Sometimes, it's hard to be a retired history teacher. After all, when I see many historical films, I see the errors in the script--where the writers take HUGE liberties with facts. As a result, you would NOT want to go to certain movies (such as "Pocahontas") with me, as I invariably complain about the crappy writing and lack of historical accuracy. While "Amadeus" is a gorgeous film to watch, it is also a film you would probably not want to watch with me! While vaguely following the events of the adult Mozart's life, so much of the film is wrong--terribly, terribly wrong. And, in the process, the film does a terrible disservice to the memories of the folks portrayed in the film. To me, history is like a holy book--you don't just change it to meet your needs--but here in "Amadeus", facts just aren't particularly important. In the film, Antonio Salieri is a bitter, nasty no-talent. It's easy to urinate on his memory today--it's not like he has family members who will defend him after 200 years! And even worse is the portrayal of Mozart who is shown to be a two-dimensional man. On one hand, he's a musical genius. On the other, he's a blithering idiot whose laugh makes your skin crawl--and there's absolutely no evidence that this aspect of the character is the least bit like the real Mozart.
Now if you completely ignore history, the film is good---very good. The sets and costumes are lovely and it looks as if you have been transformed back to the 18th century. It certainly deserved Oscars for Art Direction, Costume Design, Makeup, Direction, Sound and other technical categories. F. Murray Abraham is great as the conniving Salieri--even though he's very fictional. Tom Hulce, on the other hand, is so annoying at times with his horrid and piercing laugh that I could see why this film didn't result in him being catapulted into stardom. Without this laugh, he would have been MUCH better.
Why couldn't they have just created a story about FICTIONAL characters instead of fictionalizing real peoples' lives? If this had been done, the film would have been exceptional in every way. As it is, it's a severe irritant to anyone wanting to know about the real life characters portrayed so badly in this film. And that laugh...that HORRIBLE laugh has got to go!
Now if you completely ignore history, the film is good---very good. The sets and costumes are lovely and it looks as if you have been transformed back to the 18th century. It certainly deserved Oscars for Art Direction, Costume Design, Makeup, Direction, Sound and other technical categories. F. Murray Abraham is great as the conniving Salieri--even though he's very fictional. Tom Hulce, on the other hand, is so annoying at times with his horrid and piercing laugh that I could see why this film didn't result in him being catapulted into stardom. Without this laugh, he would have been MUCH better.
Why couldn't they have just created a story about FICTIONAL characters instead of fictionalizing real peoples' lives? If this had been done, the film would have been exceptional in every way. As it is, it's a severe irritant to anyone wanting to know about the real life characters portrayed so badly in this film. And that laugh...that HORRIBLE laugh has got to go!