We will discuss Amadeus on Monday after we've watched the second half on Friday. Wait until then to answer the questions below (unless you've already watched the entire film on your own).
Answer TWO of the following as a comment below...
1. Is the Mozart in the film the same one we meet in Peter Gay's biography? What similarities do the two men share? Where do we encounter differences? Is the Amadeus Mozart more theatrical, more over-the-top? Or does it merely focus on one side of Mozart that is authentic, even if other sides are passed over? In other words, do you feel anything significant about Mozart is overlooked in the film? Be specific...
2. While Gay
explores Mozart’s life initially through Leopold, Forman (and Peter Shaffer,
who wrote the play) chooses to examine him through his real-life rival in Vienna
3. In the play Amadeus (which the movie is based on), the playwright, Peter Schaffer, has Mozart exclaim: "that’s how God hears the world. Millions of sounds ascending at once and mixing in His ear to become an unending
music, unimaginable to us! That’s our job! That’s our job, we composers: to combine the inner minds of him and him and him, and her and her—the thoughts of
chambermaids and Court Composers—and
turn the audience into God!” (Shaffer 91).
Though this speech isn't in the film, where DO we see Mozart defending his music and/or explaining his philosophy? What does the film want us to understand about Mozart's art and why he wrote what he did? Cite a
specific scene/moment in your response.
4. One of the themes of the film is the distinction between talent and celebrity. A great, talented composer may be in fashion one moment and out of fashion the next, whereas a much less talented composer could (possibly) stay in fashion forever. However, when we look back, we only see Mozart--not a Salieri, or a someone else. How does the film try to explain the fickle tastes of the past? Why could they not 'see' Mozart's talent the same way we do today? Why doesn't talent always stand out in society and the arts?
An audience, in Mozart's time, were extremely modist, change was not welcomed and anything being progressive was considered untastfull. Mozart had an unusual sense of humor, today we can laugh along with the opera when higher class was unable to see the humor, or simply didn't want to. Mozart was especially talented but was supervised heavly, it may have been a matter or personal taste of as said progressive talent was feared because it could cause rebellion. The same still happens today, we see it all the time. An artist, regaurdless of type, may have a work that causes outrage or even riots..
ReplyDeletethe above is from Summer Junek
DeleteKendall Dobbs:
ReplyDelete1. I do not like the Mozart in the movie. This is my second time to see this movie and I was hoping that the second time through would be better ... it wasn't. I despise the way the author and director created Mozart. But as I sit here and try to determine the differences between the book and the movie, I can't really come up with much. I guess the difference is that my interpretation of Gay's words is way less annoying. I feel like Gay puts more of an emphasis on the music and talent while Forman focuses on the pride and perverted man. Does that make any sense? I feel like this movie has done so well because the annoying laugh, lack of pride, and shocking comments captures the audiences attention. I mean, if you ask someone what they remember most out of the movie ... it probably won't be the times where Mozart's music was playing.
2. I have to say that I prefer Gay's method at introducing and explaining Mozart. I think that going through Leopold has given us an insight into why Mozart is who he is and why he does the things that he does. I guess Forman gives us a more direct view on Mozart. He shows us the man that everyone else knew. People during Mozart's time didn't know much about the broken relationship between father and son. So maybe Forman's approach is more accurate to how the world saw Mozart than to who Mozart was inside. Does that make sense? If that is the case, no wonder why Mozart's music fell between the cracks for years, I wouldn't listen to it because he is so prideful and annoying.
1. The movie and the book are alike by showing Mozarts true personality. The movie could've been more personel showing his famiy like and emotions not just his conceded childness. If it showed a past behind Mozart it could show what he became and why.
ReplyDelete2. The movie shows a loud character. It shows how conceded he was and that others could clearly see his talent but maybe he was to immature to get total acknowledgement.
Casey Bear
Nesha Pickens
ReplyDelete1) To me the Mozart in the film is more annoying than what he was portrayed in the book. What was really annoying was his laugh. Also in the film he seemed more eager to remain the greatest in the film, more cocky. So yes, he is more theatrical in the film. I didn't really notice anything overlooked in the film about Mozart.
2) In that time people didn't care for change much. If they were satisfied with a certain type of music then it remained the same type of music. Mozart believed in change and like I said before, he was eager to show it. Mozart tried to put humor into his work and all he wanted to do was entertain people but to others Mozart's humor and some of his work was considered distasteful and not welcomed. For us in this time we can laugh at Mozart's humor including many other things. We see Mozart as this funny /annoying guy who just wants attention for his music. Nothing different from any other artists in our time now.
