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