ARTS Amadeus raises objections but worth seeing anyway Touted by many as the best of 1984, Amadeus is a film that frankly should be seen. Taken at face value — the story that’s being told — it’s a film that holds your attention throughout; much of it thanks to the glorious and richly recorded music of Wolf- gang Amadeus Mozart, the cent- ral character, and some genuinely breathtaking photography and camera work. However, if you don’t swallow the story line and characteriza- tions doled out by the creators of Amadeus — an adaption of Peter Schaffer’s award-winning stage play — then you’re going to have a few problems. The film revolves around the “‘mature’’ years (from about 20 or so until his tragic and untimely death at 35) of the great German composer Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart (1757-91), Mozart, who was the enfant prodigeux and darl- ing of the European royal courts and Catholic church when a boy, ended his life in a pauper’s grave in Vienna, his music all but forgot- ten and apparently doomed to ob- livion. On the surface, the facts are correct — Mozart did fall from the heights of popularity and adora- tion to almost total obscurity and poverty. His music, from being played everywhere, was by the time of his death, virtually played nowhere. The question is why. Amadeus suggests two reasons, and if you’re prepared to accept them wholus bolus, relax and enjoy the film. One is the machi- nations and plotting of Mozart’s bitter rival and arch-enemy Salieri, court composer of the Austrian emperor, and _histori- cally accused of killing Mozart himself (although disproved many times over). Initially capti- vated by Mozart’s genius, and realizing his towering supremacy over all other composers (includ- ing himself), Salieri then suc- cumbs to jealously and hatred, and dogs Mozart at every step, successfully plotting Mozart’s downfall and subsequent death — although outwardly appearing sol- icitous and helpful to the al- coholic, disease-racked and dying composer. The other reason — and here is where the big problem comes — is the portrayal and characterization of Mozart himself. Amadeus pre- sents Mozart as primarily little more than an oafish, albeit endearing, vulgar and childish country bumpkin, out of step and out of tune with the rest of the> world, at times blithely ignorant and unaware of convention, at ~ times scornful of all and every- thing, but with one sole saving grace: the genius of being able to write music that no one else could write, the kind of sublime music that towered above everything written up to then. Because of the way Mozart is characterized, the nagging doubt for us is — and for Salieri as well, who is haunted by the thought: how could God give this oaf the gift of writing such music, and pass over others ‘‘more worthy”’ — could the Mozart of Amadeus really write the magnificent music that we hear throughout the film? Is this seeming dilettante with the high-pitched, inane laugh — al- ways at the wrong moment, and always offending — capable of putting such sublime sounds down on paper, and with such lit- tle apparent effort? Is the Mozart of Amadeus the person whose many surviving real life letters to his family and intimate friends display sharp insight into the world around him and into the fal- sity and sham of the royal courts and into his own position, that of writing the kind of music his royal patrons want, or be cast out to starve? We really don’t know. I would suggest not. Mozart in Amadeus is endearing, wonderfully vulgar, nutty, outspoken, tragic, alot that ‘one can sympathize with — but not the man who could write the music he wrote, or who con- sciously said no to his patrons. There are just too few occa- sions in the film in which Mozart has an understanding of his music and what it means, and is not engrossed with himself. One of these exceptions comes at the beginning, when the young Mozart is lusting after his even- tual wife Constanza under the banquet table prior to the court performance of some of his music, seemingly oblivious to the occasion, and then halts his antics and rushes into the orchestral room once ‘‘my music’”’ is heard. The point is made — rather bluntly — but not always pur-. sued, which is unfortunate. Other exceptions come in the episode of the argument between the Emperor and his court musi- cians as to Mozart should write an Italian or German opera; his ‘*selling’’ of Don Giovanni to the Emperor, the reasons for his writ- ing Magic Flute for the popular stage; and the purging of his self- assumed guilt for his father’s death in the writing of his final work on his deathbed, the Re- quiem. : These notwithstanding, the feeling (or at least my feeling) is that there is something missing in the character of Mozart, and this taints the film in my eyes. Things are not helped along by some very strong and rather out- of-place American accents and some “‘with it’’ dialogue that are more in tune with smart middle class Manhattan 1984 than the 1780s. Another little episode which I found rather amusing and some- what annoying was that after ‘about 10 minutes of argument over whether Mozart was to write an Italian or German opera (with the German getting the eventual approval of the Emperor), we see -andhearit sungonthe screen. ..in English! I didn’t mind that. En- glish was used in all opera sequ- ences throughout, but here, the point that was made was totally Interestingly enough, there is not one verifiably genuine portrait of Mozartin his later years. This plas- ter medallion dates from 1788/89. 