Dakota Breeze
ReplyDelete1. The movie and the book, both put Mozart as immature, devious, boastful, but in the movie he has that laugh.....I take that back I should say cackle. To me the Mozart in the movie is damn close to what we read. However the difference I have seen was when Mozart asked Court Composer to ask the Emperor to talk to he director. Because that was the only time I ever noticed Mozart experience a tad bit of Humility.
4. The reason the world back then couldn't see Mozart the way we do, is because back then the Marriage of Figaro was BAD. That was enough for the emperor to scream "Off with his head." Where as the way we look at and those before us looked at it, it showed a way to express that no one should have to be a damn dirty servant to those who think that their poop smells like roses.. All in all, I believe Mozart was an expressionist, which was not common back then. What he felt, you can easily hear it in his music. This being said I would like to point out when his wife and his father were arguing he gave a sigh, then walked to the pool table sighed again, then started composing, coincidence? I THINK NOT! Anyways, all being said, we can idolize him easier than they could back then because we don't have servants, or just the rich and the poor. We don't worry about revolutions or killing our masters. We like comedy, and that is exactly what Mozart was trying to bring, something they simply could just not comprehend.
Josh Coats
ReplyDelete1. I think the film and book portray Mozart in a very similar light. However, I think the film portrayed Mozart to be even more erotic. For example, I really don't believe Mozart would pass gas while making fun of a composer. Yes, the book talked of Mozart's erotic-ness, but I think the film portrays it a little over the top. I've never watched the film prior to this class, so I'd have to say, based on what I've viewed, that it did portray Mozart's ability to compose on a whim pretty accurate.
4. I don't think Mozart was revered as a musical genius of the time because his music was new; people are afraid of new concepts and ideas. Technology also plays a role in identifying talent. YouTube wasn't around in Mozart's time so his compositions weren't readily available all over the world. However, because technology is so available now, I think sometimes when we think of "composer" to "singer" their talent seems to not have the magnitude that it used to because we are heavily exposed to the arts.
Amanda Hogue
ReplyDelete1) The movie and biography Mozart do share similar characteristics, they both are immature, odd, throw tantrums, and both know they are too good to be labeled as a servant. But not all qualities correspond to the two Mozarts, for example, the movie Mozart is over exaggerated but it’s a movie, it’s supposed to be exaggerated. The Mozart actor plays him so well with his SpongeBob giggling and childish party games, his role is inflated but he covers the point very well. I did notice one difference compared to the biography and movie, Antonio Salieri’s role seems different in the two medias. In the book it seems like he senses Antonio Salieri’s rivalry and such, but in the movie he is so happy for him to come to his dying operas where he plays on a tiny baby piano even though Salieri is doing these actions out of spite, he even asks him to help him write his last music piece, they seem to have a more friendly association in the movie.
2) I think seeing Mozart through his father’s and rival’s eyes was a very insightful way to see Mozart for who he really was and how his music came about the way it did. His father built him and his image, who is was a composer, writer, and performer; from his father’s eyes you see Mozart as a musician. Salieri was Mozart’s arch nemesis, you see Mozart’s fame from the most jealous person around him at that time showing Mozart at his highest, and the fact that someone was afraid they could never touch that person’s talent no matter how hard they tried; from Salieri’s eyes you see Mozart as an artist of fame and a superstar in a class similar to the king’s right hand.
Gary Lack
ReplyDelete1) The film and the book both show Mozart as immature, but in the film he has that annoying laugh. My point of view is the Mozart in the film is similar to Mozart in the book. However I felt in the film he was being hated on by Salieri as the same for the jealousy in the book.
Gary Lack
ReplyDelete2) The Film and the book it showed his true immaturity level . I myself could see through this with all the talent he presented I agree he was a genious at composing any type of music, write, and perform. But in his real life generation there was nobody ready for the change of music he presented.
Walter Braxton Reeves
ReplyDelete2. Peter Gay expressed a somewhat containment of the character of Mozart. And on the other hand, Mozart in the movie was LOUD and sometimes outrageous, to me, the movie reveals Mozart to be much more "out there" than the book does. Don't get me wrong, he was immature and cocky/arrogant in both, but the movie definitely magnified that.
1. I believe that they are somewhat alike, as I said in my first comment though, I feel as if Mozart in the movie was more loud and out there than the Mozart from the novel. It might be because I got to visualize it in the movie vs. the book. In my opinion, the only thing that separated them was in the movie, Mozart was a lot more cocky and arrogant. Also that super annoying chuckle that he had in the movie was the "cherry on top" as to why the movie Mozart was a bit more than Gay's version of Mozart
Justin VanNatta
ReplyDelete1) The film and book both described Mozart the same to an extent. In the novel, Gay shows Mozart in a deeper content, showing more of his emotions, family and his music. where In the movie, Forman really displayed Mozart's childish personality. In the movie you see more of a want from Mozart wanting to be the best ever.
