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