10 e PACIFIC TRIBUNE, JANUARY 16, 1985 Films lost in the English dubbing of the singing. Overall, the acting is marvel- lous throughout, with strong and convincing (if you accept the. characterizations, of course) per- formances by everybody. The droll, sophisticated and ‘‘laid back’’ Emperor Joseph was a re- velation, especially as a contrast and foil to Mozart’s gaucheries and high-jinks. Equally impres- sive is the camera. work, with much of the film shot in the old town of Prague. The scrupulous re-creation of the court and street scenes is also another very big and meaningful plus. Simplistic, but a ‘fun’ film The best way to describe Star- man is a ‘“‘fun’’ film. The U.S. Voyager II, which travelled be- yond our solar system, contained a gold record saying hello in over 100 languages, described the earth, and invited other civi- lizations to visit. One takes up the offer, but when the spaceship flies over the U.S. it is shot down. With the U.S. Army chasing him, the creature must make his way across the U.S. to be picked up. : Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart fell from the pinnacle of popularity and : general adulation to poverty and ruin, dying virtually alone and neg- lected. This 19th century lithograph depicts Mozart in his last illness. — And then there is the music .. . Love Amadeus, hate Amadeus (it seems there is no middle ground), Mozart could write and how! For many in the audience, the music was a revelation. Even if you The movie has some of the. standard clichés, the hard-nosed military man who wants to get the alien, the scientist-civil servant who wants to talk to the visitor. The visitor learns English based on listening to the radio (he enjoys singing The Rolling Stones, not understanding the words), producing some funny dialogue. Starman could be criticized for being too simplistic: it seems to have your doubts at the end as to” whether the‘ Wolfie’ of Amadeus” could have written the music you" hear in the theatre, it and a lot of other positive features make this” film worth.seeing. — M.S." reduce all problems to a good guy-bad guy situation, with the one civil servant outwitting the | U.S. Army. In addition, the spaceman symbolizes anew Mes- | siah to save the destructive earth, which could be interpreted to mean the earth can’t save itself. But if viewed as a light-hearted comedy, with the usual Holly- wood adventure, then it is a worthwhile film to see. . — Jose Kaufman footlight footnotes Only a month ago, as reported in the Tribune, the Communist Party’s Central Cultural Commission warned that the Tory govern- ment’s current onslaught against virtually all Canada’s cultural agencies prepared the way for “‘a new drive to commercialize culture, to -‘privatize’ the arts, an intensified continentalism to ‘Americanize’ Canada”’ ... Well, a few days later, on Dec. 22, the Toronto Star reported that “‘a group of prominent Canadian businessmen is: preparing an offer to buy the CBC’s English- language TV network,’’ which would- reduce Canadian content from 74 per cent to 60 per cent ... What next? National Film Board? The art galleries and museums? Stratford? Shaw '. Festival? Charlottetown Festival? U of T? McGill? York U? Simon Fraser? The public schools, the hospitals? City halls, provincial legislatures, Parliament Hill? .. . Dare we ques- tion the moral imperative to acquire scads of dollars? * * * As storm-troopers flash daggers, the savaging proceeds according to plan against our arts communities. The victims have been seething with anger, though still, it seems, in a state of shock ... But shock and anger, it is obvious, will achieve little by themselves. The times de- mand action: public protests and demonstra- tions, conferences, leaflets, petition signatures plus the mobilization of every theatre, ballet and musical company, plus a stand by art gallery and museum personnel, members of educational bodies and trade unions — a far-flung nation- wide mobilization ... The artists have the vis- ion, the talents, the voices. Let their anger be heard in a steadily-gathering roar swelling out from both the amateur and the professional associations across the land! * * * Responding to the hard-pressed Toronto theatre community, along comes Ray Con- logue, Globe and Mail theatre writer; to scorn the enterprising Toronto Workshop Produc- tions as ‘‘dead in the water’’ and to charge that the government grants that TWP receives to stay afloat are ‘‘an inappropriate use of subsidy money.’’ (Surely the communications manda- rin, Marcel Masse, doesn’t need a prompter) .. . How can any conscientious observer so bili- ously dismiss TWP’s spirited, inventive, out- spoken and challenging productions of the last 25 years under George Luscombe’s artistic gui- | dance?.In recent seasons alone Toronto audi- | ences were thrilled by The Medicine Show, the Mac-Paps, Ten Lost Years, Names, The Wob- | bly, Hey Rube, Victor Jara Alive! ‘ * * * Toronto events of interest: Give Thema Carrot — (for as Long as the Sun is Green) is an original Native collective adaptation of Beckett’s Wait- ing for Godot by Native Earth Performing Arts — at Theatre Centre, 296 Brunswick, 8 p.m., until Jan. 20 (phone 927-8998 box office) .. . Subway — to Hell, comedy, at Cabaret East, 3313 Danforth | (phone 694-7105) ... Criminals in Love, George | F. Walker's new comedy at Factory Theatre, 125 Bathurst (phone 864-9971) ... The Go Go Boys by and with Andrew Alty and Howard — Lester, is about male sexuality both hetero and he homo, at Passe Muraille (phone 363-2416)... 45.3, opening Jan. 19, is an innovative staging of — Ubu the King, upstairs at Toronto Free Theatre (phone 863-6114) .. . National Shevchenko Mus- — ical Ensemble Guild is hosting a cabaret evening — Sat., Jan. 26 at Lithuanian Community Centre, 1573 Bloor W. (phone 533-2725) ... An 18-week _ mandolin class for 7-16-year-olds starts Jan. 26 at 901 Lawrence W, Columbus Centre, led by _ Mary Kuzyk (phone 789-7011) ... Sun., Jan. 20 | at 8 p.m., Premiere Dance Theatre, Harbour- — front, six outstanding Canadian women artists play Rediscovered Masterpieces by Outstanding ~ Women Composers: Rebecca Clarke, Amy Beach, Germaine Tailleferre and Jean Coul- _thard (phone 869-8444). x SEO .RSS ’ Be =