4) I blame politics for this. Mozart was a great composer during his time but he was just in a low enough social class to where he couldn't get the fame he wanted. The arts was something new at the time, people just saw him as a servant with great skills. society then was scared of change, also had much conflict with things that are not as intense as they are today such as religion, fashion and political view points.
Weston Haynes
ReplyDelete1.) The book and the movie both display Mozart as immature at times, but also really serious about his work. It also shows in both how Mozart was cocky, and not afraid to stand up to the nobles about what he believes in, and also his weird fetishes. The differences are not much, but in the book, I feel that I gained more insight of Mozart's personal life and his music. In the movie, we see more of the flamboyant, boastful and cocky side of Mozart, not the musical side as much, or what made him want to write. The movie never focused on Mozart's early childhood and how he became involved in music. Unfortunately the movie just skipped right to Mozart in his twenties and went from there. The movie also didn't focus on Leopold (Mozart's ambitious father), and how he was always the force behind Mozart. It did show glimpses of Leopold, but not enough to get a good picture of how he was the way he was. In the end, the movie displays almost wholly a theatrical version of Mozart with his crazy laugh, cocky and flamboyant side, and his almost always right persona, which I don't believe is true of his real self. Sadly the authentic side of Mozart was not there. The movie I felt was in good taste, but was not a great biopic. It didn't show what made Mozart ticked..
2.) The movie was a spot on direct view of what Mozart was, while the book showed us how Mozart came to be the way he was. Mozart's was not seen as such a welcoming artist and the movie showed us in good detail of that, and also gave us an insight of how artist like Antonio Salieri viewed him; as intimidating and cocky as all get out. In the end they respected him, but did not want to show it. The movie showed us the view from the people who knew Mozart and his music. He seemed annoying but nonetheless a magnificent figure in music. Mozart wanted attention and respect, and people at the time were not eager at all to give it. They were resistant to change, and did not welcomed it when it came upon them by Mozart. We saw the musical side of Mozart in the book, and how people viewed him in the movie, as a great musical figure but also cocky, flamboyant, and out of control.
Paul Sandy
ReplyDelete1&2) There were similarities like his outlandish behavior and financial irresposibilities. The billiard table was prominent in both but I enjoyed the differences more. The first notable difference is the chronological starting point of each work. While the biography began with his childhood, the movie introduced him late in life, after he was already married and living in Vienna. In the movie we don't get the knowledge of Mozart we do in the biography, particularly his relationship and dealings with his father and the coming of age and breaking away from him that Gay manged to bring to light. The movie gave us a better perspective of how much Salieri truly admired Mozart's talent, in spite of Mozart himself. When Constanze brought the compositions to Salieri he was even more awe stricken by the fact there were no corrections on them. The movie brought to light how much rivalry there was between Constanze and Leopold. I didn't get that from the book, but it makes perfect sense. In the scene where Leopold arrives we get to see how hard Mozart wants to win his fathers approval. We see Mozart trying to get Salieri's approval later too. It's almost as if Mozart projected his father's rejection onto others.
Aimee Elmore
ReplyDelete1.) I didn't like Mozart in the movie. To me he was too goofy. He wasn't serious enough. In the movie the focused on his silly creepy ways. They didn't really focus on the music. I get two different Mozarts compared to the book and the movie. I think i like the book Mozart more. I also think the movie didn't want you to like Mozart. they wanted you to be on Salieri's side. In the film Mozart just seems like a silly boy in a mans body. In the book it made Mozart seem silly but sophisticated when he wanted to be.
2.) By putting the movie in Salieri's point of view you almost hate Mozart with him. You understand his hatred. You see the Mozart is still just a man. In the book when you hear other people talk about him you picture this great guy with some silly qualities. But who doesn't have silly qualities. Through the movie you see a more human Mozart.
Nikki Ennis
ReplyDelete1. As discussed in class, I think Mozart's quirks were emphasized in the film for entertainment value. However, because the only references we really have are letters that Mozart himself had written, I don't think that an entirely accurate interpretation is feasible. I actually enjoyed this films take on Mozart, especially the more serious situations (when defending his music, etc.) in which I felt he was closer to Gay's Mozart.
