# Amadeus



## Glaliraha

Today I rewatched *Amadeus* (1984), and it's still just as amazing as ever. Costumes and sets are amazing, performances are engaging, and the fictional storyline is compelling and fascinating. Good soundtrack too...

Any other *Amadeus* fans out there?


----------



## Boccherini

There's already a thread on that topic here.


----------



## Argus

It's okay. I think it would have been better if Steven Seagal had played the part of Mozart.


----------



## Earthling

There's no special effects, no explosions...


----------



## Aramis

And the ugly actress playing Mozart's wife has unnecessary nude scene.


----------



## Weston

It was okay, but I enjoyed Immortal Beloved a great deal more.


----------



## Rienzi

Yes! it's a great film. My favourite part was probably the scenes where he is conducting Don Giovanni, especially the crashing chords of the commendatore scene.


----------



## Wicked_one

I enjoyed the part when he was hearing the instruments while he was dictating the notes to Salieri and who could forget his laughter while at Prince Joseph?  ( I hope he's the correct prince).


----------



## Listener

This is the only classical music movie that I would consider good. I've seen quite a few others but they've all been disappointing.


----------



## SalieriIsInnocent

I love the movie, but I really can't watch the Director's cut. They edited out those scenes for a reason.


----------



## JMJ

**** movie, hated it.


----------



## Genoveva

I saw it a couple of years ago and thought it was a load of trash.


----------



## Listener

For those who don't like it, was it because of historical inacuracies? Do you think you would have liked the film more if it was about a fictional character?

I agree the film is better in the original version, but the director's cut does make a bit more sense.


----------



## Genoveva

Listener said:


> For those who don't like it, was it because of historical inacuracies? Do you think you would have liked the film more if it was about a fictional character?
> 
> I agree the film is better in the original version, but the director's cut does make a bit more sense.


Already knowing quite a bit about Mozart - his life, times, and achievements - I didn't find the film told me anything remotely new or interesting about the man. In fact I found the story line and characterisation all very trivial and puerile. I accept that some people may find it useful to acquire information about historical figures from watching movies but I prefer to read proper books written by acknowledged experts in the field. In the case of Mozart there's a lot of very useful material available. I guess I'm a bit old-fashioned in that respect.


----------



## jhar26

Glaliraha said:


> Today I rewatched *Amadeus* (1984), and it's still just as amazing as ever. Costumes and sets are amazing, performances are engaging, and the fictional storyline is compelling and fascinating. Good soundtrack too...
> 
> Any other *Amadeus* fans out there?


Yes, I like it. As others have said it's not an accurate portrayel of Mozart's life, but that wasn't the intention of the makers of this movie to begin with.


----------



## Ravellian

The first half of the movie is a great deal of fun, and it's wonderful to experience Vienna as it might have been in those days, including the opera houses. The second half really drags and is very dark, which may have been appropriate if any part of it was grounded in historical fact..


----------



## Aramis

> The second half really drags and is very dark, which may have been appropriate if any part of it was grounded in historical fact..


Who cares about facts, it's not biographical movie, it's not even movie about Mozart.


----------



## Genoveva

Aramis said:


> Who cares about facts, it's not biographical movie, it's not even movie about Mozart.


You are a barrel of laughs. Could you possibly make it down to Cape Town for my next birthday party. I'd love you to be there, to liven things up a bit.


----------



## Aramis

> You are a barrel of laughs. Could you possibly make it down to Cape Town for my next birthday party. I'd love you to be there, to liven things up a bit.


I could, but I generally don't hang with people who confuse serious statements with jokes.


----------



## Chi_townPhilly

I think the queasiness many of us feel concerning _Amadeus_ has a vague parallel in the attitudes of some of us when first exposed to the History Plays of Shakespeare. Don't get me wrong- I'm certainly not comparing _Amadeus_ to the Shakespeare plays in the realm of artistic achievement. My point is that some may appreciate either endeavor as an interestingly-told story with tension, drama, plot-twists, etc. in the same manner one would appreciate a good work of (complete) fiction.

Now, many of Shakespeare's history plays are well-told stories. However, they're also rife with Tudor hagiography... and the more one knows about _actual_ history, the more jarring the hagiography becomes. Yet, there are those whose knowledge of history is limited to what they read in Shakespeare. In earlier times, you could say that Shakespeare was a willing party in this, as exemplified by the device of the Narrator in _Henry V_ saying to the audience the Elizabethan equivalent of "we'll show you what really happened." As if.

