I am going to ask a dumb question. And before I go into it, I want to make it very clear:
I KNOW IT’S DUMB
Is the story shown in the movie Amadeus true? Did a mysterious visitor show up at Amadeus’ door and commission the “Requiem”? And if he did – has it been proven that it is Salieri? Did Salieri end up in an insane asylum, and if he did … did he confess everything to a priest like it is shown in the movie? Was his confession believed? Or is all of this still a mystery?
OR: is that entire part of the film a fiction?
Please. I know it’s dumb. Mozart fans who know everything will roll their eyes at my dumbness. I am thirsty for your knowledge.
Is there a book I can read? Anything anyone can recommend which tells the story of Mozart?
My entire base of knowledge about Mozart comes from:
1. His music. I’ve seen most of his operas. So. There’s THAT evidence. First of all. What he left behind.
2. The movie.
That’s it. Enlighten me??
Here you go, Mizz O’Malley
I can’t point you to a definitive source, Sheila.. but my understanding is that the role of Salieri – as portrayed in the movie – has been disputed since the movie came out.
Can’t help on the insane asylum scene, but I think (and I may be wrong) that Salieri is now generally considered to have been an supporter of Mozart during his life and that his depiction in the movie is a fictionalised account.
Emily – wow. It’s a goldmine. Reading it now.
I see Emily, as always, has a relevant link available. :)
So, according to that source, ‘supporter’ may be overstating it.. and he was indeed in an insane asylum when he ‘confessed’.
There must be some biographies out there though.
My art teacher in high school was a Mozart NUT. He used to rave on and on and ON about everything in that movie that was factually incorrect, as if it completely invalidated Mozart’s entire life and work by its very existence. I loved that guy. I was sad when he retired and was replaced by this stupid hippy jerk who used to give us all crap about the subject that we picked to draw and paint. Dick.
Sorry. Strayed a little off topic there.
Ha! I can see if you’re a Mozart nut you would be offended by anyone taking license with his life story.
But a movie fan can allow a degree of license. IF the end result is worth it.
Oh totally, peteb. I’ve gotten into FIGHTS with people (on this blog – ahem) about that. I like movies because they are movies, not because they are accurate history lessons.
But then again, I’m also a hypocrite.
Oh well. C’est la vie. I like what I like. I don’t mind when license is given in SOME cases because I love the movie, the end result, as you say. But then there are other times when so much license is given that I can barely enjoy the movie. Especially if it’s a topic I really care about, and know a bit about. This seems to be a common response.
Yup. I’m a hypocrite. And proud of it!
When Amadeus came out, I was pretty involved in some musical circles, and all my musical friends loved it even though they knew it wasn’t accurate. The comment was always, “Not historical, but a great movie!”
C’mon, red! Everybody knows the truth was laid bare (literally) on this critically acclaimed show.
The whole truth, clearly laid out.
Amadeus was something of an exception, because most movies about composers tend not to be good at all. I hated Mahler for instance, because I considered it a slanderous and pornographic distortion of a truly great man’s life. Lisztamania didn’t have any pretentions of being anything other than trash, so I suppose that it gets off the hook on that basis. Immortal Beloved was ok, but it wasn’t very memorable. There is a movie on Wagner that I liked quite a bit, however; I think it is just called Wagner.
Immortal Beloved featured, as I recall, a bunch of over-acting. Everyone appeared to be melodramatic and when they spoke, spit came out of their mouths. As though composers and people in “olden days” couldn’t possibly be real people, and just talk like normal people. That seems to be one of the challenges: make these great people seem human and real. Amadeus certainly achieves that.
Sheila, I tend see this example of license as a tribute to F. Murray.. the ‘truth’ of his performance of Salieri was so convincing that it began to replace the historical fact… causing consternation among Mozart nuts.. and joy among movie fans.
And yeah.. I’m a hypocrite too.
Coming to this late, but as Emily’s link illustrates, many liberties are taken with Mozart’s life.
Bryan mentioned Immortal Beloved, a film that goes so far beyond taking liberties that I wouldn’t even catagorize as a biopic. Beethoven did not lose his hearing as a child, the result of a beating. He began to lose his hearing relatively late in his life. He could still hear (though not well) when he composed his 9th symphony. He was completely deaf at its premiere.
I think that’s a good point, peteb – One of the reasons why Amadeus works so well (as opposed to other composer biopics) is that we see the entire thing through the eyes of an outsider. Salieri is US. The film is not asking us to ‘understand’ Mozart’s genius, is not trying to “explain’ it. It is, in a sense, unexplainable and un-understandable anyway … and the device of Salieri lets us see that.
The same thing with the little weepy maid hired by Salieri to spy on Mozart (who is none other than Cynthia Nixon of Sex and the City fame!) But we see Mozart through her eyes, too. We are never fully inside Mozart’s head.
I think that’s a perfect way to approach a genius.
