film as musicology

7/23/2019 Film as Musicology

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/film-as-musicology 1/8

Oxford University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Musical Quarterly.

http://www.jstor.org

Film as Musicology: "Amadeus"

Author(s): Robert L. MarshallSource: The Musical Quarterly, Vol. 81, No. 2 (Summer, 1997), pp. 173-179Published by: Oxford University PressStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/742458Accessed: 05-09-2015 20:06 UTC

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/ info/about/policies/terms.jsp

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of contentin a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship.

For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

This content downloaded from 142.150.190.39 on Sat, 05 Sep 2015 20:06:38 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=oup

http://www.jstor.org/stable/742458

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp






http://www.jstor.org/stable/742458

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=oup

http://www.jstor.org/



Film

s

Musicology:

madeus

Robert

. Marshall

Friends,

ilm

uffs,

ellow

musicologists:

have cometo

praise

Amadeus,

not to

bury

t Butbefore

get

o that etme

say

hat

felt

rivileged

when was asked otake

part,

uring

he 1996annual

meeting

f he

American

Musicologicalociety,

n thefirst-ever

anel

devoted o estab-

lishing newdiscipline ithinurdiscipline, amely ilm sMusicology

(ossia:

Musicology

s

Film

Criticism).

t was

certainly

bout ime or uch

a

panel,

onsidering

ow

many

imes have been

asked-and I am sure

just

bout ll

ofus have beenasked: Was

Mozart

eally

ike hat?"r

"Were

here

eally

uch

reaturess castrati-andwere

hey

eally

ike

That?" n short:

ollywood

as discoveredhe

romance fmusic

istory

and has become nfatuatedith

t

(if

not

necessarily

ith

s).

Butbefore

true ove can takeholdwith hisnew

object

f

desire,

inseltownvi-

dentlysconvinced hat osmeticurgerysnecessary-minorrmajor

(no

pun

ntended)

s thecase

may

e. But

ince,

or he

ove

object,

he

more adical he

urgery,

he

greater

herisk f

disfigurement,erhaps

fatally

o,

twould eem ofall o

us,

f o

anyone,

o be

on

guard-pre-

pared

o do

battle,

f

necessary,

utnot to

assume hatwe are

destinedo

be

up against

n

inevitably

ostile

ntagonist.

In

short,

efore

ny

fus are

tempted

o seek he

thrilling

ush fthe

sense

f

ntellectualnd moral

uperiorityybashing ollywood or alsi-

fying

hefacts

f

music

istory,

nd

n

the

process

erhaps

isking

o

little

embarrassment,

e had better

ause

for moment

nd

consider: hat

would

we think

f,

ay,

ny

historiansf ncient

istory

ho

would ake

Shakespeare,

r

Handel,

ver hecoalsforwhat

hey

ad done tothehis-

torical

ulius

aesar?f heir eefwere

olely

with he

undisputed

ircum-

stance hathard acts

ad

been

disregarded,

earranged,eliberately

is-

torted,

r even

completely

ade

up,

n

indignation

ropelled

urthermore

by

reluctanceo

acknowledge

he

manifestly

ifferent

urposes

f

histo-

riographynd ofdramaturgy,ndby nunwillingnessoacknowledgehat

creative

rtists,

fter

ll,

carry oetic

icenses-that

s,

icenses

o

kill

fac-

tual

truth hen t

stands

n

the

way

f

poetic

r

dramatic

ruth-well,

thinkwe

might

e inclined odismissuch

riticism,

e it

ever o

earnest,

as

smug,

arrow-minded,

nd

the

most readed

f

pejoratives

urled ur

way)pedantic uibbles-to

dismiss

t,

to

put

t

mildly,

s

altogether

iss-

173






174

The

Musical

uarterly

ing

he

point-the

artistic

oint

hat

uthorizeshat

oetic

icense o

kill,

or at eastmaim, he iteral ruth.

The

aesthetic,

nd indeed he

moral,

oint,

rom ur

perspective,

when

onsidering

he

genre

or,

f

ne

prefers,

he

lk)

ofthe

music-

historical

ilm

bviously

as to be the

ame s that

nforming

ur ttitude

toward

ts

ounterpart

nd antecedent:hevenerable-if

lways

uspect-

historical ovel.And t

s

the

ame

ttitude,

eally,

hathas tosteer ur

judgment

f

Shakespeare

rHandel

or

any

esser

mortal

ho

chooses o

"do a number"n

Julius

aesar-or on the

kings

f heHouseof

Lancaster

orYork.Namely:f, rmedwith he hield f heir oetic icenses,heyre

going

o trash

he

facts

f

history

nd,

long

he

way erhaps,

ast baleful

light

n the

reputations

f

great

ndfamous

men,

hen

hey

ad better e

prepared

o redeem he

historiographical

nsult ith sufficient

ortion

f

poetic

ruth,

ustice,

r ome ther

ompelling

orm f

dequate ompen-

sation.

