"And music, finished as no music is ever finished. Displace one note and there would be diminishment. Displace one phrase and the structure would fall."

"I heard the music of true forgiveness filling the theater, conferring on all who sat there, perfect absolution. God was singing through this little man to all the world, unstoppable, making my defeat more bitter with every passing bar."

So let us discuss. I'll start by saying I love Salieri - I have since the first time I saw the movie many moons ago. How could you not feel for the guy? One of my favorite parts is where he says, "...why implant the desire? Like a lust in my body! And then deny me the talent?" Whoo!

Ferris Beuller's principal as the Emperor never worked for me, but that's me.

I love the whole Salieri-as-Mozart's-father's-ghost, demanding the requiem, wearing the double-sided mask. "Forgive your assassin!" "No corrections of any kind!" Pure theater and so good!

What did you think of it?

BUMP! Where all my film-discussin' Amadeus peeps at?

Well, I love this film. It says so much about talent and the limelight. I'll chime in more after others do...

A little delayed in joining in the thread because yesterday I was preoccupied by the Canadian federal elections. That's all over now and attention can be turned to cultural matters!

I have to say that with this film I am somewhat like the Emperor: I have a one-hour attention span. It's visually sumptuous but my problem with the film is the characters as portrayed did not hold my interest or seem believable and I lost interest in the story after a while. I'm just wondering, does anyone who is more knowledgeable about Amadeus know from where the writers got the information on the way the characters, who are really historical figures, are portrayed? I have to say that the portrayal of Mozart upset me quite a bit. I mean was he really a vulgar irresponsible drunk? How do they know? And was his wife really a babyish ditz? Somehow it doesn't jibe with the spirituality of Mozart's music. I can't reconcile the depth of Mozart's music with the shallow way in which he was portrayed.

Sorry to pan a film I know many love but it just didn't go down well with me.

What I seem to remember about the movie is this (and I was studying classical voice and harpsichord in University at the time it came out): it was based on the stageplay by British playwright Peter Shaffer, who also wrote EQUUS.

Much of what we know about Mozart comes from his self-penned letters, and indeed some of them do contain scatalogical language and jokes, as well as some thoughts which painted him as somewhat naive/simplistic in some arenas of his life. The ability to compose a huge piece in his mind-- then simply write it down to paper-- is almost entirely true, although there is evidence that Mozart DID make some on-score corrections now and then.

It is certain that Mozart and Salieri knew each other in life, but the "bitter rivalry" was invented-- imagined by some speculators-- after their deaths... but apparently not first by Shaffer.

Shaffer obviously not only wanted to create a rousing good entertainment, filled with humor, color and contrasts, but he used the Mozart story to make some more important points-- Machiavellian points-- abut the nature of talent, genius, cosmic justice, popular taste, art, society.

It's these last points-- not the strict biography of Mozart-- of AMADEUS which make it so winning. One could almost say that the Mozart story is subservient to Shaffer's wicked observations.

Rasputin, if he did intend to make those points, I'm afraid they went over my head. That's because the way the film is made the characters are just puppets who state those points, rather than the points being proved by the dramatic actions of the characters. I find that a lazy and unconvincing dramatic technique. In addition, by using the characters as empty vehicles to get across his "points," the author IMO does a disservice to the actual historical figures. Your analysis that the Mozart story is subservient to Shaffer's observations, wicked they may be, strikes a chord of truth, and I can't help reacting to that in a negative way. I personally find that approach abuse, for his own literary purposes, of people who have made an important contribution to humanity.

Short version message to Mr. Shaffer: Don't mess with my Mozart!

A side note: Can you imagine what Mozart could have done if born in the 20th century? With access to electric instruments, synthesizers and all the modern musical perks we take for granted today? That would have been something!

Just wanted to add something here. I don't dispute the author's right to take artistic license with historical characters. I'm just saying I don't like what he did with it.