In the same manner, there's a multitude of people whose knowledge of the Mozart biography is limited to what they saw on the screen in _Amadeus_... and it may be unfair to lay the blame for this completely at the feet of the movie, but it's still a frightening state of affairs. Also (as above), I guess the more one knows about the (real) Mozart biography, the greater the chance of general unease in this matter. I don't know much about it- but know enough to know that the villanous depiction of Salieri is a complete fiction. Furthermore, the way the movie lays the blame for extravagant income outflows completely at the feet of Mozart's wife is a case of selective prosecution, since there's evidence to suggest that Mozart was a reckless gambler- perhaps to the point of addiction.

I can only imagine the unease of someone who's actually made a proper attempt at educating himself concerning the relevant history involved...


----------



## Genoveva

Chi_townPhilly said:


> I can only imagine the unease of someone who's actually made a proper attempt at educating himself concerning the relevant history involved...


That's a fair assessment of the way I feel about it. I knew quite a lot about the real Mozart but wasn't too familiar with the content/background of the movie "Amadeus" before seeing it. Maybe if I had been more familiar with the movie I would have been less appalled by what seemed to me to be completely ridiculous character assassination of both Mozart, Salieri and members of Mozart's family.

Even now I that I know more about the movie, and where it was coming from in terms of the play on which it was based, I still find it very silly. I wouldn't want to see it again as I have uncomfortable memories of a complete jerk supposedly being the creator of such magnificent music. These two facts seemed so astonishingly incongruous that I find it difficult to see how anyone could believe any of the storyline. I suppose they're not much different from the ignoramuses who reckon Moses probably looked like Charlton Heston.


----------



## Poppin' Fresh

Chi_townPhilly said:


> I can only imagine the unease of someone who's actually made a proper attempt at educating himself concerning the relevant history involved...


I can imagine it, but I disagree with that as having any relevance on the merits of the film. Like you said, Shakespeare is shaky and unreliable as history but illuminating and penetrating as drama, so outside of a few history buffs who have no appreciation for the theater you rarely ever see or hear of Shakespeare being criticized for it's historical inaccuracies. And when his plays are criticized for that those criticisms are rightly dismissed as superfluous. In the same way _Amadeus_ is totally unreliable as a biography of Mozart and yet, at least in my opinion, a complete blast of a movie. The story is creative and engaging, the acting performances are wonderful, and it transcends any need for knowledge of Mozart's actual life or love for his music. It's a movie that anyone can respond to, and obviously many non-classical fans do, because it deals with larger themes and ideas. It succeeds as a _movie_. Of course that's for everyone to decide for themselves, but I reject the notion that it fails as a movie because it didn't depict this or that character or historical aspect accurately.


----------



## Genoveva

Poppin' Fresh said:


> I can imagine it, but I disagree with that as having any relevance on the merits of the film. Like you said, Shakespeare is shaky and unreliable as history but illuminating and penetrating as drama, so outside of a few history buffs who have no appreciation for the theater you rarely ever see or hear of Shakespeare being criticized for it's historical inaccuracies. And when his plays are those criticisms are rightly dismissed as superfluous. In the same way _Amadeus_ is totally unreliable as a biography of Mozart and yet, at least in my opinion, a complete blast of a movie. The story is creative and engaging, the acting performances are wonderful, and it transcends any need for knowledge of Mozart's actual life or love for his music. It's a movie that anyone can respond to, and obviously many non-classical fans do, because it deals with larger themes and ideas. It succeeds as a _movie_. Of course that's for everyone to decide for themselves, but I reject the notion that it fails as a movie it didn't depict this or that character or historical aspect accurately.


So you can't see any problem in making a movie about a famous historical character (composer or whatever) and portraying them as as a complete buffoon. Really?


----------



## Poppin' Fresh

Genoveva said:


> So you can't see any problem in making a movie about a famous historical character (composer or whatever) and portraying them as as a complete buffoon. Really?


Really. It's a fictional tale based loosely on the life and times of Mozart. I'm not going to judge the film on the ignorance of others who take it to be historical fact. Besides, I don't believe the film simply paints him as a buffoon. It's an over-the-top caricature of the real Mozart who was probably a bit...immature in some respects, sure. But it's not like the main thrust of the film is to say "Look what an idiot Mozart was, hahaha!".