I will

readily

oncede

hat

Hollywood

snotHandel.And

while,

y

the ame

oken,

eter

haffer,

he

uthor

f

he

play,

nd thefilm

cript,

of

Amadeus,

may

notbe

Shakespeare,

thinkwe

may

ll

agree

hathe is

notchoppediver ither-that s,he iscertainlyota mere pportunistic

purveyor

f abloid itillationut

learly thoughtful

ramatist ho

demandso be taken

eriously.

Now,

was

at

something

f

disadvantage

t

theAMS Film

s Musicol-

ogy anel

for ne

obvious

eason: nlike heother

works nder

eview,

Amadeus,

nd the

controversy

nd

hand-wringing

t

precipitated,

ere,

y

1996,

overly

amiliar

nd,

really,ery

tale.

The

play

had beenaround or

more hanfifteenears.topened nLondon n1979and nNew York

year

ater,

as

published

nbookformn

1981,

nd

appeared

s a movie

directed

y

MilosFormann

1984.

The

film

orld's ollective erdict n

themovie everberates

n the

fact hat

twon

eightAcademy

wards

n

1984,

ncluding

estPicture.

Our

colleagues

ave often

ad

more rouble ith

t,

owing,

f

ourse,

to

all

those

esky

istorical

mistakes"

r,

f ne

prefers,

liberties."n

response

o the

challenge

hefilm

resented

nthat

espect,

heOctober

1984 ssue f he ournal ighteenth-Centuryife ublished setof hree

short

ssays

nder herubricFilm

orum:

madeus,"

onsisting

f

"Amadeusnd

Authenticity,"

y

Jane

erry-Camp

Florida

tateUniver-

sity),

Amadeus:

rom

lay

o

Film,"

y

Mark

Ringer

UCLA),

and

"Amadeusnd theWorld fMilos

Forman,"

y

J.

L. L.

Johnson

College

of

Charleston).l

erry-Camp's

Amadeusnd

Authenticity,"ublished,

s

I

say,

n

1984,

wasableto

report

n

the

lists

pon

ists" ffactual rrors

thathad

already

eendrawn

y

hen,

ecited

many

f hose

rrors,

nd






Films

Musicology:

madeus

75

added

uite

few

more,

uggesting

hat Amadeus' istorical

istakesnd

semi-mistakesre egion."2he interestedeader an consult he istsn

her

rticle.3

hough

Perry-Camp

s

argely egative

n

her

valuation f

thefilm nd evenworriedbout ts

ultimate ultural

mpact-concerned

thatMozart ere isonce

again

hevictim f

ommercial

nterests"4-she

does make n

important

oncession

or

confession)

hen

he

remarks

that there s one

overwhelmingalvaging

orce

n

Amadeus:

Mozart's

music."5

As with alieri,Amadeusndeedmaymake onfessorsfusall.So letme

nowconfess hat

thoroughly

dmire

lmost

verything

boutboth

he

play

nd the

quite

differentilm.

find he

play,

with ts

mphasis

n

what

Mark

Ringer

escribeds the theomachia

etween

alieri nd

the

Big

GuyUpstairs,"6

rilliant

heater,

ramatically

ffective,

nd

presenting

twoof hemore

memorableramaticharactersf

recent

ecades.

As

for

the

film,

s

Shaffer

nce

explained

n

an

interview,

hemain

protagonist

therewasno

longer

alieri;

t

was, ather,

ozart's

music.7

ne of

hiscen-

tral

bjectives

n

factwastosaturatehefilm

itht.