I agree that the presentation of Mozart was... well, jarring. It certainly doesn't jibe with the exquisiteness of the music. No criticism of Tom Hulce, who I must presume was playing the character as the script directed.

But of course that's the whole point. It's what drives Salieri's obsession, and is the central theme of the movie.

I love everything about this movie. Obviously the music is divine, but that's just the start of the feast... it then piles on costumes, wigs, beautiful rooms, candlelight, dancing, vulgarity, romancing, scheming, on and on. And I love watching wonder and dismay interplay on F. Murray Abraham's face as his frustration mounts. He's fabulous.

This is one that reminds me why I love to watch movies....

Beautifully stated, FiveOaks. The film rubbed me the wrong way for exactly the reasons you describe. I've never understood the point of altering the truth about an historical figure.

If I believed in reincarnation, Woodland, I think Mozart already came back in the 20th century... I'm just trying to decide if he came back as Richard Rodgers, Yves St. Laurent or George Balanchine. Or he may have come resurfaced in the 19th century as Richard Wagner. It's hard to say.

And give me the flute, a Strad, a clarinet and the piano, OK the Cleveland Orchestra, over electronic instruments any day.

I only saw the movie once when I was a kid. It was the first time I heard music from his Requiem, and I loved it. I thought it sounded demonic.

I am reminded of the story of Johannes Brahms... Now here was a composer who had NOT been a child prodigy, like a Mozart or a Mendelssohn. He worked very hard to understand everything he eventually would come to know about music.

Music has rules that almost anyone can learn. What, then, accounts for little prodigies like Mozart who have written a symphony by age 11?

My mom is a child psychologist... She is convinced that such a thing as genetic and racial memory occurs: if an ancestor of yours worked hard to acquire the neural networking engendered by music training, you have the potential to have inherited it, too.

Arnold Schwarzenegger, in his weights training books, says that a young man cannot hope to acquire some good-looking muscles unless a forbear of his, at one time, worked to acquire big, developed muscles.

We breed dogs and cattle for specific traits; why should we humans not also be bred for certain traits? Sound like anathema, heresy and eugenics... but Mother Nature makes it happen nonetheless, on her own, without our "help".

The movie AMADEUS shows us Salieri going to war with God Himself. He is resentful that an individual such as Mozart (whether or not Mozart was silly, lewd, dirty, debauched, etc., etc.) should have a wealth of innate musical gifts.

Or ANY kind of gift, wonders the film... One might even include familial wealth in there.

I often think about the circumstances of Burt Bacharach's life... He was gifted with supreme musical gift... but also tremendous physical beauty, great intellect, social prominence, all the wealth he could ever want in order to develop his gifts. When I listen to Burt's melodies, I not only hear great musical gift... but I hear the kind of supreme good taste that being very well-born can confer. Money can't buy what I hear in Burt's music.

Is life fair? wonders the film AMADEUS. Does God "keep his eye on the sparrow" as the Bible says? Does water "seek its own level" ?

Isn't this a Falco song?

Rasputin, the question of how a person comes to be gifted like Mozart was is indeed a fascinating one. I wouldn't know where to begin to understand it and I take my hat off to you for attempting to figure it out. There have been child prodigies over time in various areas and I'll bet there are scientists all over the world trying to identify how it happens.

I find it hard to believe that a person as intelligent as Salieri was portrayed to be would spend a lifetime (1) obsessing over Mozart and (2) second-guessing God. If that was indeed the sum total of his life, he would surely have shown signs of mental imbalance long before he was old.

But intelligence and mental imbalance are not mutually exclusive, LOL! Think of John Nash ("A Beautiful Mind"). I think it could be argued that Salieri's obsession WAS a 'sign of mental imbalance' and he DID show it when he was younger. Although this obsession wasn't the sum total of his life, not for the fictionalized Salieri or for the real one - he was a talented and accomplished court composer. He did not have the genius that Mozart had, though, which he wanted more than anything in life - he wanted the talent and the fame and glory that can come with it. I can absolutely believe that someone could be so envious and jealous (remember Katerina the beautiful singer?) that he would become obsessed the way this fictionalized Salieri did. Salieri here was also able to have a deeper appreciation of Mozart's talent than even some other musicians of that time and place ("too many notes"!) - which was part of his tragedy.

