Christopher Webber wrote:

>I personally found the premiere (though superbly acted by Paul Schofield
>and Simon Callow) one of most offensive evenings I've ever spent in the
>theatre, for the reasons Steve puts his finger on.  "Amadeus" glorifies the
>middlebrow, and works by providing undemanding audiences with feel-good
>self-justification.

Where does it so? Please be explicite.

>It patently does not pass what I call the 'Joe Bloggs' test: if it was
>about Mr Anonymous instead of Herr Mozart if would fall totally flat.  The
>film was (just about) rescued by the lavish operatic extracts, and more
>good performances.

Why would the film fall flat?

>The unmentionable thing is the way Schaffer shamelessly rifled Pushkin's
>"Mozart & Salieri" for ideas, subjecting them to prettified bio-pic
>processing before spitting them out again wholesale.  The pity is that
>disregarded Pushkin was so much more suggestive in his 15 minutes than
>Schaffer managed in ten times that span!

It is not forbidden to use former works of art as a source of inspiration.
But where in the play does Shaffer "rifle" Pushkin, where is evidence that
he "subjected Pushkin to prettified bio-pic processing"?

I begin to think that you are just interested in expressing your dislike of
the Shaffer play and movie but not in real criticism.  To just say "Shaffer
is an uncreative idiot" (and this is the essence of your mail) is poor,
isn't it?

Robert