4. Mozart didn't 'play by the rules' of society and society is what was considered most important to people in the 1800's. Therefore they were willing to overlook his talent for a more socially 'safe' Salieri. This is shown in the film when the members of the Emperor's court are constantly looking down at Mozart for his blatant disregard for what was socially acceptable.This would explain why Mozart is more famous now than he was. We no longer hold society rules at such a high standard, and wouldn't care about the society rules he was constantly turning his nose up at.
Shannon Southwell
ReplyDelete1) The Mozart in the film and in book differ in some ways. For instance, the Mozart in the movie was way to dramatic. The director shows, a immature and obnoxious Mozart. I bet that Mozart was immature and obnoxious, but I do not think it was to that extent. I feel that the movie increased the intensity of his behavior as for entertainment only. I think it looks over the fact that Mozart wanted so badly for his dads approval. It shows a little bit of when his dad comes to visit, but not nearly as much as the book describes.
2) Seeing Mozart through Saliari's eyes, you can see the jealousy that Saliari has for Mozart. Everything Mozart did, from playing to composing was so easy. Where as Saliari had to work so hard for it. Though Saliari is jealous of Mozart, he does however appreciate how good Mozart is. When you see Mozart through Leopold's eyes, you see a bias opinion. Leopold was most of the time proud of his son and how well he played and composed because he was his son. Of course Leopold thinks Mozart is the best. The one think that you see in both views of Mozart is that he was good at his music.
(1) I think the Mozart in the book and the Mozart in the film are somewhat the same. They both are lustful, childish, and spend money they don't have. I think the Mozart portrayed in the film is over the top, somewhat extreme. The film focuses on merely the negative qualities and not the fact the Mozart was a genius. I think that Mozart's talent is downplayed in the film.
ReplyDelete(2) I think that examining Mozart through his real life enemy was a creative way to tell the story. Mozart was so good that even his enemy couldn't deny it. He may have hated Mozart but he couldn't deny that his music was a God-given talent even saying it was the voice of God.
Stephanie Callen
Destiny Coley
ReplyDelete1. I believe that the movie and biography are similar In some ways. In both, Mozart is spoiled and he believes that he can get away with doing anything whether it is banned or not. He is very strange for his age and throws fits like a 6 year old, yet he believes that he deserves more respect that he actually gets because he is Mozart. In the book, you can read it and interpret it in any tone you want to so he could be really calm in the book to me, but he is extremely dramatic in the movie. I feel like Amadeus is over the top and dramatic, but I feel like Mozart is over dramatic no matter what. Like someone else said, Gay definitely puts more emphasis on the music and talent while Forman focuses on the perverted and conceited man.
2. Gay shows us Mozart through Leopold because one of the ways to understand why someone is the way they are is to see how they grew up. it explains that the choices that were made for him at an early age shaped the way the rest of his life went. Looking at him through his real life rivals eyes just shows us how amazing his music really was because he knew that he would and never could be as good as him. It shows us that his music was magnificent although he as a man was not that great.
Stefan Schodlbauer
ReplyDelete1) First of all, in the book that Peter Gay wrote, I felt that is was more serious and not so simple. He gave me an impression that in the movie I did not spected to see. One of the most important things that impressed me was the way that Mozart laughed. It was kind of annoying and very funny which caused laugh to everyone. Also, his comments where not appropiate for that time. Secondly, we can also see same parts in both things. Mozart was an incredible musician and he wrote very good music for that time. They were impressed with the ability he had to play and write music. Finally, I think that in the movie we do not pay that attention to the music and maybe we give more importance to the way he expresses himself.
2) Watching the movie narrated from the opponent is totally different from other movies. You can appreciate the jealousy that Salieri had and all the things that he did and wanted to happened to make Mozart a bad musician. He really could not made him go badly because Mozart was an incredible artist. For example, in the movie, we can appreciate that Salieri wanted to chhange part of the opera because of his jealousy. he could not believe how God made Mozart such a good composer.
1) I think the movie was more for entertainment while the book was more about the man Mozart. I think that Mozart was a very strange man though that could be a big reason to why no one liked him in his time. I think a lot of very intelligent people are very socially awkward and that's probably how Mozart was, but not to that much of an extreme like we see in the movie.
ReplyDelete2) I think the reason they wanted to see Mozart life from Salieris point of view was to show how other people in his time seen Mozart. To me it explains more to me why he wasn't as big of a star in his time as other even though his work was better personality and looks play a role into everyone's life even as much as we would like to believe it doesn't it does. seeing it from someone else's eyes make more sense of it all. even though I think that movie goes a little too far just looking for a laugh I do believe its insightful/