Talk:Amadeus (play)

Cast history[edit]

Is it worth mentiong that Mozart was played first in London by Simon Callow, first in NYC by Tim Curry and first in Paris by Roman Polanski?

Logical Contradiction[edit]

There seems to be a problem with the following line:

"In the film, Shaffer employs an interlocutor (a young priest) for Salieri to achieve this same function, but the film is told from a more neutral, third-person perspective."

There's a logical contradiction with the use of the conjunction "but."

Play vs Movie[edit]

Might we consider splitting this article into two, one about the play and one about the movie? The two are rather different, and this article shouldn't serve as a mere comparison, it should be positively informative.

Well, you raise a good point, but I think the article manages to be positively informative about both (there are separate, standalone sections for each), and there is very little, if any, direct comparison between the two. Separating them would also lead to a disambiguation page for this topic which would be unnecessary and time-consuming for an information seeker. That's my two cents anyway.RiseAbove 06:09, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

At this point there is a disambiguation page and separate pages for the film and the play. Given that, I propose the few remaining parts of this article that speak exclusively about the film (about the film score and the cast of the film and the academy awards) be removed as they are not relevant to the play and are covered in the film article. I could see leaving the comparisons between the film and the play, since the play is certainly less well known than the film, but I personally think it should be cleaned up by someone who is more familiar with both (i.e. not me) or gotten rid of. norm77 19:57, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since there were no objections, I went ahead and cleaned up most of the information about the film after confirming it appeared on the film's page. I also added links to the film's page from the otheruses section and the see also section to make sure no one got confused. norm77 20:27, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What about the photo? That's obviously from the film. It should be replaced with something suitable from a stage performance (if available) or removed altogether, n'est c

Director's cut[edit]

What are the differnces between the 'original' and the director's cut? I've seen the two, but with too big an interval to remember the first one. Also, the version that I watched, which, at the beginning, claimed to be the director's cut, lasted only 172 minutes (titles included), but the article says it's 180 minutes long. DirkvdM 19:11, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This'll tell ya all you need to know: Amadeus Director's Cut Review

RiseAbove 08:39, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The director's cut includes some extra scenes, including one which adds some extra depth to Salieri and Constanza (Mozart's wife). By my memory, the two major scenes that are included in the Direcor's Cut are:

1) Salieri coerces Constanza to come alone to his residence. This happens after Constanza asks Salieri to help Mozart get the post to teach the Emperor's 12 year old niece. Salieri implies that the purpose is for sexual favors, though he never explicetly says so (this part of the scene, apparently, was the closing part of Act 1 in the play, giving the audience a sense of tension if she'd actually show up). Constanza then comes over and gets undressed - wearing only her garter belt. Salieri looks frightened at this, and summons his servant to show her out. Constanza is furious at this and screams at Salieri. This explains the line, late in the movie, where Constanza says "I regret we have no servants to show you out, Herr Salieri." It also explains why she shows such contempt for him.
2) Mozart attempts to get a job teaching a pupil. He's offered a job to teach the daughter of Herr Schicknauer, who has a special fascination for his pet dogs (he even has a portrait of them in his studio). When Mozart attempts to teach the youn girl some piano, the dogs howl in time to the piano. Mozart storms out, asking Herr Schicknauer if he should continue teaching 'your dog' musical lessons, and grabs a bottle of wine on the way out. It's this bottle of wine that Mozart is drinking when walking the streets of Vienna, just before he sees his father has come to visit him. Late in the movie, Mozart goes back to Herr Schicknauer, begging for a job, which Herr Schicknauer flatly denies him. - Sledgeh101

(I just finished watching the Director's Cut last night, and with the original still fresh in my mind (I own both versions) I can point out more adds)Artemisstrong 01:59, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

3)Longer scene following the performance of Mozart's "The Abduction from the Seraglio", where we see Salieri complimenting Cavalieri (his "greedy songbird"), only to be interrupted first by Amadeus, then finally by Constanza, who in turn leads Amadeus out to tend to his mother-in-law (who had recently fainted). Salieri is, in this extended scene, given more ample evidence of Calieri and Amadeus's physical relationship, in the form of very suggestive dialogue ("She must be very good in bed... there's no other reason you'd be with her" Calieri comments for instance).

4)Several added scenes of Amadeus consulting with Salieri, usually in the context of potential pupils and Amadeus's frightful economic situations. Their relationship is given a deeper, more complex due to these additions, with added touches such as a discussion of mediocrity between the two.

