# History Buffs - Amadeus. Thought?



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Have found this a quite entertaining series. Here is one of Amadeus. Thoughts?


----------



## Sol Invictus (Sep 17, 2016)

I have no problem with fictionalized accounts of history. I know some people do but I'd rather not see films as historical documents.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

I enjoyed Amadeus because it allowed me to "go back" to that time for a brief fictionalized moment....and of course for the glorious, teasingly brief musical excerpts.

My favorite part was when the dying Mozart dictated his Requiem to Salieri...a whirlwind of music theory...to the uninitiated....the "sausage-making" of composing.

As far as the insane assylum scenes with Salieri, I was disappointed in that there were no cameo appearances by Robert Schumann and Jack Nicholson.

As far as historical inaccuracies, Mozart dictating his Requiem to Salieri is ridiculous.


----------



## Magnum Miserium (Aug 15, 2016)

The most interesting thing about "Amadeus" is that it's a play about a hack who's more popular in his own time than a great genius (historically inaccurate on both counts re: Salieri), written by a hack, which is currently more popular than a play on the same subject written by a great genius (Pushkin's "Mozart and Salieri").


----------



## Jacred (Jan 14, 2017)

Amusing, but I know my fair share of rabid fans who take fictionalized history as truth. It's just another drama for them involving a historical genius.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

I saw "Amadeus" years ago and have forgotten nearly all of it except for the lewd giggling of an idiot in a wig.


----------



## Pugg (Aug 8, 2014)

Woodduck said:


> I saw "Amadeus" years ago and have forgotten nearly all of it except for the lewd giggling of an idiot in a wig.


You should really watch it again Mr. Wood.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Pugg said:


> You should really watch it again Mr. Wood.


Nah. I know the real Mozart too well.


----------



## Pugg (Aug 8, 2014)

Woodduck said:


> Nah. I know the real Mozart too well.


Okay, fair enough answer.


----------



## brianvds (May 1, 2013)

DavidA said:


> Have found this a quite entertaining series. Here is one of Amadeus. Thoughts?


I watched a few minutes, but the guy actually repeats some of the Mozart myths instead of debunking them.

As for the film, it is one of my favourites, but it is emphatically not a biopic of Mozart. In fact, it has nothing to do with either Mozart or Salieri in the historical sense.


----------



## Überstürzter Neumann (Jan 1, 2014)

I saw it back in the 80s. Some funny scenes. I am not an expert in muisc, but I am in history. I have diplomas to prove that lying somewhere. In short; I didn't like this movie. Many historical inaccuracies, some weird actor choices, and a director I am not that fond of. But most of the music was quite good.


----------



## Judith (Nov 11, 2015)

History is generally full of "might have been" and "thought to have been". No-one knows for sure for sure as it's interpretated over the years using documents and other materials!


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

brianvds said:


> I watched a few minutes, but *the guy actually repeats some of the Mozart myths i*nstead of debunking them.
> 
> As for the film, it is one of my favourites, but it is emphatically not a biopic of Mozart. In fact, it has nothing to do with either Mozart or Salieri in the historical sense.


Yes indeed. The assumption that because Mozart wrote vulgar letters to his near and dear he was also vulgar in polite company is unfounded. He would have known how to behave in front of royalty. 
Also I am astonished that the guy doesn't appear to know that Constanze was actually a talented singer.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Sol Invictus said:


> I have no problem with fictionalized accounts of history. I know some people do but I'd rather not see films as historical documents.


The only problem is that people then think it's history. I know people who thought that Braveheart was actually historical rather than a myth!


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Woodduck said:


> I saw "Amadeus" years ago and have forgotten nearly all of it except for the lewd giggling of an idiot in a wig.


If you found that objectionable then you should have seen the National Theatre production of the play I watched recently. Made Mozart look a gibbering idiot which totally lost any form of credibility.


----------



## jegreenwood (Dec 25, 2015)

I'm not a huge Peter Shaffer fan (except for the very funny "Black Comedy"), and I haven't seen the play since the original Broadway production. However, it struck me then as a companion piece to his prior play "Equus" - two works about rational men confronting things - and people - that are beyond their rational understanding.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

DavidA said:


> If you found that objectionable then you should have seen the National Theatre production of the play I watched recently. Made Mozart look a gibbering idiot which totally lost any form of credibility.


It just goes to show that there's nothing bad that can't be made worse.


----------



## dillonp2020 (May 6, 2017)

I love Amadeus. It is one of my favorite movies. The soundtrack is amazing, as is the plot. The film is so well done that I have to fight the urge to want to believe it, but the history buff inside of me thinks of how implausible the plot is and accepts that it is historical fiction at best.


