The movie “Amadeus” is a wondrous meditation, through the reminiscences of Antonio Salieri, on the ways of genius, the value of contrition, and the arbitrariness of metaphysical justice.
“Amadeus” opened the door to a fantastic world of whose existence I had not been aware. The movie changed my life. ” —Anonymous viewer of the film
Amadeus remains one of the most beloved and decorated movies of all time. It is a beautifully-crafted film that provides us a kaleidoscopic glimpse of a grand society in a time gone by—a place of aristocratic privilege, excess and insouciance, with artists whose works were not always recognized during their lifetimes, focusing on two composers, Wolfgang “Amadeus” Mozart and Antonio Salieri. The movie is a wondrous meditation, through the reminiscences of Salieri, on the ways of genius, the value of contrition, and the arbitrariness of metaphysical justice.
Millions around the world have enjoyed Amadeus that was the 1984 movie, and hundreds of thousands have also experienced the compelling eponymous play that opened in London’s West End in 1979 and then moved to Broadway. Amadeus has been both applauded as one of the greatest films of the twentieth century as well as criticized by some nitpicking types who can find only the historical “inaccuracies” within it. There are some who even bristle at the title, Amadeus, since Mozart himself, in his copious writings and compositions, never used it as his middle name (N.B.: Mozart’s often wrote his middle name as “Amade” or “Amadeo,” but never as “Amadeus.” Mozart’s baptismal name was Johannes Chrysostomus Wolfgangus Theophilus Mozart. The name Theophilus transliterates as Gottlieb in German and Amadeus in Latin).
But that’s the whole point, and the point of this essay. Amadeus was a West End play, then a Broadway play, and then a Hollywood movie. It was not a documentary! Those nitpickers are totally off the mark. There is a lot that Amadeus gets right!
Writer Peter Shaffer and Director Milos Forman never intended to be perfectly historically accurate when they created Amadeus. Rather, in both the play and the movie, they crafted a fantasy world, loosely based on facts and channeling Pushkin’s 1830 play, Mozart und Salieri, in which they opined about the relationship between genius and talent, and the gulf between ineffable art and journeyman-mediocrity. They stated from the outset that Amadeus would not be historically true, but rather a dramatic fantasy, and in so doing, they crafted a work of art that has captivated us for more than three decades.
In reality, Mozart and Salieri were cordial competitors in the musical scene of late-eighteenth-century Vienna. They collaborated on the pastiche, Der Stein der Wiesen (The Philosopher’s Stone), Salieri attended several performances of Mozart’s opera, Die Zauberflote (The Magic Flute) and loved it. Salieri even gave piano lessons to Mozart’s second son in the early 1800s. There is no evidence whatsoever that Salieri had anything to do with Mozart’s last illness and death; Mozart died of the consequences of rheumatic fever and hypovolemic shock from the blood-letting ordered by his physicians.
Shaffer and Forman proved throughout both play and movie that they knew a tremendous amount about the historical Mozart, more than many who want to point out those moments where the movie and play deviated from reality and historicity.
I would venture a guess that through Amadeus, more than a few viewers got their first deep introduction to classical music, Mozart’s music in particular, as well as the beauty of 18th-century Vienna—with the lovely and well-preserved Staré Město (Old Town) section of Praha (Prague), Czech Republic as its historical proxy. The sets and costumes were praised for their fidelity to what is known of Viennese culture of that era. These offerings alone are to be cherished, let alone the music (see below).
Even when the movie deviates from “the truth” about Mozart, Forman and Shaffer’s deep understanding and scholarship about Mozart’s creative process delights us even as it enlightens us.
For example, recall the famous scene in which Salieri, as a musical amanuensis, is taking dictation from the dying Mozart as he creates the Confutatis movement of the Requiem. This event never took place in history. (It was actually Franz Xaver Sussmayr who took those notes and finished the Requiem).
Even though the scene never happened, through the magic of cinema, Shaffer and Forman brilliantly conjure and reconstruct the creative process of composition. The results are closer to “the truth” than anything I have seen. Here is that scene:
Although it was really F.X. Sussmayr (and not Salieri) who “took notes,” this scene brilliantly deconstructs Mozart’s creative process in particella writing.
Some critics have commented on how “silly” and foolish” Mozart is made to appear in the movie, in the cackling laugh and puerile hijinks of Tom Hulce’s characterization of the composer, while others don’t accept that Mozart could have acted this way.
In fact, he did. Sexual and biological references were part of Mozart’s dinner conversations with family in Salzburg and throughout his life. Scatalogical speech and coprolalia were a commonplace in the central European towns of the 18th century. Hulce’s brilliant characterization of Mozart was actually sanitized from reality. Mozart’s own letters to his parents, sister, and especially to his cousin, Anna Maria Thekla Mozart (nicknamed the “Basle,” or “little cousin”) when they were both teenagers, are replete with bathroom humor and sexual innuendo.
Shaffer and Forman took the viewer much farther, by letting them enter Mozart’s sublime and serene sound world. The movie is replete with dozens of Mozart’s musical masterpieces, splendidly performed by Sir Neville Marriner and the Academy-of-St-Martin-in-the Fields. This sonic Mozartean glory alone is priceless and uplifting.
Beyond honoring Mozart and his brilliant musical legacy, Shaffer and Forman actually did more to resuscitate and revive Salieri than anyone else in the music world had done to that point, by showcasing the finale of his greatest opera, Axur, Re di Ormo (Axur, King of Ormus), complete with over-the-top period costumes and set design. The scene is unforgettable.