As for the source of the talent, in the movie that is implied in the choice of the title of the film and play before it - "Amadeus", which means 'loved by God'. (It can also mean 'lover of God' and if you use that translation then maybe the title could be referring to Salieri rather than Mozart...? I know, that's a bit of a stretch.) Now, we here on POL may debate the source of such talent, but it is clear to whom Salieri attributes those gifts.

BTW, I agree with Salieri. I don't think these things can be learned, not the things that some artists are able to do. Michelangelo, carving the human form in an unforgiving substance such as marble? Mozart, composing music as a four-year-old? Beethoven, composing music after losing his hearing? The ability to sing like Andrea Bocelli or Donna Summer? Or a filmmaker like Kubrick to make films like "A Clockwork Orange" or "The Shining" or a writer like Mark Twain to write a novel like "The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn"? I believe the talent comes not from the person but through him or her. From elsewhere, and all the training and effort and desire in the world can't produce it; either it is there or it isn't.

Ellen, I would agree with the concept that the true artist is a vehicle for channeling the art rather than the creator of the art, a person who is able to "see" what is there and bring it forth. I love besotted's quote from Michaelangelo that she uses in her signature:

"I saw the angel in the marble and carved until I set him free."

*sigh* Imagine being able to DO that! Not just see the angel but create it, bring it out of the marble. Most of us are "Salieris", marveling at the few "Mozarts".

When I hear Gershwin's Rhapsody in Blue (among other music) I think, no flesh-and-blood human alone could create music like that. It's impossible - a human being is a collection of cells, bones, muscles, blood, brain, heart, chemicals, electrical impulses etc. etc. - a physical being. How could something as beautiful and perfect as that that come from a mere human being?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=trOij8SPIAo

I am reminded here also of the story of Jaco Pastorius.

Considered by many the greatest electric bass player the world has ever known.

But he was a drunk and a dope-fiend: Once in a stupor, he was walking down the sidewalk and mouthed off to some street thug. The thug beat him up and killed him, then and there. The greatest bass genius dead in a trice, because he couldn't keep his mouth shut.

Artie Shaw and Gene Krupa were geniuses whose irascibility was legendary. Glenn Miller was widely disliked. Miles Davis had a bitter personality and made no bones about his hating white people.

The great baseball player Ty Cobb was a drunk, a paranoid survivalist and a white supremacist.

Sometimes genius can come in very unattractive packages; that's another point the movie AMADEUS makes.

I look forward to the Miles Davis bio-pic that I heard Don Cheadle was supposed to be doing. I wonder if it's still going to be made.

I love Miles Davis' work. Absolutely glorious stuff. My favorite work is his re-working of Porgy and Bess with Gil Evans.

David and Ellen have brought many interesting points with which I agree. I view the movie and the play as masterpieces (same with Equus and for those who admire him, I highly recommend The Royal Hunt of the Sun)

The whole focus of Shaffer's excellent play (and subsequent film up to a degree) is not Mozart: it's Salieri!(with whom in actual life they had an amicable relationship as Mozart had been his student at some point if I recall correctly?). There are also many liberties taken with Mozart's relationship with his father, which was not as strained as depicted nor was it as dramatic: but it did provide an EXCELLENT backdrop for the development of character: the guilt, the desire to atone, the mapping out his own course, the rebeliousness and the respect and gratitude for what he learned from him....

One thing that often gets forgotten when talking about child prodigies ~and Mozart is no exception~ is that behind every one there is a very, very attentive, very ambitious, very focused parent who recognises the fine prime raw material and makes the most of it. You can't have much of a success without first class natural attributes, but also raw talent gets lost without honing it through arduous work. Geniuses are a combination of both, but it's always easier on the common man to assuage his/her own lacking by saying "it's a god given gift". It's also a way of controlling minds, isn't it? If you never try, how can you know you don't have special talents?

