Not a historical account.
The movie is very entertaining and well done. However, it has little to do with the life of the real Mozart.
shareLook in the "Goofs" section. Not everything in the film is done in the order it really happened. But, this is a genre called "historical fiction", which Means it is not to be viewed as a historical account of Mozart's life.
shareI don't see a point in historical fiction of this kind. In my vocabulary it's just a bunch of lies. Most people look at it and think that that's what really happened.
shareI absolutely agree. I guess the choice of words for Mozart in the script they wrote was appalling too. Granted he had a sense of humor, but putting coarse and vulgar language into the mouth of western culture's arguably greatest musician is something that cannot be accepted. I mean did he always speak like that?
Also as you mentioned, historically, it didn't make any sense. I was especially disappointed because I watched it with high expectations. I wonder what the critics were thinking rating a crass piece of work so high.
[deleted]
The movie is a symbolism to represent the differences between raw talent and mediocrity.
Haven't you met someone in your life, who for some unknown reason is simply better than yourself at a particular task ? say, sports, math, whatever... even if you have triple the love and devotion than him, it just comes natural for that person to "be good" at it. That is the point of the movie: it's like an ode to admire these people who for whatever reason, have this unbelievable gift.
Some of the facts in the movie are true (or quite close) while some others aren't. You also have to consider that by that time of Schaffer's script, there wasn't much documentation and reliable sources on Mozart's life. For instance, historicians keep pondering whether if Mozart and Beethoven ever met, as there are no accounts they did, but there aren't also that they didn't.
Some true (or close accurate) facts include:
-Mozart was a genius with an extraordinary memory and ability to produce works in no time. Consider that in a lifetime of about 30 years, he wrote a total of 626 pieces. Compare that to say, Beethoven's 120 in 40 years, Beethoven being a genius too.
-Mozart was very keen on billiards and partying. His vocabulary was also quite scatological.
-Mozart was indeed certain that the requiem was his last work and something "mysterious" was behind it.
-Mozart wasn't very good with money. He made a lot but also spent a lot.
Some wrong:
-Mozart didn't die on a morning with Salieri on his sidebed, after spending all night working on the requiem. He was with his family and passed away after midnight.
-Mozart was left handed.
-Mozart did make a few sketches and drafts. These were minor, but he did make a few of them.
-Mozart did not collapse during a performance of The Magic Flute.
Some misinterpretations:
-The film suggests that Salieri envied Mozart. While this may or may not be true, people interpret that the two had an unfriendly relationship, which wasn't the case. It wasn't like they were best friends, but it also wasn't like they were enemies.
There's this chess player, Capablanca, who was nicknamed "The Mozart of Chess", because he had quite a fair amount of similarities with Mozart, such as the fact that he was also a genius with photographic memory. He self-taught himself chess at age four, and by the time he was a teen he was already a world class player. He was world champion for six years and at one point during his career, he went on an eight year undefeated streak. That is eight years without losing a single game of chess. Never before or since has this fact been ever seen, not even on a "one year undefeated streak". This guy went EIGHT !
Apparently, Capablanca was also like Mozart, meaning he rarely read any chess books, hardly prepared for his matches, instead enjoyed being a ladies' man and playing bridge and dominoes with his friends, yet when it came to the board, he was just impossible to beat. So he also had that gift Mozart had.
That's the message and the purpose of the film, and not to serve as a documentary biographical movie.
[deleted]
The movie is a symbolism to represent the differences between raw talent and mediocrity.
---
-The film suggests that Salieri envied Mozart. While this may or may not be true, people interpret that the two had an unfriendly relationship, which wasn't the case. It wasn't like they were best friends, but it also wasn't like they were enemies.
In that case, why not just use fictional characters?
Because it's a way to pay tribute to one of the greatest composers of all time, plus guys like Mozart, Newton, Einstein, Gauss don't show up every five years. Those were hardcore actual geniuses.
Like I said, most great composers wrote 100-150 pieces in their lifetime. Mozart wrote +600 in 30 years. He wrote 41 symphonies, when nomally it's about 10-15. He wrote over 30 operas.
It may not have been Salieri, but I guarantee someone during his time must have been quite envyious towards Mozart's talent. share
[deleted]
They could have, but then how many people would have showed up in the theatre to watch the life account of a fictitious musician? And besides, what music could they have possibly used? Not everybnody could compose like Mozart.
share[deleted]
While it is true that Mozart composed many more works than Beethoven I think that has more to do with the function and perception of music and musicians in their respective times. J. S. Bach considered himself more of a craftsman than an artist and composed over 1000 works in his lifetime. Mozart's friend Haydn composed over 100 symphonies alone. In the romantic era musicians were less dependent upon patronage, had more power and prestige, and therefore didn't need a prodigious output of music.
shareTouching the functions of music, it is also to Mozart's great advantge that he composed a huge variety of music and was such a master in dramatising human relationships and emotions that you can easily find something of his to adapt for films.
share