Several people have replied to my intense dislike of the play and film
Amadeus.  They imagine that my dislike springs from the film's historic
inaccuracy.  That may have been annoying, as I've said, but it wasn't
necessarily vicious.  After all, no one reasonably expects historical
accuracy from the play Hamlet.

The questions you have to ask, however, are:

1.  If it's not historical accuracy, what is that work's excuse for
existence? What does it deliver that As the World Turns (a US soap), for
example, does not? In short, does the film have any substance whatsoever?
Does it tell you anything about human nature? About genius in general (if
not about Mozart in particular), which seems to be what it promises? Not
as far as I could tell.  On the other hand, I could be wrong.

2.  If it's not about accuracy or human nature or genius, if the language
is pedestrian (as I believe), if the ideas, such as they are, are third
rate, why are Mozart and Salieri the two antagonists? Why not Freddy and
Flossie or Frick and Frack or Bugs and Daffy? Unfortunately, the only
reason I can come up with is crass audience manipulation.  No one would sit
through this drivel if it hadn't some kind of cultural seal of approval.
It harms the audience by gross flattery.

If you have no conscience, it's fairly easy to come up with stuff like
this, so long as you can write coherent sentences.  In fact, it's a lovely
way to make a living.  Look for my play, "Love in Bloom," about Nora and
James Joyce.  It's loosely based on that famous couple, and it's about how
Joyce (Brad Pitt in glasses) steals her (Demi Moore) away from the factory
bully (Billy Bob Thornton) and her repressive family (Sally Field), runs
off with her to Tahiti (Key West), and how all this led to the writing of
Ulysses (Never on Sunday).  The incidental music comes from Mahler's 9th
(Gorecki's Third).

In it, I will explain the mystery of artistic creation (it's done with
mirrors).

Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.

Steve Schwartz