Mats Norrman replies to my slam of Shaffer's "Amadeus":

>Come on Steve, the piece of tripe is fun.  And I never read anywhere it
>was intended to provide info on the Mozart-Salieri relation, neither to
>be a biography of Mozarts life.  Its intent is to give some entertainment,
>and there it was successful to me at least.

I didn't ask for accuracy, although the absolutely brain-dead view of the
18th century in general annoyed me no end.  My question is why this work
should exist at all.  What does it give you that Dumb and Dumber doesn't
(other than a better film score)? It promises an exploration of genius,
using a Mozart and a Salieri that never existed.  Why Mozart and Salieri
then, if you're not going to stay within shouting distance of the character
of either? Why not Ella Fitzgerald and Patti Page? Or Chaplin and Moe
Howard?

The reason, it seems to me, is pure snob appeal.  People actually feel
better sitting through this because it's nominally about Mozart and, the
refore, Uplifting.  Yet what do you know about Mozart or genius after this
play that you didn't know before? We can pretty much rule out the first,
because Shaffer doesn't try to give you Mozart, but Pee-Wee Herman/Emo
Phillips in a wig.  As far as I'm concerned, I sat through the entire
excruciating experience for nothing, and I felt very strongly that Shaffer
had eagerly pandered to his own and his audience's pretentions.

Give me something honest, even honestly vulgar, but not a high-toned soap.

Steve Schwartz