Don Satz writes:

>The way I see it, it's the movie's job to convince me that its emotional
>themes and plots make sense within the movie's context.

I agree (I think:)

This thread seems to be bringing out the best and the worst of the
list--which, I suppose, is something (for somebody) to celebrate.  I have
regretfully come to accept that my writing on music is not effective.  Not
only do I doubt that written thoughts about music are useful, I'm beginning
to doubt whether they are even valid.

Take, for example, the sophistry surrounding the thought that Mozart was
merely the 'Magic Flute at the lips of God,' a poetic sentiment that has a
lot of truth.  If one could explain all metaphor, there would be little
need for metaphor.

Is it a theological statement? Is it a psychological statement? It's
lovely to be in the company of a bunch of people who understand the
creative process so well that they can insist that Mozart's composition
is nothing but craft.  Of *course* given the state of our knowledge of the
brain and its functions, if one says "composition is mere craft," there can
be no scientific refutation of it!  (One can take a "scientific" poll of
the opinions of some group, and conclude that composition is not mere craft
with 99% accuracy.  That may count as science to some.)

Instead of focusing on *Why* we like a particular work, or *what parts*
of a particular work we like, or saying how a particular performance did
such-and-such, or lack such-and-such, we have entered into the realm of
why we should *not* like such-and-such.  I think it's regrettable.

Sometimes a work transcends the pedestrian art of its creator.  Spiritual
folk will point to such things and say: look!  God exists!  The rest of us
say: heck, sometimes a guy gets lucky.

Mozart was incredibly lucky, because he didn't live long enough to be
able to learn the incredible art that he seemed to emulate.  Or there's
things about the brain that we don't know.  Or God is a fairy who goes
about bopping people on the head and saying: You're going to write such
fantastic stuff that they'll be arguing about it for years.  But you'll
turn back into a pumpkin at 35.

I think we should take the easy way out and simply accept that Peter
Shaffer wrote a play that (1) isn't accurate, (2) seems to address the
issue of mediocrity, which makes certain people *very* happy, (4) features
Mozart in a very long-drawn-out cameo role, as a gimmick, (5) the actor
who was Mozart had no clue how to conduct, but they couldn't find a stunt
double who knew how to conduct either, (22) the continuity people had
forgotten that breast implants hadn't been successful up until the 20th
century, and - -(to be continued)

Arch