Having read Emily’s link, I’ll add:
From my knowledge, and admittedly I’ve not studied the life of Mozart extensively, it’s accepted that Mozart had sexual affairs with some (several?) of his students. Despite his objection to teaching in the film, Mozart did indeed have pupils.
I’ve read background information written by Peter Schaffer, in the deluxe laser disc set if memory serves, where he claims Mozart did have a peculiar laugh, and was known to often be in the company of a wine bottle.
I’ve listened to Salieri, and while he’s not a mediocrity, it’s not a big jump.
From what I understand, the vaudeville productions of Mozart’s operas were rooted in fact, if a bit exaggerated. The man who comissioned Magic Flute was real and did run an opera house geared toward the commoners. I don’t know if he really comissioned The Magic Flute.
P.S. Avoid the director’s cut.
Sheila,
That’s an excellent point, and it probably is why the scene where Mozart is dictating the Requiem to Salieri from his deathbed was so memorable, because it’s the closest we get to seeing what goes on in Mozart’s head. All through the movie we want to understand, then we get that one tantalizing glimpse, and then Mozart kicks it.
Bryan – Right. Because genius, in its very nature, is kind of mysterious. Salieri looks on on genius like Mozart’s and has all these feelings about it. We, if we admit we’re human, have the same thing. Geniuses, after all, are NOT “just like us”. That’s really one of the whole points of the movie.
Like the scene where Salieri first goes to meet Mozart … and he wanders through the party … not knowing who he is looking for, or what Mozart looks like, but he peers at each individual face, thinking to himself something like (scott J, you’ll know the quote):
“Can talent be seen? Will it show?”
I can’t see that dictation scene without reliving dictation exercises from music school. They’d tell us the first pitch and then play a melody twice. Once you got good at it, you only needed it played once.
I don’t have any problem overlooking the fact, but a flaw in the dictation scene is any 1st year music student would be able to follow what Mozart was doing.
Apart from the actual performances themselves.. which make the movie work. There’s also the valid defence, of all of the dramatic license taken in the movie, that it is, after all, told as a flashback.. from the POV of an insane man.
Sheila,
I think you have just articulated for me what it is that I disliked so much about Mahler and to a lesser extent about Immortal Beloved. Both of them seemed motivated by a desire to cut their subjects down to size, to make it seem as if Mahler and Beethoven were slightly lower on the scale of human evolution than the average guy. Mahler was worse than Immortal Beloved in that respect.
I disliked Shakespeare in Love for the same reason.
Amadeus doesn’t commit that sin. Even though Mozart can be goofy and weak in the film, we never get the impression that we could be anything like him.
One of my favorite lines of the film is when Mozart says to the Emperor – after making some really inappropriate comment about shitting a marble:
“I’m a vulgar man, your Majesty. But I assure you my music is not.”
Raise your hand if you’ve used “they shit marble” in conversation.
Ha!!! It’s so hilarious. To blurt out “they look they shit marble” right at the emperor and that snooty opera director guy.
Oh and Scott, meant to ask:
What’s wrong with the director’s cut? Self-indulgent? Or …
I love it when people get all hairy-eyeball about inaccuracies in the movies, and sometimes I’m even clever enough to catch myself when I do it (not often, though).
When The Piano came out I was living in Berlin, and one of my close friends was a rather haughty Welsh fellow named James. James (as he would tell you within 20 minutes of meeting you) had a double doctorate and one side of it was in music; he proudly refused to dabble in the soil of pop culture, and was always the one bellowing things like “U2? What the hell is that? Since when did they start letting spy planes record record albums? Mind you with the music today you probably couldn’t tell the difference,” etc. etc. ad naus.
I was captivated by The Piano, and Berlin was a perfect environment for it; in fact I saw some Campion shorts and early works there that might not ever be shown in public screenings just about ever again.
One day James and I got to talking about the film. “Dreadful,” he opined. “Utter absolute shite.” Why? I wondered. “Well,” he said, rolling his eyes, exasperated. “She could never have played that music. Not there and not then. It ruined the film. Fucking Michael Nyman should know better than that.”
Linus –
that entire story made me laugh out loud. I know some people like that.
Some people just should NOT go to movies. It’s too upsetting for them, they’re too literal.
There is some basis of truth to the mysterious stranger (representing an eccentric nobleman – but not Salieri) who asked Mozart to compose a Requiem Mass and he did die before completing it. The burial seems to be based on fact. The day, Dec. 5, 1791, was bitterly cold and wet and none of the mourners followed the coffin to the burial site in St. Mark.s churchyard. In a short time the location of the unmarked grave was forgotten.
To me, the burial scene was truly sad and I am near tears whenever I view it. Genius is not always accepted, appreciated or understood.
Have you listened to Mozart’s Requiem? I have the laser disc of Bernstein conducting the Bavarian Symphony and Chorus. Portions of the Requiem were finished by Sussmayr, a former pupil of Mozart, and based on partial compositions left by Mozart.
In the film, the music from the mournful burial scene is the Lacrimosa, with the main theme by Mozart. The most impressive parts, of course, are those completed by Mozart.