----------



## Genoveva

Poppin' Fresh said:


> Really. It's a fictional tale based loosely on the life and times of Mozart. I'm not going to judge the film on the ignorance of others who take it to be historical fact. Besides, I don't believe the film simply paints him as a buffoon. It's an over-the-top caricature of the real Mozart who was probably a bit...immature in some respects, sure. But it's not like the main thrust of the film is to say "Look what an idiot Mozart was, hahaha!".


I disagree. I guess I'm not easily impressed by OTT make-believe scenarios about historical characters, whoever they may be. This applies particularly where the said characters are painted in a bad light with little or no historical accuracy. If others enjoy this kind of frivolity then it's not for me to criticise their tastes.


----------



## Chris

I bought the DVD for the kids but when I discovered 'Mozart' opens his account with a lot of scatalogical talk I took it off them.


----------



## Chi_townPhilly

Poppin' Fresh said:


> Like you said, Shakespeare is shaky and unreliable as history but illuminating and penetrating as drama, so outside of a few history buffs who have no appreciation for the theater you rarely ever see or hear of Shakespeare being criticized for its historical inaccuracies.


All righty, then... let me ask _this_ question---

On a scale of 0-5, with 0 being "utterly irrelevant" and 5 being "absolutely seminal," how important do you think is a basic working knowledge of pre-Renaissance and Renaissance-era British History to the _understanding_ of the Shakespeare History Plays??


----------



## Poppin' Fresh

0. I don't believe appreciation of a work of art is ever dependent on knowledge of the history (or whatever the source) of the material the work of art is based around.


----------



## Chi_townPhilly

Poppin' Fresh said:


> 0. I don't believe appreciation of a work of art is ever dependent on knowledge of the history (or whatever the source) of the material the work of art is based around.


At the risk of sounding pedantic- I need to make this distinction....

I didn't ask about the extent of one's knowledge of the relevant history and its impact on one's _appreciation_, I asked about its impact on one's _*understanding*_. They aren't synonymous, y'know. I'm sure I can _appreciate_ a lot of works- perhaps with the surface-appreciation of the recent convert... but that doesn't necessarily mean I have any kind of well-grounded understanding of them.

Now that I've highlighted this distinction, are you willing to reconsider your answer??


----------



## Poppin' Fresh

I guess I'm not quite sure what you are getting at. Art is there to be _experienced_, to provoke an "emotional" response, to be appreciated aesthetically. That's all the understanding necessary.

If you're talking about understanding the themes of the plays, the questions they raise, the philosophies they propound, etc., I think that the understanding of many of those is largely intuitive; but even if one were to deeply analyze the plays in that manner I don't think having a knowledge of the history of the actual Julius Caesar or Richard III is necessary at all. One would be looking at how the _characters_ in the plays acted and related to each other after all, not how the historical figures acted.

If you're talking about understanding the inner-workings of Shakespeare's historical plays, how he twisted the source material to meet his needs and so forth, than obviously the answer is 5. And one would need to know a lot more than just the history he used.


----------



## Elgarian

Poppin' Fresh said:


> It's a fictional tale based loosely on the life and times of Mozart.


I'm with you on this. I think of it as a Mozart-flavoured movie, and I love it. It absolutely mustn't be approached as real biography, or as historically accurate, but the music underpins the fiction and somehow (for me, if not for others) the final result has an artistic validity that I find irresistible. One could argue that they might as well have used a fictional composer - but then we wouldn't have had the music. One has to take it as it is, or leave it, I think. I bet a very large number of people have gained access to Mozart's music through this movie.


----------



## Genoveva

Those members of Talk Classical who believe in fairy stories about the lives of famous composers may be pleased to hear that I'm currently working on a major dramatic spectacle about the life of W A Mozart.

The central theme will be about how Wolfie became a good drinking partner of "Papa" Haydn, both of whom then successfully conned their way into history by an elaborate scam to conceal their joint musical incompetence by pretending to be the authors of great music when in fact it was all down to the efforts of a raft of ghost composers, whose reputations have suffered to this day in consequence. I got the basic of the idea from some earlier threads I spotted in this Board

I'm still working on the fine detail but here's a quick preview of the main themes. The story begins with the Archbishop of Saltzburg in bed with one of his many concubines snorting a fix of crack cocaine, whilst ordering his grovelling servant, Leopold Mozart, to whistle up a new "Mass" to celebrate the forthcoming coronation of the new Emperor.