5)A couple of small adds to scenes of young Salieri alone in his chamber. Most notably is a small image of Salieri, filmed from the back, kneeling before his crucifix, praying to God without his wig on. His prayer begs God to "remove Amadeus back to Salzburg, both for his sake, as well as my own". This then cuts to the original scene of Leopold Mozart begging the archbishop to allow his son to return (maybe as a way of showing God directly reacting to Salieri?).

Hope this helps.

Salieri eats fish?[edit]

What the heck? How is commissioning the Requiem Mass equivalent to eating fish? Dave Foster 03:17, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Memorable quotes[edit]

I think a section should be added documenting famous quotes from the movie/play. In particular, I loved the "too many notes" line and would like to see a reference to it. It would be fun to direct wiki editors, who think some entries are too verbose, to this article. 67.87.73.86 06:09, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's what Wikiquote is for. Clarityfiend 15:10, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but we gotta wait until it's added to the list...oh and by the way, I also love the too many notes line..."which ones did you have in mind, Sire?" Heh, heh...the petulance! Eganio 09:28, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

...which isn't a line in the current version of the play. Ceadge (talk) 22:53, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But it is historical, if not verbatim in the film.HammerFilmFan (talk) 15:41, 19 October 2010 (UTC)HammerFilmFan[reply]

What the Emperor said is probably historical; Mozart's reply by Schaffer. See The Abduction from the Seraglio. Opus33 (talk) 16:56, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pushkin's play[edit]

Shouldn't some mention be made of this: [1] I Haven't read it in years, but I seem to remember some similarities. I didn't read the above page too closely, just wanted a reference to it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dcsmith77 (talk • contribs) 08:41, 11 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

So far as I know, Shaffer has never referenced Pushkin's play directly; which means that the description of Amadeus as "inspired" by the Pushkin play should be deleted.

References in Popular Culture[edit]

The "References in Popular Culture" needs some tweaking: In Mr. Show, the rivalry is between John Baptiste Philouza (a play on John Philip Sousa) and Salini, not Falooza and Sadieri (Season 3, Episode #308 - "Bush is a Pussy" - 11/7/97 premier). Please correct. I am a HUGE fan of that show, and know every episode backwards, forwards, and sideways, so you can trust me! Eganio 02:00, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DIY. Done. Eganio 05:24, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Josephamadeus11.jpg[edit]

Image:Josephamadeus11.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 06:18, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mozart Section[edit]

Is it just me or is the Mozart section a little POV? --kralahome 04:35, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Removing Brown Essay citation?[edit]

http://www.mozartproject.org/essays/brown.html

I read this, and while the author certainly understands the history, he seems to be a poor judge of fiction. And while his personal take on it may not be basis enough for removal (though the reasoning behind including this in the article at all seems dubious from the start), the fact of the matter is he misrepresents several key plot points of the play and film and seems to employ a decidely selective memory of his account of the story. The most glaring error (and I've seen it made elsewhere) is that both film and play try to persuade that Salieri poisoned Amadeus, but of course this is not present anywhere. Certainly Salieri talks of violent thoughts, and his plan involving the requiem, but the film and play stop well short of suggesting further along these lines.

So, can we delete the link? Artemisstrong 03:03, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I restored the link before I read Artemis' comment. Having now read the essay, I'd vote for keeping it linked. I don't think Brown implies that film or play subscribe to the Salieri poisoning theory; as I read him, he simply points out (and regrets, IMO rightly) that this and other misapprehensions regarding Mozart have persisted in the popular imagination virtually unchallenged, at least ever since the Pushkin story was first published, and that "Amadeus" (play and film) derive entirely from this mythology. And to be fair, he also acknowledges the dramatic power (though obviously not the historical accuracy) of both these works.

Of course, I may have misread the essay. Haploidavey (talk) 01:13, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Versions of play; summary[edit]

The article should also include some discussion of the several versions Shaffer has made over the years, moving the play much more strongly in the direction of tragedy. The latest version completely rewrites the ending scene, giving Salieri a recognition/reversal moment, exactly as Aristotle recommends for tragedy.

