Director: Scott Hicks
Plot: The true story of a gifted Australian piano prodigy, this biographical drama was nominated for seven Oscars, with actor Geoffrey Rush winning for Best Actor. Rush stars as David Helfgott, a pianist with a history of mental problems. As a fragile boy genius at math, chess, and piano, David is driven hard by his overbearing father (Armin Mueller-Stahl), a tyrant who forbids him to accept a scholarship offered by the great violinist Isaac Stern. Although he studies briefly in London under tutor Cecil Parks (John Gielgud), David has a nervous breakdown after performing Rachmaninoff's daunting "Piano Concerto No. 3" (known as the "Rach 3"). Years later, the adult David keeps up a steady patter of nervous stammering at all times and has been reduced to playing in a bar. Through a friend, he meets astrologer Gillian (Lynn Redgrave), and falls in love with her. With Gillian's help, David embarks down the road to regained fame and mastery of the "Rach 3." The international popularity of Shine caused a sensation leading to a musical tour for Helfgott, whose performances were less adroit than many audiences expected, sparking criticism that writer-director Scott Hicks had exaggerated his subject's talent for dramatic purposes. ~ Karl Williams, All Movie Guide
Times Tagged: 12
Number of Lists: 12
Number of blog posts: 2
SpoutRating: 3
]]>Mon, 27 Jul 2009 19:47:57 GMTShine1997Scott HicksThe true story of a gifted Australian piano prodigy, this biographical drama was nominated for seven Oscars, with actor <a href="/players/P___151418/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Geoffrey Rush</a> winning for Best Actor. Rush stars as David Helfgott, a pianist with a history of mental problems. As a fragile boy genius at math, chess, and piano, David is driven hard by his overbearing father (<a href="/players/P____51163/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Armin Mueller-Stahl</a>), a tyrant who forbids him to accept a scholarship offered by the great violinist <a href="/players/P____68058/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Isaac Stern</a>. Although he studies briefly in London under tutor Cecil Parks (<a href="/players/P____26803/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>John Gielgud</a>), David has a nervous breakdown after performing Rachmaninoff's daunting "Piano Concerto No. 3" (known as the "Rach 3"). Years later, the adult David keeps up a steady patter of nervous stammering at all times and has been reduced to playing in a bar. Through a friend, he meets astrologer Gillian (<a href="/players/P____59204/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Lynn Redgrave</a>), and falls in love with her. With Gillian's help, David embarks down the road to regained fame and mastery of the "Rach 3." The international popularity of Shine caused a sensation leading to a musical tour for Helfgott, whose performances were less adroit than many audiences expected, sparking criticism that writer-director <a href="/players/P____94310/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Scott Hicks</a> had exaggerated his subject's talent for dramatic purposes. ~ Karl Williams, All Movie Guide12Tag Target (>10)1223http://www.spout.com/ProductImages/t00223uhtku.jpghttp://www.spout.com/films/Shine/92718/default.aspxFilm http://www.spout.com/blogs/spoutblog/archive/2009/1/14/39525.aspx Post By: SpoutBlog
Post To: SpoutBlog on spout.com
Post Date: 1/14/2009 2:01:32 PM
Body: Each day this week, Christopher Campbell will take a look back at a “classic” film that played the Sundance Film Festival. Today’s installment: Scott Hicks’ Shine (1996). 1996 was a monumental year for independent film. It began with a Sundance Film Festival that, according to Peter Biskind’s book Down and Dirty Pictures “would go down as Ten Days That Shook the Indie World,” because of the tremendous buying frenzy that occurred, including the infamous acquisition of The Spitfire Grill by Castle Rock for $10 million. The year then transpired with a slew of popular specialty titles that boosted business at many arthouse multiplexes while also exposing them as being unsuited for large crowds (the boom in indie film attendance was something I experienced first hand, having that year begun my first career at NYC’s Angelika Film Center). And the year ended (in 14-month Hollywood terms) with an unprecedented number of specialty films receiving nominations for Academy Awards. Most astonishing, certainly, was the fact that four of the five Oscar nominees for Best Picture were specialty titles, one of which had been discovered at Sundance. The film, Shine, might not have had a chance at such an honor, however, if Miramax and Harvey Weinstein had gotten their way. As much as the 1996 Sundance Film Festival was remarkable for its number of films sold, it was also noteworthy for producing negative stories, too. Before The Spitfire Grill opened to empty theaters that summer to become the greatest embarrassment of that year’s festival, Harvey Weinstein and Miramax had a particularly humiliating experience during the fest involving their unsuccessful bid for Shine. The full details of the story can be found in Down and Dirty Pictures, but basically Weinstein thought Miramax had picked up the film until he heard official word stating otherwise, that Shine had in fact been bought by Fine Line. The incident was defended as a miscommunication but treated by Weinstein as a boldface lie and resulted in a nasty fight between him and Shine producer Jonathan Taplin. Miramax’s Tony Safford, who ended up getting fired as a result, was hardly at fault, despite it being his task to seal the deal on the film. There was never any way that Miramax was going to get Shine, because its director, Scott Hicks, had had a bad experience with the distributor and had no intention of working with them. As Biskind puts it, “the Shine folks would rather have taken