Leopold then say's to himself "_Crikey, how am I going to do that with?_", knowing himself and all of his entourage to be completely incapable of writing anything beyond a simple ditty.

The scene then switches to the Mozart household with Leopold's wife involved in a highly scatological discussion with her son Wolfie who cannot control his bowel movements even at the age of 18.

Leopold turns up in the middle of all this commotion and asks his wife to help him find some suitable composer to write this Mass. A very worried and mumbling discussion takes place and they finally come up with the idea of promoting young Wolfie for this role, even though hitherto he hadn't composed anything remotely artistic. As the storyline unfolds later it becomes evident that the objectives of this strategy are to make money in order to repay Leopold's huge gambling debts, to win longer term kudos for the Mozart family name, and to enable Leopold's wife to get our her money-losing brothel business.

The story line then switches to Papa Haydn, who has been having a secret affair with Leopold's wife. They are both seen bonking away like a couple of rabbits in a field near Eisenstadt. As the price for her ongoing favours in this area he then asks Papa Haydn if he could kindly fix her up with a Mass to pass of as Wolfe's first venture into this genre. He then confesses that he can't even read music let alone write it, and that his current reputation is all down to a huge misunderstanding. He had in fact been using a number of paid ghost music composers to keep him out of trouble with his employer. Some furtive discussion then follows and they cook up a plot to perpetuate the deception by cutting in Wolfie.

The story line after gets quite involved as the four of them (Leopold, Leopold's wife, Wolfie, and Papa Haydn) have to duck and weave to avoid being caught. Wolfie and Papa become great buddies, and there are several scenes with the two of them engaged in debauchery with members of the opposite sex, and the telling of many raunchy jokes.

A crucial new figure in the plot as it unfolds is Salieri who is the Archbishop's Chief Wine Taster (in case of poisoning). By this time, Wolfie had been taken into the employ of the Archbishop as a junior musician, having just passed his Grade 1 recorder exam. Salieri begins to smell a rat when he chances upon young Wolfie gazing in utter confusion at a musical score that he (Salieri) had noticed turned up by special delivery by DFS one day, marked "Mass, open with care, to be opened by WAM only".

I bet you are all excited at this stage. Fear not, the story gets even more convoluted. Papa Haydn is caught red-handed one day frolicking with Fraulein Mozart, and becomes the victim of blackmail. He tries to recruit a hitman to nail the blackmailer, but the plot misfires and in desperation he decides to clear off to London where he hopes he can start afresh. However, no such luck as the Spanish Inquisition gets involved trying to rescue the Church's reputation. Meanwhile, Leopold suffers a severe groinal injury following a big fight with Salieri, and Mrs Mozart becomes almost suicidal. As a last ditch attempt to keep the show on the road, and avoid discovery, she decides to curry favour with Salieri. He's having none of and calls in the State Police to investigate bribery and corruption.

For the conclusion to all this you'll just have to wait a bit longer. I'm pretty sure all you music lovers will like the story, as it's factually based and subject only minor tweaks for dramatic effect. There's lots of pretty music too by these composers (or at least allegedly so, nudge/wink), which I hope will keep existing fans of these composers entertained and encourage new ones to join in.


----------



## Elgarian

Genoveva said:


> Those members of Talk Classical who believe in fairy stories about the lives of famous composers


If the posts in this thread are representative, this is the empty set.

I don't think anyone here regards the movie as anything but Mozart-flavoured fiction - and from there on it's just a matter of personal taste whether one is entertained by it or not.


----------



## Chi_townPhilly

Poppin' Fresh said:


> I guess I'm not quite sure what you are getting at.


That's fair... I spent some time trying to clarify your position with some selective inquiry-- 
it's time for me to clarify my position.

[Sticking with the example of the British-based Shakespeare History Plays, for the sake of consistency, but also at the risk of a little digression] I think it's pretty important (at least 3-4 on that 0-5 scale I mentioned earlier) to have a decent grounding in the relevant history involved. Where the events as presented on the stage differ from the known actual events, we get insights concerning the creator's conceptual intent. I believe that additional knowledge of this conceptual intent aids in our understanding of the works.

Of course, as pointed out before, they can be approached as total fiction, and we can find interesting Art in them, anyway. However, I don't think that's the way they should be approached, and (which is more) I don't think _Shakespeare_ thought that's the way they should be approached.