Now, neither ersion, madeuss of ourse work f he magina-

tion,

nd

the

uthor as felt ree o

shift he

chronology,

o fuse

hefacts

intonew

configurations,

nd to

augment

hem or

ramatic

ffect.

nd

I

find

othing rong

ith

his,

imply

ecause,

n

this

nstance,

t

works o

well. And I do think

t

is

carping

nd

pedantic

to

accuse

Shaffer f

dis-

torting

he

facts;

t

would

urely

e

absurd o

accusehimofnot

knowing

them. haffer

learly

nows hefacts

nd

exactly

whathe is

doing

with

them.As a

theatergoer,

could

only ay

hats

ff";

n

fact,

s

someone

whohasdippedntoMozart's iography,applaud haffer'sxtensive

familiarity

ith he

vents fMozart'sife

nd,

ven

more,

is

eloquent

and

perceptive

omage

o

Mozart's

music.

As to the

music:

ave we notall been

mpressedy

Salieri's

mpas-

sioned

nd vivid

description

f

he low

movementf

the

Serenade or

ThirteenWind

nstruments,

.

361

(with

tsmemorable

queezebox

image)?

As to the

composer-specifically,

haffer's

erpetuating

he

myth

of

Mozart's ffortless

omposition

n

that amous

cene

where

onstanze

shows im

her

husband's

manuscripts

nd Salieri

woonswhile

ontem-

plating

heir

mpeccable

otation-probably y

avorite

cene n

the

movie-well,

et

usnot

overreact

n

our

glee

at

having

nearthedn

recent

ears

umerous

ketches nd

draftsn

Mozart's

and nd

proceed

all too

hastily

o

debunk

he

myth

f

ffortless

omposition

ll

too

cate-

gorically.

he fact

emains hat

Mozart's

manuscripts

reall

toooften

ll

too

cleanfor omfort.

remember

tudying

n

amazement

ordering

n

disbelief,

nd a sense f

he

eerie,

he

utograph

fthe

Piano

Concerto n






176

TheMusical

uarterly

E-flat,

.

482,

and

realizing

hat,

with

espect

o the

compositional

process,tcontained othingf nterest.ndeed, herewere lmost o

corrections

f

ny

kind,

ot

even

minor

nes.

I lovethat cenebecause tforces s all to confronthe

unsettling

conundrumf rtistic

reativity

f

he

highestmaginable

rder.

ndeed,

Amadeus,

t eems o

me,

s as much s

anything

lse

symptom

f urneed

to account

or he

chievements

f he

great-toexplain

nd

comprehend

whatmade

hese,

ur ellow

reatures,

o

extraordinary.erhaps

his eed s

even

greater

ow han ver

efore,

ince na secular

ge

our

great igures

have na real ense ecome urgods.And when here regods ndmyster-

ies,

hat

s,

major

nanswered

uestions,

herewillbe

myths.

t s a

symp-

tom f he

vitality

f ur

worship

f he

great

hat he

mythology

oncern-

ing

hem s not

static,

losed

ne,

n "ancient"

mythology,

ut s

quite

alive

nd,

ccordingly,onstantlyhanging.

haffer's ozart

s almost

he

alter

go,

he

Jungian

shadow,"

f heMozart

amiliar

o theromantic

period.

The "new

mythology"-the

ew

gospel ccording

o

Peter haffer

(and

others)-is

a reflectionotofromantic

dealization,

hich awthe

artist s a flawlessnd

perhaps

s a

tragic

ero, utratherf he geof

psychoanalysis

nd

conoclasm.We

now ee theblemishesn the

portrait

with

microscopiclarity.

ozart

he

man

was

by

no means

porcelain

angel.According

o thenew

mythology,

ewas

not

necessarilyarticu-

larly

dmirablet

all.

Ironically,

he

Mozart fromantic

myth

ives n

nonetheless,

ot

only

n Amadeus ut n ourmost

ophisticated

iographi-

calstudies.We

still

refer

o

castMozart

nthe

tory

fhis ife s a

largely

innocent

ictim,

e

it

of he

Archbishop

f

Salzburg,

fhis

rival

alieri,

orofhisfathereopold.

It s not

necessary

o

be

a drama rfilm ritic o realize hat haffer's

lay,

andthe

movie, oo,

re

bout

alieri,

ndthat

n

themMozarts Salieri's

obsession.

onsequently,

nlike

mmortal

eloved,

mpromptu,

rFarinelli

(and

apart

rom

ll

questions

f estheticaste

rhistorical

ruth),

madeus

belongs nly

oa limited

xtent o

the

raditional,

entimental

enre

f he

Hollywood

musician's

iography.

t s a fable-a

fable

bout

God's

apri-

cious pportionmentf alentmong iscreatures:pecifically,is ncom-

prehensible

avoring

fthemost

ecidedly ndeserving.

n

Shaffer's

able

we do not

ee the

historical ozart

bjectively,

or

ven

through

he

author's

yes,

ut

only hrough

he

yes

fSalieri-as Shaffer

magines

Salieri

o be for isowndramatic

urposes.

nd

according

o

Shaffer's

bitter,

nvious,

nd

resentful

alieri,

Mozartwasan

infantileratwith

n

obnoxious

augh

whodid

notknow

howto behave r

dress

nd

who

seemed

o

findnfinite

leasure

n

utteringcatological

ords.