less money than go with Miramax.” And there was great reason why Shine was better off anywhere else but at Harvey’s house — well, besides the fact that Weinstein was known for being a jerk with scissors for hands. Miramax had the Oscar-bait epic The English Patient (not to mention fellow eventual Oscar nominees Sling Blade, Kolya, Ridicule, Emma, Marvin’s Room and Trainspotting), and although Shine likely would have still picked up at least a Best Actor nod (and win) for Geoffrey Rush, it probably wouldn’t have received all of its six other nominations, especially not the one for Best Picture, with Weinstein’s attention primarily on that other, more costly film. Of course, The English Patient won the top award and earned more than twice the box office gross of Shine. But the film’s reputation and esteem were still positively affected by the controversial sell to Fine Line over Miramax. And hopefully it taught subsequent Sundance filmmakers about the need to sell to the distributor that’ll give the best attention to the film, instead of the distributor that’ll pay the most. Below is a clip from Shine featuring Rush’s Oscar-winning portrayal of pianist David Helfgott. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog
]]>Wed, 14 Jan 2009 19:01:32 GMTSpoutBlogSpoutBlog on spout.com1/14/2009 2:01:32 PMEach day this week, Christopher Campbell will take a look back at a “classic” film that played the Sundance Film Festival. Today’s installment: Scott Hicks’ Shine (1996). 1996 was a monumental year for independent film. It began with a Sundance Film Festival that, according to Peter Biskind’s book Down and Dirty Pictures “would go down as Ten Days That Shook the Indie World,” because of the tremendous buying frenzy that occurred, including the infamous acquisition of The Spitfire Grill by Castle Rock for $10 million. The year then transpired with a slew of popular specialty titles that boosted business at many arthouse multiplexes while also exposing them as being unsuited for large crowds (the boom in indie film attendance was something I experienced first hand, having that year begun my first career at NYC’s Angelika Film Center). And the year ended (in 14-month Hollywood terms) with an unprecedented number of specialty films receiving nominations for Academy Awards. Most astonishing, certainly, was the fact that four of the five Oscar nominees for Best Picture were specialty titles, one of which had been discovered at Sundance. The film, Shine, might not have had a chance at such an honor, however, if Miramax and Harvey Weinstein had gotten their way. As much as the 1996 Sundance Film Festival was remarkable for its number of films sold, it was also noteworthy for producing negative stories, too. Before The Spitfire Grill opened to empty theaters that summer to become the greatest embarrassment of that year’s festival, Harvey Weinstein and Miramax had a particularly humiliating experience during the fest involving their unsuccessful bid for Shine. The full details of the story can be found in Down and Dirty Pictures, but basically Weinstein thought Miramax had picked up the film until he heard official word stating otherwise, that Shine had in fact been bought by Fine Line. The incident was defended as a miscommunication but treated by Weinstein as a boldface lie and resulted in a nasty fight between him and Shine producer Jonathan Taplin. Miramax’s Tony Safford, who ended up getting fired as a result, was hardly at fault, despite it being his task to seal the deal on the film. There was never any way that Miramax was going to get Shine, because its director, Scott Hicks, had had a bad experience with the distributor and had no intention of working with them. As Biskind puts it, “the Shine folks would rather have taken less money than go with Miramax.” And there was great reason why Shine was better off anywhere else but at Harvey’s house — well, besides the fact that Weinstein was known for being a jerk with scissors for hands. Miramax had the Oscar-bait epic The English Patient (not to mention fellow eventual Oscar nominees Sling Blade, Kolya, Ridicule, Emma, Marvin’s Room and Trainspotting), and although Shine likely would have still picked up at least a Best Actor nod (and win) for Geoffrey Rush, it probably wouldn’t have received all of its six other nominations, especially not the one for Best Picture, with Weinstein’s attention primarily on that other, more costly film. Of course, The English Patient won the top award and earned more than twice the box office gross of Shine. But the film’s reputation and esteem were still positively affected by the controversial sell to Fine Line over Miramax. And hopefully it taught subsequent Sundance filmmakers about the need to sell to the distributor that’ll give the best attention to the film, instead of the distributor that’ll pay the most. Below is a clip from Shine featuring Rush’s Oscar-winning portrayal of pianist David Helfgott. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog http://www.spout.com/blogs/spoutblog/archive/2008/12/1/37819.aspx Post By: SpoutBlog
Post To: SpoutBlog on spout.com
Post Date: 12/1/2008 7:00:29 PM