----------



## Genoveva

Elgarian said:


> If the posts in this thread are representative, this is the empty set.
> 
> I don't think anyone here regards the movie as anything but Mozart-flavoured fiction - and from there on it's just a matter of personal taste whether one is entertained by it or not.


Oh very well, I won't argue with you. If you like you can substitute "people who like Mozart-flavoured movies with a good dollop of make-believe" for "people who believe in fairy stories". I reckon the set will then become far from null.


----------



## Genoveva

Chi_townPhilly said:


> That's fair... I spent some time trying to clarify your position with some selective inquiry--
> it's time for me to clarify my position.
> 
> [Sticking with the example of the British-based Shakespeare History Plays, for the sake of consistency, but also at the risk of a little digression] I think it's pretty important (at least 3-4 on that 0-5 scale I mentioned earlier) to have a decent grounding in the relevant history involved. Where the events as presented on the stage differ from the known actual events, we get insights concerning the creator's conceptual intent. I believe that additional knowledge of this conceptual intent aids in our understanding of the works.
> 
> Of course, as pointed out before, they can be approached as total fiction, and we can find interesting Art in them, anyway. However, I don't think that's the way they should be approached, and (which is more) I don't think _Shakespeare_ thought that's the way they should be approached.


I wish I could work out quite what you are driving at, only I have quite definitely lost the plot here.


----------



## Elgarian

Chi_townPhilly said:


> Where the events as presented on the stage differ from the known actual events, we get insights concerning the creator's conceptual intent. I believe that additional knowledge of this conceptual intent aids in our understanding of the works.


I think that's undeniably true, but I'm not entirely sure that the level of importance attached to it is a universal. This issue is something that we encounter again and again in different (but related) contexts, isn't it - particularly in opera? How much do we need to know about the historical Julius Caesar to enjoy Handel's _Giulio Cesare_? How much does one need to know about the Persephone myth to fully engage with Lully's _Proserpine_ (and does it matter if we discover that Arethusa gets more than the bit part we'd expect?)

I suspect this is an observer-driven issue, rather than something that can be decided for universal consumption. We all come to _Amadeus_, or _Giulio_, or _Proserpine_ with different expectations, and take away different things. Anyone who tackles _Amadeus_ worrying about historical accuracy is going to be deeply and irretrievably dissatisfied with it (like our friend Genoveva); those approaching it knowingly as Mozartian fantasy won't be troubled. And the blissfully ignorant may actually get more from it than anyone else!


----------



## LindenLea

Can't find a single fault with 'Amadeus' as pure unbridled entertainment, and anyone objecting on 'historical accuracy' grounds has missed the point - and presumably likewise they hate the 'Lord of the Rings' films because there's no such thing as an ork or an elf!!! Best thing about it was Neville Marriner's ASMF soundtrack, IMO never bettered in 'modern instrument' Mozart recordings.


----------



## Chi_townPhilly

Elgarian said:


> I think that's undeniably true, but I'm not entirely sure that the level of importance attached to it is a universal.


Yes- no doubt it's not 'a universal.' For that reason, that's why I limited my original question to the British-based Shakespeare History Plays. I don't think the same amount of (for lack of a better way of putting it) minimum historical knowledge is boonful for different historically-based works. My thumbnail first impression is- the greater the amount of obvious 'make-believe' (to use Gen's term), the less historical knowledge one needs.


Elgarian said:


> How much do we need to know about the historical Julius Caesar to enjoy Handel's _Giulio Cesare_?


This is a variant of a point 'Poppin' made earlier- and I'll repeat what I said before- I'm not talking about "appreciation," I'm not talking about "enjoyment," I'm talking about _understanding_.


LindenLea said:


> ...anyone objecting on 'historical accuracy' grounds has missed the point - and presumably likewise they hate the 'Lord of the Rings' films because there's no such thing as an orc or an elf!!!


This is straw in the shape of apples & oranges. An attempt to say that the presentation of an historical figure in a way that isn't merely unhistorical but distortive of the essence of that figure (right now, I'm thinking more John of Gaunt that Mr. Mozart) is in any way comparable to the presentation of what we ALL recognize to be pure fantasy is not a depiction of the contrary position but an attempt to caricature it.


Elgarian said:


> ...the blissfully ignorant may actually get more from it than anyone else!