Burt – it is a tragic scene. Awful. A pauper’s death in the mass grave.
I don’t have the Requiem – except for the portions excerpted on my Amadeus soundtrack. Do you recommend the Bernstein one?
One more thing to add on Requiem. This is the English translation of the Latin in Lacrimosa.
Ah! that day of tears and mourning!
From the dust of earth returning.
Man for judgement must prepare him;
Spare, O God, in mercy spare him!
Lord, all pitying. Jesu blest,
Grant them Thine eternal rest. Amen
I have enjoyed listening to the Bernstein Requiem many times since I purchased it in 1992. I like the laser disc because it seems as though you are there in the cathedral with the singers and musicians. I often view only portions at a time, because it is over an hour in total.
Has anyone in recent memory had a Requiem Mass performed at their funeral, I wonder? I don’t know when that ended.
Red, re the director’s cut:
It’s not so much self indulgence as the film just flows and works better with the extra material removed. Most of the new stuff is just extensions of existing scenes.
For example, when the emperor is on horseback and mentions to Salieri that he was thinking of hiring Mozart to teach his neice, Salieri alludes to rumors of Mozart sleeping with his students. It’s interesting to watch Salieri tiptoe around the topic so that he doesn’t offend the emperor. It can also be interpreted that he’s making it all up. But in the end it extends the scene unnecessarily, and makes Salieri look very petty and less cunning.
The only scene that I can recall being added was Constanze, after bringing Mozart’s scores for Salieri to review, returns that night to sleep with Salieri. She disrobes before him and he rings for a servent to send her away. This adds some depth to the scene at the end where Constanze tells Salieri to leave her house. But it casts Constanze in an unfavorable light and doesn’t really add anything to Salieri’s character. Salieri’s conflict is with Mozart and his music, not Mozart’s wife.
“Ha!!! It’s so hilarious. To blurt out “they look they shit marble” right at the emperor and that snooty opera director guy.”
Oh, Joseph would hardly have been fazed by that sort of thing: he’d been busy before teaching his clueless brother-in-law (Louis XVI) how to fuck his sister (Marie Antonette). Viennese opera directors, probably a tougher audience.
As for movies taking liberties with history, I don’t have a problem with it as long as 1) it actually serves a purpose and works and 2) it doesn’t proclaim that this absolutely was the way it really was, and if you disagree you’re stupid and/or evil (e.g., anything by Oliver Stone). I don’t think I’ve seen Amadeus in at least five years, but it’s definitely still one of my favorite movies.
Dave J:
God, Dave. Come on. You’ve seen the movie, right? Tell me there isn’t a shocked silence after he says that line.
If it’s been a while, then go see the thing again. There is a shocked silence … some advisor-dude says, “I BEG your pardon, sir…” in a very shocked tone … No one knows what to say.
Congratulations to Dave J – for being the first one on this comment thread to make me feel dumb!
Scott J:
Hm, it is really interesting to see Director’s Cuts and to see how editing and leaving stuff out is often the best thing for the story. Individual scenes may be great, but they don’t add to the story-line, they don’t propel the action forward, whatever.
The addition of the Constanze/Salieri thing is interesting – it certainly does make that last scene make more sense. I just assumed that she was pissed because of how he walks out of the room after dropping Mozart’s music on the floor – he refuses to help them.
But there’s definitely something deeper going on there.
I’ve been burned again and again by Director’s Cuts: Last of the Mohicans, Conan the Barbarian, The Exorcist, Tombstone – sitting on my shelf with one scene that was worth putting in and 10 to 20 minutes of detritus that makes you regret being suckered into the purchase. The ONLY one that really worked for me was Blade Runner.
The Lord of the Rings extended editions (Fellowship and Return to be precise) don’t count for me, because I consider those to be the actual cuts that by rights should have been released in the theaters. The theatrical releases were so chopped for time restraints that on the opening nights I could feel the ghosts of missing scenes, missing characters, missing this, missing that. The extended versions merely restored what should have been there.
Scotter – agreed on the Blade Runner exception.
I think I’m the only viewer alive who prefers the original Blade Runner over the director’s cut. Both versions are inferior to the ScottJ cut in my mind.
I’ve an extended rant about Ridley Scott and his interpretation of the Blade Runner script. I’ll spare you though.
ScottJ:
ha! There are a couple of movies out there where I have a “sheila cut” in my head. Far superior to what makes it on the screen.
Actually, go ahead and rant about blade runner if you like. It might be an interesting conversation.
I absolutely adore Blade Runner, yet for the life of me I honestly can’t remember which was the original release and which was the director’s cut.
The movie aside, have you read anything by Philip K. Dick, Sheila? I think I remember this question coming up before.
Dave J
The Director’s Cut dropped the ridiculous narration from Harrison Ford’s character and, IIRC, it had a less optimistic ending too.
Both the narration and the optimistic ending watered down the original storyline.