As well, the summary of the play is inaccurate (I made some minor corrections, but it needs a thorough rewrite), and appears to confuse the movie with the play.Theonemacduff 05:29, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Productions[edit]

This is a badly organized section, and needs major work, since it's in danger of becoming a dumping ground for any group that puts on a production. For example, who cares if the Mount Gretna players cut the text to ribbons and presented it as a "modified" version? If that version was created or authorized by Shaffer, it is of note; if not, not, and should be cut. As well, the Crucible theatre production's boasting of their use of a thrust stage is absurd. Shaffer's directions, from the very first version, have said that the play is to be presented on a modified proscenium stage, and it's clear from his description that the effect of the modifications is to use a proscenium space (the majority of available playing spaces) in such a way as to make it more like a thrust or apron stage. He specifies a fake proscenium at the back of the stage (he calls this the "light box"), but he has never called for the use of an undifferentiated proscenium space. In the same paragraph, the distinction made between the original script, so-called, and the version the Crucible presented is in fact merely the difference between Shaffer's 1981 version and his 2003 version. It is the latter which is now the only authorized playing version. Note that the 2003 revision includes an introduction by Shaffer of some 30 pages, detailing the history of all the different versions (he includes the film as a "version"), and a set of Appendices detailing the lighting, properties and special effects cues. Currently, alas, the text of the 2003 version is unavailable, due to Penguin UK's mistakenly reprinting the 1981 text with the ISBN of the 2003 revision.Theonemacduff (talk) 23:09, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Moving section to talk page[edit]

Hello, I first tried putting a lot of "citation needed" tags on the following, then decided just to take it out and move it here. Quite a bit of the material would be considered very controversial, at least from the viewpoint taken in the various Mozart biographies I've read (Sadie, Solomon, Halliwell, and Braunbehrens).

Surviving letters by and about Mozart give examples of his boorish and often crude sense of humour, with a penchant for coprophilic jokes (shown in the film), which was shared by his mother, at least in their letters to one another. Mozart was extremely childlike,^{[citation needed]} almost never able to sit still, even during others' performances.^{[citation needed]} He was self-confident to the point of arrogance^{[citation needed]} and his stubbornness and penchant for juvenile indulgences often annoyed his more staid peers.^{[citation needed]} His sense of humour can be seen in some of his compositions, such as the canon Leck mich im Arsch (literally: "Lick me in the ass"; idiomatically: "Kiss my ass").

Extant records show Mozart was not a good money manager and suffered from large debts (he loved clothing and spent huge sums on it) and also favoured partying, drinking,^{[citation needed]} gambling^{[citation needed]} and possibly drug use.^{[citation needed]} As portrayed in Amadeus, Mozart actually comes off as fairly tame. However, he also had a huge income,^{[citation needed]} particularly from his own performances as a conductor or musician. There is no evidence that he didn't pay back his loans^{[citation needed]} even if many letters shows that he often was out of money. Mozart's relationship with his father as portrayed in the film seems to be accurate, judging from the subtext of their letters to each other.^{[citation needed]}

Opus33 (talk) 23:35, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Should this article contain links to factual articles about Mozart?[edit]

Hello, I am currently involved in an edit war with a person whose user name is "WesleyDodds". The dispute concerns whether the article should contain a brief section of links, informing the reader where else in the Wikipedia one could go to learn about various questions of Mozart biography raised by the play.

In my own experience, there are many people who, after seeing a Hollywood or Broadway rendition of a real life person, are curious to know what aspects of the work were based on fact and which were the fictional inspiration of the author. I judge that such people are part of the audience we ought to be serving. By using links, we can do this at a very modest cost of space within this article.

It is also true that there are plenty of people who have no curiosity at all about real-world facts. However, in reading the Amadeus article, such people could easily skip over the real-world links. I think we ought to serve our entire audience, and this includes people who want the background facts about the play. Opus33 (talk) 15:38, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly, the layout is atrocious. This article should focus only on items directly relevant to the play, as indicated by reliable secondary sources. The play is the subject of the article, not Mozart's life. Yeah, there's tons of historical inaccuracies in Amadeus. Making a link dump of all the things it got wrong doesn't solve anything; it just makes the article look horrible.

"In my own experience, there are many people who, after seeing a Hollywood or Broadway rendition of a real life person, are curious to know what aspects of the work were based on fact and which were the fictional inspiration of the author." Yeah, it's interesting, but it's not the purpose of Wikipedia to provide "interesting" details. Items like this fall under trivia and should be removed. WesleyDodds (talk) 10:18, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Amadeus. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:13, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Amadeus (film) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 20:29, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]