----------



## Alydon (May 16, 2012)

I remember going to see Amadeus twice when it came out and thoroughly enjoyed it, excusing the glaring historical inaccuracies. I think any film which is going to bring classical music to a wider audience is a great thing and I presume the CD of the music also made its way into many homes where Mozart wouldn't have been the first listening choice. It's interesting that this film really hit the mark where I can't think of another film about a classical composer which had so great an impact.


----------



## SONNET CLV (May 31, 2014)

Of course, Sir Peter's play is not an historical document, though it may be based upon historical facts (such as that there was a composer named Mozart and a composer named Salieri). The play itself is about more universal concepts of human behavior, such as is the matter of great drama. (Think Shakespeare's "history plays".)

Harold Schonberg, the great critic, understands the play well. He writes:

... Mr. Shaffer has created a play that has to do with the nature of genius, the relationship of man to God, the reaction of mediocrity faced with genius. Mr. Shaffer also indicates that the character of a man does not necessarily have much to do with his works. Here is Mozart, the perpetual adolescent, the analfixated child, the bad colleague, the creator with a genius for making enemies, turning out masterpiece after masterpiece.

See the article "THE VILLIAN OF 'AMADEUS' IN REAL LIFE" at: http://www.nytimes.com/1981/02/01/theater/the-villian-of-amadeus-in-real-life.html?pagewanted=all

You should also track down Alexander Pushkin's 1832 play _Моцарт и Сальери_ (yes, that's the Russian title) on which the later Rimsky-Korsakov opera _Mozart and Salieri _based. That plot of the play according to Wikipedia: "The story follows the apocryphal legend that Antonio Salieri poisoned Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart out of jealousy over the latter's music."

So why does Peter Shaffer produce his own version of the Pushkin story? Shaffer's play utilizes the skeleton of the story line to hang intriguing ideas about art and its relation to man, and man and his relation to art. Heavy stuff, really. The kind of stuff that we artsy types concern much about. And why we like theatre. And why we also like to listen to and think about great music.

The real lives of both Mozart and Salieri are well worth exploring, and there are excellent materials available on both. Don't get too disappointed if you find out that real Salieri did not poison the real Mozart. Too, most importantly, listen to the music of these two men. There has long been a lot of Mozart available; fortunately we are now getting more and more access to Salieri's material, too.

And revisit Shaffer's play keeping in mind what Harold Schonberg has to say about it. You just may see a different play altogether. Which is certainly okay.


----------



## SONNET CLV (May 31, 2014)

jegreenwood said:


> I'm not a huge Peter Shaffer fan (except for the very funny "Black Comedy"), and I haven't seen the play since the original Broadway production. However, it struck me then as a companion piece to his prior play "Equus" - two works about rational men confronting things - and people - that are beyond their rational understanding.


Unlike you, I've long been a Peter Shaffer fan. And _Black Comedy _is indeed a funny play. In my academic life I've taught _Equus_, in parallel with Sophocles's _Oedipus Tyrannus_, the Shaffer play seeming to me a somewhat inside-out reversal of the Sophocles masterpiece. In _Oedipus_, discovering the answer leads to blinding; in _Black Comedy_, discovering the reason for blinding leads to the answer. Of course, there is much more going on in both plays.

_Amadeus_ I've long admired as a study of genius v. mediocrity. See my prior post for more info on this.

But Sir Peter does some fascinating work in theatre. Worth reading (or, especially, seeing) are _Five Finger Exercise _(1958), _The Royal Hunt of the Sun_ (1964), and _Lettice and Lovage _(1987).


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

The only thing that bothered me about Amadeus was the use of a modern orchestra conducted by the ho-hum Marriner. It would have been so easy to use a period instrument orchestra.


----------



## brianvds (May 1, 2013)

SONNET CLV said:


> Of course, Sir Peter's play is not an historical document, though it may be based upon historical facts (such as that there was a composer named Mozart and a composer named Salieri).


And there was an 18th century - don't forget that one. 



> The play itself is about more universal concepts of human behavior, such as is the matter of great drama. (Think Shakespeare's "history plays".)


Yup; as I noted before, the film actually has zilch to do with either Mozart or Salieri. Apparently, this was unfortunately lost on most audiences.

The film makes points about art and genius and mediocrity and jealousy etc. What it doesn't do is pretend to relate real history. Accusing it of being a bad biopic is like nitpicking the historical bits in Shakespeare's _Macbeth_ or _Julius Caesar_.

I am nowadays not too sure I even necessarily agree with all the points the film makes, but they are made very well, and in highly entertaining manner.



Bulldog said:


> The only thing that bothered me about Amadeus was the use of a modern orchestra conducted by the ho-hum Marriner. It would have been so easy to use a period instrument orchestra.


Might have made it less accessible to modern audiences. It's of course one more aspect of the film that is not historical. But relating actual history was never the point in the first place.