Although historical persons' biographies are a matter of great difficulty exactly because it's hard to stay true to the course of history and also have a powerful drama in your hands when the subject doesn't always allow that, a film or a book that doesn't pretend to be history shouldn't be too worried about it.
Michaelangelo was a homosexual: do you think they would have dared to show that if a film were made about him (and there was) in the 50s? No, it would focus on every other aspect but not that. Same with different aspects that pertain to societal mores and different historical persons: for example Alexander by Oliver Stone was perfectly accurate historically (which is natural as they had the best Oxford Hellenist as a consultant!) and I am saying this as both Greek and historian. Did it make for a powerful drama? No, it lacked the necessary clashing of characters which would make for something of the calibre of Amadeus. Although I left the theatre with the feeling that it exalted the patriotic pride we feel in a world-famous personage, it left me with no clearer insight as to what Alexander could have felt when fronted with such crucial choices as those he had to make. Therefore although the movie was very successful as a Hellenophile vehicle, it wasn't such a successful work of art.
Supposedly a director and screenwriter are providing another viewpoint on well-known facts that would make us think (I like to think we don't go to the cinema or read fiction in order to learn about historical figures, but maybe it's just the historian in me rebelling here....LOL).

There is a thing called poetic licence which Shaffer takes -admittingly with a wide leeway- to bring his problematics about talent, whether it is simply God-given or also cultured through work; about the desire for the unattainable; about whether talent is desirable for the fame it brings or for the immortality it brings (if you watch carefully, Salieri doesn't envy Mozart his current fame because he himself had much more of a success in being a court musician and having a secured position, but the knowledge that in the centuries to come his own name would be forgotten by most but that Mozart's would be common property for all to know), and a very pronounced comment about the tastes of audiences and what constitutes true art (and here lies the very true observation that it is difficult for many to ascertain who is the big talent at their own time and era). And of course how genius and commoness is not mutually exclusive.

It doesn't matter if Mozart was the axe-murderer from hell: he was brilliant! Whatever he was as a person (and although he wasn't as vulgar as depicted in the movie, he was no saint either) it doesn't subtract from his art and I extend this view on every artist, old or contemporary, which why it always amazes me when I read in fora about X or Y actor/musician/writer how they're not all that because they have cheated on their wife/had illegitimate children/have been crackheads/are guilty of murder, whatever...
The genius remains and if we are to access a body of work the personality shouldn't enter at all, otherwise we are entering shaded waters.
A propos there was a very interesting quizz which circulated in email some years ago asking about historical leaders. It basically came down to what would you choose as the new leader of the globe if you were -say-God or an abortionist:

a.Someone who deals with corrupted politicians, consults astrologers, has two extra-marital affairs, snokes 3 packs a day and drinks 8-10 martinis a day.
b.Someone who had been evicted from his political office, wakes up at noon, used opium while at college and drinks half a bottle of Scotch every night.
c.Someone who has received a medal of honour at war, is a vegetarian, only drinks a beer once in a while and never cheated on his partner.


Think about it .......


.........decided yet? ............


well??.........................




(the answers are: a.Roosvelt, b.Churchill,c.Hitler)

See my point now? ;-)

Beethoven studied with Salieri. He wished to study with Mozart, but Mozart had unfortunately died.

This movie used Mozart's music so well, it's wonderful.

I love Neville Marriner's interpretation of the music too.

I like the theatrical version of Amadeus much better than the director's cut which makes me cringe.
(Thinking mostly of the scene with Constanze offering herself to Salieri. Yuck.)

AH!! Thank you! I knew he had a genius student, glad you corrected the mind-f@rt ;-)

Yes, Marriner's a great conductor and the St.Martin in the Fields orchestra is usually a guarantee of quality.