Shaffer and Forman won eight well-deserved Academy Awards for Amadeus and have been lauded for having created a wondrous jewel that honors Mozart by having introduced his ineffable music to millions.
So, thank you, Peter Shaffer, Milos Forman, and Saul Saenz, for opening the eyes and ears of the world to Mozart. Thank you, actors Tom Hulce (Mozart), F. Murray Abraham (Sallieri), Elizabeth Berridge (Constanze), Jeffrey Jones (Emperor Joseph II) and your colleagues, for informing your characters with such depth and authenticity. You got Amadeus so right!
Ars longa!
Ars Mozartiae longior!
Republished with gracious permission from Mr. DeLuise.
The featured image is courtesy of IMDb.
Thank you for this reminiscence. Amadeus holds a special place in my heart as it represents my one and only foray into college/community theatre when I played one of the Venticelli (sadly missing from the movie adaptation) during my stint while working at Belmont Abbey College. Truly one of the highlights of my life.
From a nitpicker: Some years ago in London, I saw actor Frank Finlay brilliantly perform Salieri’s lead role in Peter Shaffer’s hit play Amadeus. Though a complete devotee of Mozart, I was not at all troubled by Shaffer’s infantilization of my hero for a legitimate dramatic purpose. The protagonist of Amadeus is God; the antagonist, Salieri. The subject is providence and pride. How dare God assign to an idiot savant, Mozart, greater musical powers than he gave to an obedient and faithful servant, Salieri? The more ridiculous Mozart is made to appear, the more bitterly acute the question becomes. And he is made to appear quite ludicrous, babbling baby talk and looking up girls’ dresses. These scenes fuel Salieri’s rage at God’s seeming injustice. In all, Mozart’s role is tangential to the principle drama in the play.
Yet, when Miloš Forman transferred the play to the silver screen in 1984, he completely shifted the focus from Salieri to Mozart. Our attention was almost exclusively fixed on Mozart and we were invited to see him, not within the context of Salieri’s relationship with God, but as a misunderstood genius who transcended the conventions of his time. How was this dramatically conveyed to us? Stylistically, by having Mozart alone act as if he were thrown from the 20th century back into the 18th. The message was loud and clear on a large movie poster that exclaimed: “Mozart – the first punk rocker.” Indeed, the spasmodic gestures, the bug-eyed looks, the gyrations and hand movements of actor Tom Hulce were unique to punk rock youth of the 1980s. We can understand Mozart, not because he really did transcend his time, just as we can perhaps transcend our own through his music – but because he is like us, just punk rocker ahead of his time. This trivialization served no dramatic purpose but was understandably popular for its implicit message. The film was also given credit for popularizing Mozart’s music. Indeed, the depicted scenes from his operas were magical. But to excuse the film for this reason is like crediting diabetes for popularizing insulin.
It’s true: seeing Amadeus upon release, I returned to see it four more times — something have rarely done, but was worthwhile in this case, because each time I brought a different friend to see it with me. The dictation scene was particularly central to this, being in essence a guide to how this kind of music is put together. The soundtrack did indeed introduce me to Mozart’s music, and classical music in general. And I haven’t seen any of the principal actors better cast. Isn’t that really how a good movie should be?
This essay brought to mind. I’m at a ‘lecture before a performance’ in a major city symphony. The conductor’s understudy is giving a short lecture on the Mozart selection. Q & A from audience of grey-haired patrons. “Why did Mozart denigrate Salieri’s music?” another, “Did Mozart drink himself into an early grave?” I could hear the exasperation in the young understudy’s responses. The movie had a way bigger impact I think than just opening up music.
@robert r reilly
I completely agree wrt the considerable shift of emphasis when comparing the movie to the original play. The movie does indeed, I feel, lose the focus on Salieri and his relationship with his god.
However, in return, we get a spectacular visual representation of the drama with a fabulously apt historical backdrop. And the most important win from the shift in emphasis – Mozart’s music is presented far more comprehensively in the film when compared to the play.
I think both presentations of this fictional a drama are brilliant, and ought to be allowed to live side by side, each enhancing the other, without the film needing to suffer any denigration.
One other huge thing that gets lost between play and film – the focus of the title. Film audiences cannot help but see Mozart as the title character. He is Amadeus, Amadeus being his (Italianised) middle name, and the focus of the film being on him.
But it’s clear from the play that the title character is actually Salieri. “Amadeus” is a mocking, sarcastic verdict on the Salieri character and his greatest desire – to be “Loved By God” to the extent that he becomes the channel by which his God’s spirit is conveyed to humankind via music – a desire left thwarted and shattered by the end of the drama.
I share your vision.
I´ve rewatched it today – and it is still an amazing work of art. Long live, dear Mozart.
Just watched it again, for likely the tenth time .. always brilliant and exhausting. An amazing tribute to an incredible piece of history
I’ve never seen the play. However there is nothing presented in anyone’s comparison, here, of the two that I didn’t recognize simply by viewing the film. The irony of the title is still there. I saw through the focus on Mozart as an additional knife in the heart of Salieri. I see the film as a 20th century Shakespearean tragedy. Forman’s ability to accomplish that and reach a modern punk rock audience simply reinforces his genius.
Please please please re-rerelease this film and let another generation enjoy it and learn from it.