----------



## Pugg (Aug 8, 2014)

Bulldog said:


> The only thing that bothered me about Amadeus was the use of a modern orchestra conducted by the ho-hum Marriner. It would have been so easy to use a period instrument orchestra.


Thank goodness for small mercies.


----------



## Magnum Miserium (Aug 15, 2016)

brianvds said:


> The film makes points about art and genius and mediocrity and jealousy etc. What it doesn't do is pretend to relate real history. Accusing it of being a bad biopic is like nitpicking the historical bits in Shakespeare's _Macbeth_ or _Julius Caesar_.


Peter Shaffer ain't no Shakespeare


----------



## Magnum Miserium (Aug 15, 2016)

Magnum Miserium said:


> The most interesting thing about "Amadeus" is that it's a play about a hack who's more popular in his own time than a great genius (historically inaccurate on both counts re: Salieri), written by a hack, which is currently more popular than a play on the same subject written by a great genius (Pushkin's "Mozart and Salieri").


I basically stole the above this review, which is worth reading: http://hubreview.blogspot.com/2013/05/mostly-mozart-at-new-rep.html


----------



## Guest (May 13, 2017)

DavidA said:


> The only problem is that people then think it's history. I know people who thought that Braveheart was actually historical rather than a myth!


The scene that amused me was Mel Gibson telling these men that he was William Wallace and one man says, "But William Wallace is supposed to be seven feet tall!" Gibson then repeats that HE is William Wallace. However, from my own research on the subject of William Wallace, he really was seven feet tall!


----------



## Guest (May 13, 2017)

From what I've been able to gather, Salieri and Mozart were mild rivals but had a great deal of respect for one another. They did actually collaborate on a project but I don't know if it survives--probably not. Salieri was no hack--among his pupils were Beethoven and Schubert.


----------



## brianvds (May 1, 2013)

Magnum Miserium said:


> Peter Shaffer ain't no Shakespeare


No, but the principle remains the same: using real characters from history in a fictional way to make larger points is nothing new, and doesn't automatically amount to bad biopic. Want to see a bad biopic? Try _Immortal Beloved._ 

Incidentally, Milos Forman also made a film titled _Goya's Ghosts_ which was widely misinterpreted as a biopic of Goya, and got panned for its "inaccuracies" and "inventions". But he was making some points about art, not telling us Goya's life story!


----------



## ibrahim (Apr 29, 2017)

The movie is a CELEBRATION of Mozart and classical music! Director Milos Foreman and screenwriter (and writer of the play) Peter Shaffer locked themselves in some hotel or cabin and together listened to most of Mozart's output in order to select the music that plays throughout the film. Also Sir Neville Marriner (RIP) supervised the selections as well. Hence why the film's presentation of Mozart's music is relatively sophisticated. Like, the 25th symphony in the opening scene? Perfect.


----------



## brianvds (May 1, 2013)

ibrahim said:


> The movie is a CELEBRATION of Mozart and classical music! Director Milos Foreman and screenwriter (and writer of the play) Peter Shaffer locked themselves in some hotel or cabin and together listened to most of Mozart's output in order to select the music that plays throughout the film. Also Sir Neville Marriner (RIP) supervised the selections as well. Hence why the film's presentation of Mozart's music is relatively sophisticated. Like, the 25th symphony in the opening scene? Perfect.


Another thing that I loved about the film is how full it is of memorable characters. Apparently they went to great lengths to cast actors with memorable (if not necessarily handsome) faces. With the exception of Mozart and his wife, of course, where they deliberately chose the blandest-looking actors they could get hold of. Apparently, near the end of the casting process, they had two actresses left as possibilities for Constanze, and they chose the one they considered least pretty.

Something to keep in mind: the whole story is narrated by the fictional Salieri. We are seeing Mozart through _his_ jealous, jaundiced eyes, so _of course_ we are going to see an obscene caricature. But even through all of this, glimpses of a more serious and gentle Mozart keep on appearing.

Another thing to look out for: Salieri has a sweet tooth, and is eating the whole time - biscuits, ice cream, nipples of Venus; he has a taste for the good things in life, despite his protestations that he lived only for music. When he has a chance to defend Mozart's opera, he prefers to side with the idiot who thinks it has too many notes, simply so as not to offend his vapid employer. Thus, all manner of things that Salieri would either prefer us not to know about, or is perhaps not consciously aware of himself, slip out during his narration. In short, it's not just a matter of talent: he's simply not the real deal, and got into music for the money and fame rather than the music itself.

Incidentally, if we are going to complain about historical inaccuracies, as I understand it the portrayal of the emperor is also rather unfair; by all accounts he was, by the standards of his time, a quite cultured and liberal person.

Well, there it is.


----------