Films

Musicology:

madeus 77

This

depiction ismayed,

onfused,

nd fascinatedudiences-and

capturedheirmagination.eopleunderstandably,ndquiteproperly,

were

keptical

nd wanted

o know f herewas

any

ruth othis

ortrayal.

It washard or

he

general

ublic

o

imagine

hatMozart sed uchfoul

language-the anguage

as

we

enlightened

neshave

always

nown)

that

rupts

n theBasle etters ritten

y

Mozart o his cousinMaria

Anna

Thekla,

he

daughter

f

Leopold

Mozart's rother.

ot

that

we

have

felt

ery

omfortable

ith

hose

ettersnd the ideofMozart's

ersonal-

ity

hat

hey

eveal.

What sonetomake f hem? ow has our

profes-

sioncome

to terms ith hem? et me count he

waysor

at least ome f

them)

s

the

player

n Hamlet

might

ave describedhem

if

his

preco-

cious nterestn

genres

ad beendirected

o

modernntellectualashions

rather hanElizabethan ramatic

orms):

he

characterological,

he

psy-

choanalytical,

he

ociological,

he

cultural-linguistical,

he

clinical-

pathological.

Forwhat

t

may

e

worth,

find

he

ociological

or

perhaps

t

is

the

cultural-linguistical)xplanation

hemost

atisfying.

n the

ighteenth

century,

mong

hemiddle

lass,

ody arts

nd functions ere

alled

by

their ernacularames, ottheir atin uphemisms.twould eem hat

talking

bout he

xcretory

unctionstthetime

at

least

n

theGerman-

speaking

orld)

was

omething

f n obsession-a bit ike

alking

bout

one'sdiet

oday, erhaps,

r

about

ne's

nalysis.

As tothat

nfuriatingaugh:

orMozartians

scholars

nd

ay

dmir-

ers

like),

t

is,

f

nything,

ven more

epellent

han hefoulmouth

f

Shaffer's/Salieri's

ozart.

o

begin

with,

n

contrastothe

catological

language,

here s

absolutely

o historical

vidence

or his

diosyncrasy.

Wesimply avenocontemporaryestimonyt all as to howMozart

soundedwhenhe

laughed.

utwhile

t

lacks

ny

documentary

ubstantia-

tion,

ne can find

plausible

ramatic ationale

or

his

ersistent,

rat-

inglyrritating

ttributettachedothe

play's

ntihero

not

nappropri-

ately

or

musician,

sounding

ttribute-a

eitmotiv).

moment's

reflectioneveals

hat t must e

meant

o

represent-it

must e meant o

be-the

mockingaughter

f

he

gods: aughter

irected

oward

ll

us

commonmortals hohave been

pitefully,

aliciously

enied

he

fire f

creative

enius.

ndeed,

alierihimselfnformsisconfessor

and

us)-

uponrecalling

he ncident t the

carnival,

hen

Mozart,

fter

aving

delightedveryone resent

ithhis

grotesquely

omic mitationf

he

sourpuss

ourt

omposer

t the

keyboard

concluding

he

wooden

ompo-

sitionwith

resoundingerfect

uthentic

art),

ursts

et gain

nto

hys-

terical

aughter-that

ThatwasnotMozart

aughing

t

me,

Father. hat

wasGod.

That

wasGod

laughing

t me

through

hat

bscene

iggle.

o

on,

Signore,augh, augh."






178

TheMusical

uarterly

For he

purposes

f his

anel,

t all

events,

he correct"

nderstanding

f

Mozart's oul anguagerhowhe laugheds ofno import.What s mpor-

tant-at leastwhat s

mportant

or

s,

s membersfour

profession,

o

recognize

nd

acknowledge-is

hat he

film

timulated

idespread

nd

intense

eneral

nterest

n twoMozart

henomena:

heman nd his

music.Almost t onceMozart ecame hemost

opular,

mostwell-

known,

most

urchased

nd,

do

believe,

hemost

rulynjoyed

fthe

classical

omposers,eadily isplacing

eethoven,

chaikovsky,

nd

any-

one else

who,

before

980,

might

ave

disputed

isclaim o that

osition.