I got no reason to doubt _that_. I have to ask- what's the VALUE of what they get, though?! Turned on to the music, maybe? Nice. But maybe they exit the show with the sum total of the Mozart biography now being what they started watching a couple hours ago. As I've said before- not entirely the fault of the movie, granted. However (to re-work a turn-of-phrase from former President Reagan) more than a few are no longer ignorant... they now know so much that *isn't so!*


----------



## LindenLea

Chi_townPhilly said:


> An attempt to say that the presentation of an historical figure in a way that isn't merely unhistorical but distortive of the essence of that figure (right now, I'm thinking more John of Gaunt that Mr. Mozart) is in any way comparable to the presentation of what we ALL recognize to be pure fantasy is not a depiction of the contrary position but an attempt to caricature it


Not remotely so! I am assured by my grandchildren that I have elves and orks living in the woodland behind our house - and I defy anyone to categorically disprove it! I actually much prefer to live in a world of fantasy and wild imagination... by and large the reality of Planet Earth 2010 doesn't strike me as being a particularly attractive place, but thanks anyway CTP for the impressively forensic analysis!


----------



## Genoveva

I’m rather lost by this discussion. 

In my earlier posts I wasn’t objecting to the fact that story-lines in “Amadeus” are not historically accurate. I fully accept that this feature of itself is not necessary for a movie about any famous historical character to be any good. Some degree of fabrication is perfectly acceptable.

The main point I was attempting to make was that I found it difficult to reconcile how such a scatologically minded twerp (as portrayed in the movie), was supposed to have been the creator of such beautiful music. The artistic construction of "Mozart" in this movie didn’t work for me at all, and I was left reeling with disbelief all the way through it.

It’s all a question of how far one can bend the truth, or invent complete fiction about a personality, before one’s patience with it wears out or snaps.


----------



## Elgarian

Chi_townPhilly said:


> My thumbnail first impression is- the greater the amount of obvious 'make-believe' (to use Gen's term), the less historical knowledge one needs.


That's not a bad rule of thumb, I'd say, and would apply to all those similar situations: biographical novels and the like. An important factor missing from it is the expectation of the listener/reader/observer. The blissfully ignorant guy I referred to in my earlier post is going to come badly unstuck if he approaches _Amadeus_ for information, but not if he just wants the fun of it.



> I'll repeat what I said before- I'm not talking about "appreciation," I'm not talking about "enjoyment," I'm talking about _understanding_.


Yes I do appreciate that. In fact I ought to make it clear that I'm not really arguing the point, just walking around it, looking at it from various angles, and trying to discover what I really think. One aspect of this for instance, is that there are certain mental images I've picked up from _Amadeus_ that have enhanced my enjoyment of Mozart's music in various ways. I can't quite say why or how - just that it happened. In particular, something of the character's sense of _fun_ affected what I was hearing when I listened to the piano concertos, and to some extent it affected what it was that I was looking for in performances/interpretations of them. So I'm wondering about this word 'understanding', and thinking that it has all sorts of nuances beyond the merely factual and biographical. I think I do find something in the movie that expresses some hard-to-define essence of the character of the music.



> I have to ask- what's the VALUE of what they [the blissfully ignorant] get, though?! Turned on to the music, maybe?


 I'd say that could be enough in the first instance. I might be tempted to say that a love of Mozart's music could be more valuable than an accurate knowledge of his life. Actually, as I turn that thought over, I think yes, for me, that is indeed so. So if _Amadeus_ were bringing people to Mozart's music at the expense of misleading them about the facts of his life, I'd consider the trade-off still still gave a positive result. Perhaps all that's needed is a health warning clearly stated at the beginning and end of it.


----------



## Poppin' Fresh

Genoveva said:


> The main point I was attempting to make was that I found it difficult to reconcile how such a scatologically minded twerp (as portrayed in the movie), was supposed to have been the creator of such beautiful music. The artistic construction of "Mozart" in this movie didn't work for me at all, and I was left reeling with disbelief all the way through it.


Ah, well that's a totally different matter and a fair criticism I think. However, like I mentioned before, while I found the portrayal of Mozart to be a bit over-the-top in some respects (the extent of his bent for scatological humor amongst them), I feel ultimately it _works_ because of the way he is contrasted with Salieri to bring out greater truths about human nature.