Body: Kate Winslet’s performance as a concentration camp guard in The Reader has been the subject of much debate over the past week, though little of the discussion has actually concerned her craft. The argument lies in whether or not this specific performance should be considered for the lead or supporting actress category. Furthermore, if Winslet ends up in the latter, will it be due to “category fraud?” That is not a legal term and this is not a legal issue, but it is an important topic for this year’s Oscars. The significance of the matter likely extends even to Winslet’s ability to sleep at night, as she may fear the high possibility of her becoming “the biggest loser among actresses in the history of the Academy Awards.” Category fraud may be defined as an attempt to deceive Academy voters into believing a lead performance is supporting, or vice versa. Examples of category fraud seen in Oscar’s past may include recent supporting nominations given to Ethan Hawke, Jennifer Connelly and Cate Blanchett (for Training Day, A Beautiful Mind and Notes on a Scandal, respectively). Guy Lodge at In Contention and Dave Karger at Entertainment Weekly have both brought up the accusation regarding The Reader, not only for Winslet’s part but also for the Weinstein Co.’s general campaign for the film, which is pushing for supporting nominations all around for Winslet, David Kross, Ralph Fiennes and Lena Olin. The problem for Lodge and Karger’s complaint is that category fraud can’t be applied to the supporting categories, because despite the Academy’s irritating penchant for category-defining rules for eligibility in other areas, there is really no precise distinction made regarding the separation of lead and supporting categories. This probably goes back to the origins of the supporting awards, which began in the mid-30s seemingly to appease the demands of non-A-list actors. Since that time, the supporting honors have often been considered secondary (for their first seven years, their winners were given a plaque rather than a statue) and, due to the constant recognition of children, comedic actors and other potentially fleeting talents, this pair of categories is sometimes seen as a joke. It’s hard to even imagine how exactly the Academy could define lead versus supporting, if it actually wanted to. Going by star status is difficult, of course, though marquee billing has occasionally been a factor when differentiating performances in an ensemble piece. It is this reasoning that has some people preferring Winslet’s Reader performance as lead, because she’s the film’s highest-billed name. And yet there have been certain times when a fifth-billed actor like Maximilian Schell can be nominated for and even win the lead award (for another Holocaust court drama, Judgment at Nuremberg). Another idea might be to focus on character status. The lead category should be reserved specifically for the main character or protagonist. In the event of an ensemble, though, there may be multiple protagonists. So, for instance, one of this year’s supporting actor hopefuls, Robert Downey Jr., would technically be better suited for lead contention (for Tropic Thunder). Also, there are cases where multiple actors portray the main character, such as in Shine, Iris and even The Reader. The only way to fairly make a distinction, then, is with performance length. It’s hard to believe the Academy didn’t decide this thirty years ago, except that they didn’t appear to care enough about the supporting honors to make the effort of timing each performance in every film made. Even to do this solely for those films expected to be Oscar contenders is an extraneously tiresome effort. But it would indeed solve a major issue concerning the awards. As far as I can tell, there is nowhere to find a complete list of Oscar nominees’ performance lengths. Beatrice Straight is known for holding the record for shortest Oscar-winning performance at 5 minutes, 40 seconds, in Network, but she and other short-timers like Judi Dench (Shakespeare in Love), Ruby Dee (American Gangster), Sylvia Miles (Midnight Cowboy) and Anthony Quinn (Lust for Life) were nominated in the supporting category. The more interesting questions are what supporting nominee gave the longest performance and what lead nominee gave the shortest. Anthony Hopkins is considered to have given the shortest Oscar-winning lead performance at about 16 minutes, in The Silence of the Lambs, and this fact goes to show that length isn’t a concern for Academy voters. Regardless of its importance to the race, though, where does Winslet’s performance in The Reader fall in terms of length? Steven Zeitchik at the Risky Biz Blog claims she only appears in roughly 50% of the film, which might seem incorrect if you’ve seen the film, because the actress’ performance does dominate the picture, enough to appear as if it’s longer. And that could be a problem with voters who might come away from the film remembering Winslet’s role as bigger. Adding heat to the fire, the International Press Academy just nominated Winslet for a Satellite Award for Best Actress – Motion Picture Drama for The Reader. While not a well-respected organization or award (as In Contention points out, the IPA has bizarrely nominated two obvious adapted works, Elegy and Benjamin Button, for Best Original Screenplay), this news could nevertheless prove problematic for the actress’ campaigns. If some Academy voters similarly think to put the actress in the lead category for The Reader while other voters conform to the studios’ wishes by picking her for lead actress for Revolutionary Road, the two performances could cancel each other out (Academy rules say that only one of her performances may receive a nomination in a single category). So, now the only solution may be for the actress herself to make the rounds with her peers and convince them of either a single performance to nominate (Lodge thinks she has a better shot this way) or a distinction between her two Oscar-worthy roles. Because as Winslet admitted to Vanity Fair, “you bet your fucking ass” she wants that Oscar, and with the Academy not caring which way it goes, it’s up to her to make it happen. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog
]]>Tue, 02 Dec 2008 00:00:29 GMTSpoutBlogSpoutBlog on spout.com12/1/2008 7:00:29 PMKate Winslet’s performance as a concentration camp guard in The Reader has been the subject of much debate over the past week, though little of the discussion has actually concerned her craft. The argument lies in whether or not this specific performance should be considered for the lead or supporting actress category. Furthermore, if Winslet ends up in the latter, will it be due to “category fraud?” That is not a legal term and this is not a legal issue, but it is an important topic for this year’s Oscars. The significance of the matter likely extends even to Winslet’s ability to sleep at night, as she may fear the high possibility of her becoming “the biggest loser among actresses in the history of the Academy Awards.” Category fraud may be defined as an attempt to deceive Academy voters into believing a lead performance is supporting, or vice versa. Examples of category fraud seen in Oscar’s past may include recent supporting nominations given to Ethan Hawke, Jennifer Connelly and Cate Blanchett (for Training Day, A Beautiful Mind and Notes on a Scandal, respectively). Guy Lodge at In Contention and Dave Karger at Entertainment Weekly have both brought up the accusation regarding The Reader, not only for Winslet’s part but also for the Weinstein Co.’s general campaign for the film, which is pushing for supporting nominations all around for Winslet, David Kross, Ralph Fiennes and Lena Olin. The problem for Lodge and Karger’s complaint is that category fraud can’t be applied to the supporting categories, because despite the Academy’s irritating penchant for category-defining rules for eligibility in other areas, there is really no precise distinction made regarding the separation of lead and supporting categories. This probably goes back to the origins of the supporting awards, which began in the mid-30s seemingly to appease the demands of non-A-list actors. Since that time, the supporting honors have often been considered secondary (for their first seven years, their winners were given a plaque rather than a statue) and, due to the constant recognition of children, comedic actors and other potentially fleeting talents, this pair of categories is sometimes seen as a joke. It’s hard to even imagine how exactly the Academy could define lead versus supporting, if it actually wanted to. Going by star status is difficult, of course, though marquee billing has occasionally been a factor when differentiating performances in an ensemble piece. It is this reasoning that has some people preferring Winslet’s Reader performance as lead, because she’s the film’s highest-billed name. And yet there have been certain times when a fifth-billed actor like Maximilian Schell can be nominated for and even win the lead award (for another Holocaust court drama, Judgment at Nuremberg). Another idea might be to focus on character status. The lead category should be reserved specifically for the main character or protagonist. In the event of an ensemble, though, there may be multiple protagonists. So, for instance, one of this year’s supporting actor hopefuls, Robert Downey Jr., would technically be better suited for lead contention (for Tropic Thunder). Also, there are cases where multiple actors portray the main character, such as in Shine, Iris and even The Reader. The only way to fairly make a distinction, then, is with performance length. It’s hard to believe the Academy didn’t decide this thirty years ago, except that they didn’t appear to care enough about the supporting honors to make the effort of timing each performance in every film made. Even to do this solely for those films expected to be Oscar contenders is an extraneously tiresome effort. But it would indeed solve a major issue concerning the awards. As far as I can tell, there is nowhere to find a complete list of Oscar nominees’ performance lengths. Beatrice Straight is known for holding the record for shortest Oscar-winning performance at 5 minutes, 40 seconds, in Network, but she and other short-timers like Judi Dench (Shakespeare in Love), Ruby Dee (American Gangster), Sylvia Miles (Midnight Cowboy) and Anthony Quinn (Lust for Life) were nominated in the supporting category. The more interesting questions are what supporting nominee gave the longest performance and what lead nominee gave the shortest. Anthony Hopkins is considered to have given the shortest Oscar-winning lead performance at about 16 minutes, in The Silence of the Lambs, and this fact goes to show that length isn’t a concern for Academy voters. Regardless of its importance to the race, though, where does Winslet’s performance in The Reader fall in terms of length? Steven Zeitchik at the Risky Biz Blog claims she only appears in roughly 50% of the film, which might seem incorrect if you’ve seen the film, because the actress’ performance does dominate the picture, enough to appear as if it’s longer. And that could be a problem with voters who might come away from the film remembering Winslet’s role as bigger. Adding heat to the fire, the International Press Academy just nominated Winslet for a Satellite Award for Best Actress – Motion Picture Drama for The Reader. While not a well-respected organization or award (as In Contention points out, the IPA has bizarrely nominated two obvious adapted works, Elegy and Benjamin Button, for Best Original Screenplay), this news could nevertheless prove problematic for the actress’ campaigns. If some Academy voters similarly think to put the actress in the lead category for The Reader while other voters conform to the studios’ wishes by picking her for lead actress for Revolutionary Road, the two performances could cancel each other out (Academy rules say that only one of her performances may receive a nomination in a single category). So, now the only solution may be for the actress herself to make the rounds with her peers and convince them of either a single performance to nominate (Lodge thinks she has a better shot this way) or a distinction between her two Oscar-worthy roles. Because as Winslet admitted to Vanity Fair, “you bet your fucking ass” she wants that Oscar, and with the Academy not caring which way it goes, it’s up to her to make it happen. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/inspiring/MemberTagFilms.aspxinspiring
Number of films tagged: 55

