09 Aug Amadeus (1984)

Ratty Accident of God

Sometimes things just come together for no apparent reason. And when they do, they are either of the Mozart type or Salieri types. Here’s how to tell in films: no chances are taken — no experiments are made — everything is extremely competent, but in following rules established by others.

That’s this film, and it is ironic that it is its own damnation. It is unelaborate, too few notes. Each character can be fully described in one sentence. Every situation as well.

Mozart’s genius was in creating depth in the music — music which commented on itself by elaborating itself. The phrases were novel, but tricky — after hearing them you believed you knew them all along but were wiser because of it. Not so this film, which is lush but unrewarding.

So why is it well-received? Because it has costumes, is easy to read, has pleasant music. And — I believe — because it has the required self-referential ‘play with the play.’

Posted in 2002

Watching this 23 years later…

It seems churlish to criticise this thing. There are so few competent movies, fewer every year — and at least this is well put together, engaging, lush. The problem is that what I want is to be changed by a film. I want it to enter my inner being and work some perhaps devilish magic. I want to enter into a compact with the filmmaker to take risks and go where neither of us feel safe. The very, very last thing I want is to be entertained.

What we have here is nesting:

• The framing dialog of Salieri, recounting what we will see, and relating some joist with God.
• The rather sordid life of a petulant genius.
• The inner haunting by the father, too close to a trope to narrowly miss being comedic.
• Some music.

In this nesting, the music is the core, the fire. Here’s where my churlishness comes in. I simply don’t like Mozart’s music. I don’t. It has the same flaw this movie has: it is designed to entertain us. It has depth, brilliance, engagement, all engineered at genius level. But its intent — even in the deepest dramatic program — is to show passion rather than evoke it. It is a photo, not a life — an account rather than an encounter. It sets itself on a stage, apart from our lives.

You make your choices in life. I won’t invest in cleverness for its own sake. My lodestone in classical music is Chopin, specifically his piano work. What he created was an invitation to dream together, diving into rapids and capture by melancholy thighs. Even though he is long dead, we change each other. All I can do with Mozart is clap and then leave the building into the cold air.

Posted in 2025

Ted’s Evaluation — 2 of 3: Has some interesting elements.

IMDB