Two questions:
-
huginn12 — 10 years ago(March 30, 2016 02:06 AM)
They have made movies to entertain people and were historically accuracy or at least they made an effort. I don't see how saying its just a movie somehow makes it ok for Hollywood to rewrite history
My problem with historical inaccurate movies is people act like everything in a movie is true they dont want to hear what really happened and little kids watch these movies thinking its all true -
Suzume-san — 10 years ago(March 30, 2016 06:07 AM)
I don't think it was Hollywood in this case, Huginn, I think it was Peter Shaffer. He is an English playwright, he writes plays, of which
Amadeus
is one; a theme in much of his work is the conflict between hard-working, worthy mediocrity and genius, inspiration, call it what you will.
In
Equus
it's the psychiatrist Dysart, full of self-doubt and angst, and his patient, the inspired inventor of his own religion, the manic boy Alan Strang. In
The Royal Hunt of the Sun
the ageing, cynical soldier Pizarro captures the Inca ruler Atahuallpa, who believes himself to be a god - and Pizarro wants to believe this too.
Amadeus
is another such - the fact that the characters are based on real, historical people is incidental. This is not a biopic. -
huginn12 — 9 years ago(April 09, 2016 01:56 PM)
I dont have any issue with the theme but I did have a problem with the way Salieri was portrayed. He was good in his own right and to say he is mediocre to me is an injustice.
For this theme wouldn't Leopold be a better choice? Their relationship was complex and based on what I read Leopold was good at playing and teaching but not very good at composing
When a movie is based on real people and/or historical events they can change the names. One movie that comes to mind for me is warlock made in 1959. It's based off of Wyatt Earp and Doc Holiday. Arguably this movie has the most historical accurate portray of Earp and no one complains about names being changed -
Suzume-san — 9 years ago(April 09, 2016 03:19 PM)
Well, we do get to hear a good few chunks of Salieri's opera, so we can judge for ourselves - actually rather fine, I think. The people on these boards who are saying 'he was a crap composer' are probably not in a position to hold a valid opinion.
-
Sugarminx — 10 years ago(April 14, 2015 03:55 PM)
The issue of historical inaccuracy.
From whose perspective are we being told the main narrative of the film?
Yes, but just because we are being given an account by someone
other
than Mozart, it doesn't mean that it's
historically
accurate
I could completely understand all the boring and endless critism, if this film was presenting itself as a 'biography on Mozart'. But it simply wasn't.
If anyone is going to watch this film and come away believing it to be an acurate depiction of the composer's life, then they really shouldn't be allowed to operate heavy machineryor light machinery for that matter.
Seriously, people need to take responsibility for educating themselves and NOT relying on Hollywood to provide that education.
A film like this is great because it stirs up interest in Mozart's life and work, and for the less lazy, it will perhaps induce them to learn the facts.
So put some spice in my sauce, honey in my tea, an ace up my sleeve and a slinkyplanb -
degree7 — 10 years ago(May 29, 2015 11:52 PM)
I think if a film sacrifices accuracy/auethenticity for cinematic quality, then that supersedes the obligation to tell a 100% true story.
Amadeus is more of a fable about how envy and jealousy can poison our minds, and the nature of living with mediocrity compared to coming in contact with "God." The movie is more interested in style, form, story and characters than telling the true life and times of Mozart and Salieri.
I feel the same way about other historically inaccurate films. Braveheart and A Man For All Seasons come to mind. They take great liberties with the story, but use this as an opportunity to expand upon themes that would have previously been unavailable. Sir Thomas Moore's sacrifice probably wouldn't have seemed so noble if he wasn't falsely portrayed as a saint in the movie. Then again, I guess the argument that filmmakers should still be able to remain true to the origin, as well as tell a great story, is a valid one.
But personally, I don't care either way. As long as the film is great.
~ I am the tiny voice inside your head. -
scottsteaux63-735-780576 — 10 years ago(January 07, 2016 11:57 AM)
Actually for the purposes of this film historical accuracy (or the lack thereof) is irrelevant; it is based on Peter Shaffer's hit Broadway play, which was if anything less historically accurate than the film, being a sort of "what if" story that speculated that Salieri either killed Mozart or sought to gain a place in history by taking the blame.
So really to label this a biopic is the real inaccuracy; the story was fictionalized from the start.
Oh God. There's nothing more inconvenient than an old queen with a head cold! -
ftremblay379 — 10 years ago(January 09, 2016 12:07 PM)
To me this movie is a farce, and a brilliant one. They presented Mozart as a rock star who would not have been out of place in a 70s rock band. I thought it was a hilarious idea. How can people actually watch this movie and expect it to be historically accurate after the Mozart character walks on screen?
-
robstackley — 10 years ago(January 22, 2016 09:54 AM)
Reading through this highly entertaining conversation, I am reminded of my most vivid memory from the week "Titanic" was released
We saw it the night it opened, and all I heard for the next few days from friends who hadn't seen it yet was:
"Don't tell me how it ends!!!!"
??? -
Suzume-san — 10 years ago(January 22, 2016 12:45 PM)
My daughter was at a production of
Jesus Christ Superstar
(the theatre musical, I mean, of course, not the film) at which the people sitting in front of her were shocked at the ending and tried to cover their children's eyes so they shouldn't see. What, the hero
dies?
We weren't expecting that! -
robstackley — 10 years ago(January 22, 2016 04:12 PM)
That's incredible, Suzumeas if the 39 lashes were like looking at Cancun travel videos! I wonder what they tell the kids they're celebrating at Easter!
In full disclosure, though, I freely admit that I had to turn away during the 39 lashes in "Passion of the Christ"double-guilt there! -
Mister_Milich — 10 years ago(March 20, 2016 04:13 PM)
I agree, kekoajadecastle. It's much like The Usual Suspects. The timeline is more or less intact, but what exactly happened and how and why are dictated at the will of the narrator.
"I'M AS MAD AS HELL AND I'M NOT GOING TO TAKE THIS ANYMORE!" -
Edward_de_Vere — 9 years ago(April 10, 2016 10:00 AM)
Two questions:
From whose perspective are we being told the main narrative of the film?
Are you familiar with the concept of the Unreliable Narrator?
A more important question:
Who is naive enough to watch a movie like this expecting it to be a history lesson?