Amadeus (1984)

Cast: F. Murray Abraham (Antonio Salieri), Tom Hulce (Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart), Elizabeth Berridge (Constanze Mozart), Jeffrey Jones (Emperor Joseph II)

Director: Milos Forman

Genre: Fictional Biography/ Drama


When your usual average “Joe Sixpack” goes to see a movie, historical accuracy in a film based on a real event or person isn’t normally priority #1. It’s sad I suppose but true nonetheless. In the case of this film, I don’t think it matters. Only the historical facts in the life of Mozart that are important for the film’s story are presented correctly. Otherwise, the rest is more or less fictional. Besides, the purpose of the film Amadeus isn’t to present a biography as much as it is a moral lesson. Amadeus, based on the play of the same name by Peter Shaffer, is actually more about the Court Composer to Emperor Joseph II of Austria, Antonio Salieri (F. Murray Abraham), during 18th century Vienna-the city of musicians. Salieri idolized Mozart and considered his music to be purely divine. Salieri prayed throughout his childhood that God would make him a great musician so that he could praise God through his music and his industry. He eventually becomes the personal musician and instructor to the Emperor of Austria. He gets to know Amadeus Mozart when the Emperor requests Mozart’s presence at the royal palace. Seeming that God removed all obstacles in order to answer his prayers, he can’t understand why God has made Mozart, a dirty minded buffoon, more of a “divine” musician than he. His jealousy towards Mozart grows so strong that eventually, he swears himself God’s enemy and is determined to do anything to silence Mozart- or rather, silence God through Mozart. The story is told through flashbacks as Salieri, spending his last days in an insane asylum- old, frustrated, and forgotten- tells his story to a priest. The acting in this film is, by far, the best acting I have ever seen in any movie since The Godfather. F. Murray Abraham accomplished the feat of convincing audiences by his mere facial expressions. This film offers so much! The moral lesson is very bluntly and very well portrayed. Salieri’s prayers were answered but not the way he was planning. Who’s glory was he most concerned about? I took to this film right away and never get bored watching it. I also consider the casting to be perfect. If any of the actors were different, I don’t believe it would have been the same film. The portrayal was excellent. The music of Mozart for this was performed by the Academy of St. Martin-in-the-Fields- one of the best symphonies world wide. It was absolutely uplifting. The music was surely its own character. The producer really took his time and put in a lot of effort for this film. It rightly won 8 Academy awards including best picture for 1984. I recommend this film highly above all other films I’ve posted so far. The hatred of Salieri towards God may be harsh for many to see but such is presented for exactly what it is- insane!

Point Missed:
I showed this film to a musically talented and experienced friend of mine. He pointed out a very common fact most musicians deal with which the film captured very well- prejudice. The committee in the royal court in Amadeus was made up of three Italians- not necessarily an important fact in itself. Mozart considered them "musical idiots" yet they were set up to judge his work- his pure God given talent. All the three cared about it seemed was to destroy Mozart. Why? They all had their biases towards him despite his talent. One member, who happens to be the one narrating the story, hated Mozart because he had pure talent while he had to work for his own. Another hated Mozart because, well, why should some non-Italian have a gift that suits Italians better. The last, pudgier member, just seemed to go along with the other two like a trusty sidekick who wouldn't want to disappoint his fellow Italians. This is supposedly a typical element in musical circles, especially when committees are set up to judge talent. Despite it all, talent was triumphant. In this case because it was God given talent. To make a similar point concise, Salieri misused his talent completely. What a shame! And where did he end up!?

Comments on the Director's Cut:
The director’s cut perfectly fills in gaps which audience members might miss or not understand perfectly in the original theater release. Some of the deleted scenes, I think, should have been left in the theatrical version. A lot of dialogue between the Priest and the aged Antonio Salieri was put back in, making Salieri’s hatred towards God much more clear. The audience now has a better picture of why he felt cheated by God and the extent of his hatred. His pride in himself is seen with the cut dialogue put back in. The desperation of Mozart and his wife for money is also much more clearly displayed by certain scenes. It was interesting to see Mozart with pupils. These scenes make his later statement to his father, “I don’t want pupils. They get in the way” more sensible. Finally, a point I never quite understood in the original version was Constanze Mozart’s bitterness towards Salieri at the end of the film. She was obviously clueless towards Salieri’s bitterness and schemes against her husband. In the director’s cut, this fact is made clear. The director’s cut has a scene of frontal nudity that was completely unnecessary. Aside from that, like all deleted scenes, there were a good number that were clearly unnecessary and simply made the film longer. I enjoyed it as it made understandable many elements of the story that I didn’t think were clear enough. It also shed some light on certain elements I never thought about or caught when watching the theater version.