On the one side you have the Salieri character, a studious man with an extreme passion for music. He is successful as a musician because he pays indefatigable attention to his craft, steadily refining his skills. And yet, while his music is good it is rarely transcendent because the Muse has not blessed him with that unsearchable but all important element of inspiration. Then you have the Mozart character, who is a happy-go-lucky kind of man. I don't see him as a "twerp" at all. I see him as possessing an insatiable lust for life, an appetite for drinks and women and billiards, and a lack of concern for the mores of his society that is seen by others like Salieri to be a lack of shame and dignity. I find his character to be likable in many ways. Of course, Mozart has a natural gift for his art, an undefinable creative genius. And, ironically, your problem of reconciliation is exactly Salieri's problem. He sees Mozart as completely immature, constantly engaging in frivolous activities. He is unable to understand that gulf between a man's personality and his creative faculties that are at work at some deep, unconscious level. Which leads him down a path of envy and jealousy. How could a fool like _that_ produce works of immense profundity with such ease, while he himself had to struggle and rack his brain for merely satisfactory works? And it incenses him that Mozart does not even seem to be aware of his gifts, is not thankful for them, when he himself would give _anything_ to have such artistic inspiration. This combines into Salieri doing things that he feels cause or lead to Mozart's death, therefore depriving the world (and himself) of a one of a kind genius, and the film goes on to depict his guilt for it.

One of the greatest merits of the film, I feel, is anyone's ability to be able to relate. Anyone who has had to put a lot of blood, sweat, and tears to get where they are can feel envy and dislike for someone who possesses natural gifts they don't have, and makes what they do look so easy. Anyone who has a position or station or life that someone else comes along and disrupts, possibly garnering lavish praise in the process, can relate. But even those who don't identify with any of the characters of the film can appreciate the entertaining storytelling, the deft mix of myth and fact, be drawn in by the acting, cinematography, etc. These are just some of the reasons why I think it's a great movie.


----------



## Genoveva

Poppin' Fresh said:


> Ah, well that's a totally different matter and a fair criticism I think. However, like I mentioned before, while I found the portrayal of Mozart to be a bit over-the-top in some respects (the extent of his bent for scatological humor amongst them), I feel ultimately it _works_ because of the way he is contrasted with Salieri to bring out greater truths about human nature.


Thanks for the explanation. I can see how you are approaching this and why you consider the movie to be good.

I was only saying why I didn't enjoy it based on my knowledge at the time. I fully accept what you say about a tiny minority of people being head and shoulders above others in terms of ability, an ability that comes naturally rather than from hard work, and how this superiority can be a source of intense irritation to lesser gifted souls. Before seeing the movie I was already aware of the basic story line that Salieri was driven to despair over the gulf between himself and Mozart, and tried to kill him. Although that aspect was entirely fictional, I would accept, on further reflection, that it is a perfectly good story line for a play/movie.

However this doesn't alter the fact that I was left with an uncomfortable feeling that the Mozart character as portrayed was not capable of writing the quality of music that we heard in the movie. If the movie had been talking about a brilliant chess player or crossword champion who acted with such frivolity in his spare time there would have been no problem, but someone with such bizarre traits and who was supposedly capable of writing such profound music didn't seem right to me. Maybe next time I see it I will appreciate it more in the light of your further explanation, for which again thanks.


----------



## Elgarian

Poppin' Fresh said:


> while I found the portrayal of Mozart to be a bit over-the-top in some respects (the extent of his bent for scatological humor amongst them), I feel ultimately it _works_ because of the way he is contrasted with Salieri to bring out greater truths about human nature.
> 
> On the one side you have the Salieri character, a studious man with an extreme passion for music. He is successful as a musician because he pays indefatigable attention to his craft, steadily refining his skills. And yet, while his music is good it is rarely transcendent because the Muse has not blessed him with that unsearchable but all important element of inspiration. Then you have the Mozart character, who is a happy-go-lucky kind of man. I don't see him as a "twerp" at all. I see him as possessing an insatiable lust for life, an appetite for drinks and women and billiards, and a lack of concern for the mores of his society that is seen by others like Salieri to be a lack of shame and dignity. I find his character to be likable in many ways. Of course, Mozart has a natural gift for his art, an undefinable creative genius. And, ironically, your problem of reconciliation is exactly Salieri's problem. He sees Mozart as completely immature, constantly engaging in frivolous activities. He is unable to understand that gulf between a man's personality and his creative faculties that are at work at some deep, unconscious level. Which leads him down a path of envy and jealousy. How could a fool like _that_ produce works of immense profundity with such ease, while he himself had to struggle and rack his brain for merely satisfactory works? And it incenses him that Mozart does not even seem to be aware of his gifts, is not thankful for them, when he himself would give _anything_ to have such artistic inspiration. This combines into Salieri doing things that he feels cause or lead to Mozart's death, therefore depriving the world (and himself) of a one of a kind genius, and the film goes on to depict his guilt for it.
> 
> One of the greatest merits of the film, I feel, is anyone's ability to be able to relate. Anyone who has had to put a lot of blood, sweat, and tears to get where they are can feel envy and dislike for someone who possesses natural gifts they don't have, and makes what they do look so easy. Anyone who has a position or station or life that someone else comes along and disrupts, possibly garnering lavish praise in the process, can relate. But even those who don't identify with any of the characters of the film can appreciate the entertaining storytelling, the deft mix of myth and fact, be drawn in by the acting, cinematography, etc. These are just some of the reasons why I think it's a great movie.


