This review is from my series, Comparing with the Critics. If you’d like to learn more about the series, click on the link below.
Introducing my new series, Comparing with the Critics!
I was intrigued to review Amadeus for a number of reasons. One of those reasons was the song, “Rock Me Amadeus” by Falco. For years, I thought the song was created to promote the movie, given the coincidence of two pieces of Amadeus related media debuting in the ‘80s. With the song released in 1985, a month before Amadeus won Best Picture at the 57th Academy Awards, I’d like to believe I was kind of right. In At The Movies’ ‘Best of 1984’ episode, both Gene Siskel and Roger Ebert liked the glamourous, musical biopic. Roger made the film his “personal choice for the best film of 1984”. Like Network and Harry & Son, I had never seen Amadeus, so I approached the movie with little to no expectations. Though I heard good things about the picture since its premiere in 1984. As I write this review after watching the movie, I can definitely see why Amadeus was, at least, nominated for an Oscar.
When I reviewed RKO 281 last July, I complimented Liev Schreiber’s portrayal of Orson Welles. In that review, I said Liev brought humanity back to Orson’s name, finding the heart of the “genius” and putting some genuine emotion behind it. This is the same way I felt while witnessing Tom Hulce’s portrayal of the titular man. Reading about an iconic figure like Amadeus can make one wonder what his personality was like. Similar to Orson Welles, Amadeus can be thought of as more than just a man with a gift. Through good times and bad times, Tom shows the film’s audience how Amadeus was, simply, human. As his father comes to visit him in Vienna, Amadeus expresses pure joy when he sees his father at the top of the stairs. Amadeus’ smile alone showcases the happiness within his heart. One evening, when Amadeus is composing an opera, he slowly slips into exhaustion. His eyelids rise and fall, he sways out of rhythm, and his face looks as white as the lace on his shirt. Roger claimed Tom’s portrayal of Amadeus was “one of the year’s most engaging performances”. Tom’s performance serves as an example where Roger, the Academy, and I were on the same page.
F. Murray Abraham’s portrayal of Antonio Salieri reminded me of Gloria Swanson’s portrayal of Norma Desmond in Sunset Boulevard. What I mean by this is the character in question’s search for fame is so strong, it forces the character to become increasingly obsessive, even making questionable choices. Throughout Amadeus, Antonio reflects on his life and how it was impacted by the success of Amadeus. At the beginning of his story, wistfulness can sometimes be heard in Antonio’s voice as he shares his dream of making music for God. As his reflected encounters with Amadeus continue, the tone in Antonio’s voice evolves into bitterness, hinting at the frustration he bottled up over the years. This frustration can also be seen if one looks closely at Antonio’s facial expressions. Before a scene from the movie was shared in the ‘Best of 1984’ episode, Roger called F. Murray’s portrayal “a brilliant performance”. The Academy certainly agreed with Roger, as F. Murray won the Best Actor Oscar instead of Tom at 1985’s Academy Awards. Personally, I liked both F. Murray’s and Tom’s performance for various reasons. Through their portrayals, Tom and F. Murray displayed how fame can negatively impact the human soul.
As I mentioned in this review’s introduction, Roger chose Amadeus as his “personal choice for the best film of 1984”. One reason why is how “this movie doesn’t contain one bit of the pretentious, solemnity that we usually associate with movie biographies of classical musicians”. To add to Roger’s comment, I’d like to point out how the film serves as an immersive, detail-oriented character study of how the music industry can be both rewarding and cruel. When Antonio shares his life story with a visiting priest, he emphasizes how he was the only member of his family who was interested in music. This organic talent and rise to prominence provide an opposite view of how Amadeus claimed his fame. Scenes and dialogue illustrate how Amadeus was raised to be a star, with his father providing both the music education and connections for a comfortable future. While discussing a new opera with the Emperor, Amadeus successfully argues why his opera should be performed. He states how he worked many hours on the project and how the opera’s lack of politics will prevent the audience from being alienated. The examples I provided in this paragraph show how, sometimes, talent isn’t enough when it comes to the music industry. It also highlights the effort that goes into making music, let alone one song.
While sharing his thoughts on Amadeus, Roger stated how the film was “a cheerful, rambunctious, irreverent film”. I disagree with his statement to an extent. There are cheerful moments within the movie. However, I wouldn’t claim the movie itself is “cheerful”. The overall story contains darker, sadder moments as well, especially toward the end of Amadeus’ life. One part of the story revolves around someone masquerading as a deceased loved one Amadeus knows. Due to his grief and unresolved issues, Amadeus truly believes the masquerading imposter is the loved one brought back from the dead. This imposter is so cruel to use Amadeus’ pain for their own personal gain. Another statement of Roger’s I disagree with is about how the movie views Amadeus himself. Roger claims how the film “doesn’t so much concern with the actual details of Mozart’s life as with its own feelings about his genius, his personality”. The movie allows the characters, including Amadeus, to be flawed. But there were a few instances where the story seemed one sided. After a successful opera performance, Antonio’s student is upset because she learned Amadeus was engaged to a woman named Constanze. This leads Antonio to believe Amadeus and the student had a relationship. However, the story never clarifies if Antonio’s belief was true. In fact, Antonio stated he didn’t know how his student and Amadeus met or how long they knew each other. To me, this goes against what a cinematic biography should do; introducing an audience to a historical figure through an unopinionated lens.
Before moving on to the next featured film in At The Movies’ ‘Best of 1984’ episode, Once Upon A Time in America, Gene tells Roger “what I love about the film is that it celebrates creativity and that is a subject that most Hollywood movies are simply not concerned with”. As I was about to disagree with Gene by bringing up RKO 281, I remembered that a) RKO 281 was an HBO made-for-TV movie and b) RKO 281 was released in 1999, a decade after Amadeus. But this review is not debating how much creativity is incorporated into Hollywood’s films, especially during the mid-80s. This article is simply an exploration of whether I agree or disagree with Roger and Gene’s thoughts on Amadeus. Earlier in this review, I mentioned how the film was an immersive, detail-oriented character study of how the music industry can be both rewarding and cruel. The movie’s immersion and focus on detail can be seen in the production’s costume and set design. These elements make the entire picture look and feel historically accurate. While Amadeus is a beautiful looking film, it also contains substance. The script provides thought-provoking material, exploring themes like how success can affect someone both positively and negatively. The glamourous and not-so-glamourous sides of the music industry are shown through the stories of both Amadeus and Antonio. Like I previously brought up in this review, Amadeus successfully argued why his opera should be performed. With everything I said, it makes me wonder how much Falco argued in favor of his song, “Rock Me Amadeus”?
This review was brought to you by
Sally Silverscreen
