Doesn't even matter. It's not Hollywood's job to teach us history.

Yeah! It's so historically inaccurate, like some people had American accents and some people didn't when everyone knows that the whole of Austria would of had American accents!!!!! And some of the actors were actually British pretending to be American/Austrians.

Good points, schwester, but what I think most people overlook is that first, the title that appears on the screen isn't just "Amadeus" referring to Mozart's name (which might imply a biography), but "Peter Shaffer's Amadeus," which explicitly indicates this is not a biography but an author's usage of a real life person in a fictitious work. Second, the movie is a black comedy. It nods to this right off the bat as Vincent Schiavelli and his companion dig into Salieri's dessert while he is committing suicide. This tone already belies historical veracity. Third, it is unfortunate that many people take this movie as historical truth, but that's not actually the filmmakers' fault. What Milos Forman and Peter Shaffer are doing belongs to a long literary tradition. Shakespeare used Julius Caesar, Mark Antony, Cleopatra, and many kings of England in his very fictitious plays. Nobody reads them for factual history and nobody complains that they aren't historically accurate and many are praised as among the greatest work in literature.

I am one of those people that hated the film for its inacurracies. So maybe I can shed some light on the matter.
The problem are not historical inaccuracies - like wrong costumes or wigs - the problem is that the movie depicts real people and their lives. We are talking about peole who really existed, who lived, who left a legacy to the world. Even if these people are dead, that doesn't mean you can tell a completely wrong story about them just so you can drive home your point about genius and hard work. The movie not only tells a story that has nothing to do with the real lives of Mozart and Salieri, but it shortchanges them both in its depiction. Salieri seems like a mediocre composer who let himself be dominated by jelousy and Mozart seems like an irresponsible manchild. And if you know anything about their lives before you watch the movie it is impossible to not notice the 'inaccuracies'. It drove me personally crazy how absolutely wrong they depicted these great composers and I just could not for the live of me enjoy the movie because of it.
If you want to write a movie about the difference between hard work and genius and how it can affect people and their relationships to one another why not change the names since the movie has nothing to do with reality. The n nobody would have a problem with it and it could be judged soley for its script, cinematography
Because judged on just these criteria it is a good movie. Certainly not the best ever but nontheless a good movie.

It pisses me off that people are so critical and want a perfect movie but not only perfect but real accurate as in reality done in real life kind of movie, and if it is nothing at all accurate or what would happen in real life at all, they just waste all of us our time hating the movies that we enjoy. They must have nothing else better to do and bored as hell to be jerks about awesome and great movies. So what if these people hate the damn movie. If we enjoy it, it is hell of a lot more important than a jerk saying crap about it.
This site is so screwed up on ratings it is pathetic to use this site to find out if a movie is good enough to go see. People now a days are so flipping rude and critical about movies, that you can't trust what anyone says on this site any more. In fact, anything on the internet anymore.
Rated R Horror movies are better, no matter the argument.

I've just returned from seeing the 3 hour (director's cut) version of this and liked it immensely (far more than the version I saw when it first came out).
It impelled me to immediately visit Wikipedia as soon as I got home to learn more about the truth of Mozart's & Salieri's life.
While "Amadeus" is NOT historically accurate about the relationship between those 2 central characters, IMO it IS quite psychologically accurate about the various (sometimes fictional) relationships it does depict (& I'm a retired clinical psychologist).
I thought it was so immensely entertaining that I gave it a 10 star rating.
As someone has previously pointed out, it doesn't pretend to be a documentary or historically accurate; it's the FILM version of a PLAY. But it is interesting enough that it'll propel me to read several books on Mozart's life and maybe more about Salieri's, too.
Not TOO shabby a result, eh?

The Bridge on the River Kwai isn't historically accurate either. And that movie is also a masterpiece.
It's a story, NOT a documentary. It's fiction, set to an historical background.
Can you believe some people? Some people dislike this movie because it didn't happen. Jesus, people, don't be so serious.
It's like those idiots that say: 'I don't watch Star Wars. Because it's not real'.
But hey, those people can always watch PEARL HARBOR. That story did happen.
I'm just on my way up to Clavius.

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?

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!"

What's 'Cancun'?

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!

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!

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!!!!"
???

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?

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!

I have yet to watch this movie, don't know why I never got around to it. I want to watch it and I don't care about any historical inaccuracies.

Thanks for announcing in your thread title that you're going to educate.
Goodbye.
Perhaps the OP just wants to reach out for some sense of community.

This message has been deleted.

It's based on a play. The play never claimed to be historically accurate.

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.

This message has been deleted.

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

This message has been deleted.

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.