I thoroughly enjoyed reading this, and you've expressed so perfectly (and far better than I could manage) many of my own thoughts and feelings about the movie - plus some extra insights that I hadn't seen myself - that I don't think I have anything to add to what you've said. Terrific. Thank you.


----------



## jhar26

Poppin' Fresh said:


> Ah, well that's a totally different matter and a fair criticism I think. However, like I mentioned before, while I found the portrayal of Mozart to be a bit over-the-top in some respects (the extent of his bent for scatological humor amongst them), I feel ultimately it _works_ because of the way he is contrasted with Salieri to bring out greater truths about human nature.
> 
> On the one side you have the Salieri character, a studious man with an extreme passion for music. He is successful as a musician because he pays indefatigable attention to his craft, steadily refining his skills. And yet, while his music is good it is rarely transcendent because the Muse has not blessed him with that unsearchable but all important element of inspiration. Then you have the Mozart character, who is a happy-go-lucky kind of man. I don't see him as a "twerp" at all. I see him as possessing an insatiable lust for life, an appetite for drinks and women and billiards, and a lack of concern for the mores of his society that is seen by others like Salieri to be a lack of shame and dignity. I find his character to be likable in many ways. Of course, Mozart has a natural gift for his art, an undefinable creative genius. And, ironically, your problem of reconciliation is exactly Salieri's problem. He sees Mozart as completely immature, constantly engaging in frivolous activities. He is unable to understand that gulf between a man's personality and his creative faculties that are at work at some deep, unconscious level. Which leads him down a path of envy and jealousy. How could a fool like _that_ produce works of immense profundity with such ease, while he himself had to struggle and rack his brain for merely satisfactory works? And it incenses him that Mozart does not even seem to be aware of his gifts, is not thankful for them, when he himself would give _anything_ to have such artistic inspiration. This combines into Salieri doing things that he feels cause or lead to Mozart's death, therefore depriving the world (and himself) of a one of a kind genius, and the film goes on to depict his guilt for it.
> 
> One of the greatest merits of the film, I feel, is anyone's ability to be able to relate. Anyone who has had to put a lot of blood, sweat, and tears to get where they are can feel envy and dislike for someone who possesses natural gifts they don't have, and makes what they do look so easy. Anyone who has a position or station or life that someone else comes along and disrupts, possibly garnering lavish praise in the process, can relate. But even those who don't identify with any of the characters of the film can appreciate the entertaining storytelling, the deft mix of myth and fact, be drawn in by the acting, cinematography, etc. These are just some of the reasons why I think it's a great movie.


That's the best post I've ever read about this movie.


----------



## karenpat

I love the film, the funny thing is my parents bought is with 3-4 other films while our DVD player was still new and we didn't have that many other DVDs. I had never heard of the film back then and had limited interested in Mozart so I didn't think I'd like it... But then I watched it and really liked it and then I started checking out some Mozart CDs... and then the snowball started rolling...slowly, but still rolling

I'm still fascinated by the fact that we don't know exactly what Mozart was like. Some of the traits displayed by Tom Hulce in the film may seem extreme but there may be some truth in it too - the dirty sense of humour and the laugh for example.


----------



## linceed87

i would like to ad my two cents, i studied film and let me tell you this movie is an absolute masterpiece , its irrelevant if its not historically correct, people always say, that it isn accurate... so what, the mocie is genius , if you like to know more about the life of mozart go read a biography not see a movie.
its a drama and thats the thing with most bio movies, they are boorrriiing, becaause life is not meant to be a story that engages us.
just enjoy it as a work of art in the sense of the direction script acting, and stop thinking about the historical accuracy.


----------



## Edward Elgar




----------

