Amadeus (1984)

Written by Peter Shaffer

Directed by Miloš Foreman

So, I had originally watched this film back in August 2019 (and that viewing was actually my second), but school, work and life got in the way, and eventually, I made the decision that, to give this film a fair review, I would need to watch it again. Knowing that this was a three hour film, it simply became a question of time, something that school and work don’t often provide. With my work being closed for at least two weeks (NOTE FROM THE FUTURE: HA.), this was a great opportunity to watch it for the third time.

All of this is merely an attempt at an excuse. Truth be told, as good as Amadeus is, it’s not something that I feel I need to watch regularly. It is a well-crafted film, just about a subject that, strangely, doesn’t hold my interest for its 3-hour length.

Salieri’s old age makeup is good for the time

The technical elements of the film are wonderful. The design is gorgeous, even if the old-age makeup applied to F. Murray Abraham (in his Academy Award-winning portrayal of Salieri) doesn’t quite hold up 35 years later. The costumes, THE WIGS, and the art direction is delicious, and it’s everything a lover of those elements would want.

F. Murray Abraham as Salieri

The film is also anchored by two brilliant performances, with both Abraham and Tom Hulce as the title character giving amazing work that makes the viewer sympathize with both, even when both say or do borderline-abhorrent things. Abraham, principally, does a fantastic job of playing both sides of the hero/villain coin, and he makes his lies just the right amount of believable by dropping just the right amount of truth into them.

Tom Hulce as Mozart

More importantly, Abraham perfectly encapsulates the feeling of pouring blood, sweat, tears, or even one’s whole entire being into something, then watching someone else ascend to higher pedestals with (perceived) very little effort. It’s aggravating, and Abraham nails it. As Mozart, Hulce plays a manic genius well, although I do wish that the film had been a tiny bit more explicit with the onset of his alcoholism; at a certain point, the viewer realizes that he’s a drunk, but the beginnings of that are so subtle that it wasn’t until this third viewing that I started to catch the minuscule clues that point to it.

One other note about this film: I have tried very hard over the course of this project to view each film in its original, award-winning version. Amadeus, however, seems only to be available as a Director’s Cut (this cut adds about 20 minutes of footage). I’m on the fence when it comes to Director’s Cuts. Generally, it implies that the version that was released in theaters was not the version the director wanted. Without even touching the issue of films led by a producer versus films led by a director, I feel that the version of the film that’s released should be the final vision of the director, without outside (read: studio) interference. On the flip side, I think about the extended editions of The Lord of the Rings, or the special editions of the original Star Wars trilogy (LOOK THOSE ARE THE ONES I GREW UP WITH SO GET OFF MY BACK THEY’RE JUST FINE), and how much more I enjoy them. Those directors/producers were content with the versions they released, but they wanted to show off their full vision. Was there still outside influence? Perhaps. I don’t see any reason for this film to have a Director’s Cut, but I wish it didn’t have to have one, because it stinks of studio meddling and I don’t like it.

Overall, as I said, I don’t think this film is bad. It’s very enjoyable, and it makes a subject that would be considered “uninteresting” to the non-arts-inclined general public more accessible. Despite my reluctance to watch the film again (and I can’t put my finger on why), I do think it’s a good film, marked by beautiful design, exemplary technical sophistication, and a pair of absolutely stellar lead performances.

FINAL GRADE: A-