Furthermore-andowcomes hereally oodpart-sincepeople

were afflednd could

not

get

nough

f he

movie,

r

Mozart,

rhis

music,

hey

urned o themembers

f his

rofession

or nswersnd

guid-

ance. n

1984

or 1985

that

s,

ust year

r two fter hemoviehad

opened),

remember

iving

talk bout

t

and

ts

relation

o "the

facts."

Afterwards

young

woman ame

to me and made confessionf

her

own,

namely,

hat hehad

by

hen

lready

eenthe

film

ome

hirty-five

or

forty

imes

nd

that

t

was

consuming

er.

ndeed,

he ndicated hat

t

had

given

her ifenew

meaning. lthough

he had

absolutely

o musical

background,

henowknew hat hewanted-needed-to find utas

much bout

Mozart s she

possibly

ould.As she

put

t-quite

spookily,

have

to

say-she

wanted

o

devote

her

ife o him.

am

sure

you

have

guessed

what

he was

driving

t:

yes,

hewanted

o knowwhetherhe

should

ecome

musicologist.

I

very

much

hope

shehas

gotten

ver

t

n

the

meantime.)

More

ignificantly,y

far:n thewakeof

Amadeus,

nroll-

mentsn

college

music ourses

ationwide,

specially

ourses bout

WAM

himself,

aw

unprecedented

ncreases.

By1991 theMozartmaniahad, f nything,ncreasedvenmore.At

a conference

nspired

y

he

major

Mozart vent

f

hat

year,

hebicen-

tennial,

remember

articipating

n

a

panel

discussion here omeone

from

he udience sked

why

Mozartwas

receiving

ll this

ttention,

especially

rom he

popular

media.One

of he

panelists

onceded hathe

really

ouldnot

ay:

t

was

omething

f

puzzle. pipedup

and

submit-

ted: It's hat

movie,

f ourse-still."

Thatmovie, hen, adbecome urmost otent lly. would ubmithat

it

became

hemost

otent lly

f

veryone

ngaged

n the

nterprise

f

cultivating

nd

promulgating

lassical

music-performers,

cholars,

nd

teachers.

o:

two humbs

p

here

orAmadeus






Film

s

Musicology:

madeus

79

Notes

1. "Film orum:

madeus,"

ighteenth-Centuryife

(Oct. 1984):

116-22.

2.

Jane erry-Camp,

Amadeusnd

Authenticity,"


(Oct. 1984):

117.

3. Some

examples

f he

historicalnaccuracies

egisteredyPerry-Camp:

alieri nd

Mozart idnotuse modern

onducting

echniques;

ozart evermisbehaved

t the ourts

ofColloredo

r

Joseph

I;

Leopold

didnotmeethis

daughter-in-law

or hefirstime n

Vienna

they

irst et n

Salzburg);

alieri id notcommissionhe

Requiem

rom

Mozart,

norwashe

present

t

Mozart's

eath;

Mozart id notdrink imselfo

death,

orwas

there

a rainstormn the

day

fhis

funeral;

tc.

4.

Perry-Camp,

19.

5.

Perry-Camp,

18.

6. Mark

Ringer,

Amadeus: rom

lay

o

Film,"


(Oct.

1984):

120.

7.

Michiko

Kakutani,

How

Amadeus'Was Translatedrom

lay

o

Film,"

ew York

Times,

6

Sept.

1984,

uotes

Peter haffers follows: hemovie hasbecome

much

more

a celebrationf he

music

.

.

In thefilm... music lmost ecomes

character,

hemost

important

haracter."

n

a Times rticle fhis

own,

Paying omage

o Mozart"

New

York

Times,

Sept.

1984),

Shaffer rote:Inthe

picture,

hemusic

aturally

ecamemore

prominent

han n the

play...,.

the inema

ositively

elcomes

usic n

floods-and,

f

course,

coustical nundation

s

very

much hefate f

drowning

alieri.

Music,

ublime

and

unstaunchable,

ouring

n a stream ver

gasping

man's

ead,

s of

ourse

he entral

subject

f he

film"

emphasis

n

original).

This content downloaded from 142.150.190.39 on Sat, 05 Sep 2015 20:06:38 UTC

film as musicology

Documents