Number of people who tagged: 54

Number of times used: 84

]]>Tue, 24 Nov 2009 05:15:30 GMT555484Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/father/MemberTagFilms.aspxfather
Number of films tagged: 3580

Number of people who tagged: 51

Number of times used: 213

]]>Wed, 11 Nov 2009 20:51:56 GMT358051213Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/piano/MemberTagFilms.aspxpiano
Number of films tagged: 489

Number of people who tagged: 32

Number of times used: 52

]]>Fri, 20 Nov 2009 18:56:22 GMT4893252Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/holocaust/MemberTagFilms.aspxholocaust
Number of films tagged: 363

Number of people who tagged: 27

Number of times used: 42

]]>Tue, 30 Jun 2009 13:07:18 GMT3632742Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/survivor/MemberTagFilms.aspxsurvivor
Number of films tagged: 1969

Number of people who tagged: 16

Number of times used: 25

]]>Tue, 04 Aug 2009 13:05:14 GMT19691625Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/mentalinstitution/MemberTagFilms.aspxmentalinstitution
Number of films tagged: 321

Number of people who tagged: 11

Number of times used: 18

]]>Thu, 16 Jul 2009 13:02:27 GMT3211118Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/Best-Actor/MemberTagFilms.aspxBest-Actor
Number of films tagged: 78

Number of people who tagged: 9

Number of times used: 87

]]>Tue, 04 Nov 2008 05:35:20 GMT78987Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/mentalbreakdown/MemberTagFilms.aspxmentalbreakdown
Number of films tagged: 153

Number of people who tagged: 8

Number of times used: 12

]]>Thu, 16 Jul 2009 13:02:27 GMT153812Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/pianist/MemberTagFilms.aspxpianist
Number of films tagged: 409

Number of people who tagged: 8

Number of times used: 8

]]>Tue, 28 Apr 2009 13:07:10 GMT40988Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/prodigy/MemberTagFilms.aspxprodigy
Number of films tagged: 63

Number of people who tagged: 8

Number of times used: 10

]]>Thu, 03 Sep 2009 21:26:43 GMT63810Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/fivestar/MemberTagFilms.aspxfivestar
Number of films tagged: 94

Number of people who tagged: 5

Number of times used: 100

]]>Sat, 08 Sep 2007 03:28:23 GMT945100Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/noahtaylor/MemberTagFilms.aspxnoahtaylor
Number of films tagged: 12

Number of people who tagged: 1

Number of times used: 12

]]>Tue, 15 Aug 2006 23:19:58 GMT12112Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/shocktherapy/MemberTagFilms.aspxshocktherapy
Number of films tagged: 8

Number of people who tagged: 1

Number of times used: 1

]]>Thu, 06 Mar 2008 14:01:19 GMT811Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/sylvia/MemberTagFilms.aspxsylvia
Number of films tagged: 1

Number of people who tagged: 1

Number of times used: 1

]]>Fri, 15 Feb 2008 06:52:19 GMT111Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/concertpianist/MemberTagFilms.aspxconcertpianist
Number of films tagged: 82

Number of people who tagged: 0

Number of times used: 0

]]>Mon, 06 Apr 2009 13:03:13 GMT8200Tag