Amadeus

The first thing that I want to point out is sorta nerdy (cause really, I love latin), but maybe also obvious (I guess it depends on your knowledge of latin roots...). The name “Amadeus” comes from the latin verb amo, amare meaning “to love” and deus, dei-- “god” so Amadeus means “loved by god.” I wonder if Shaffer was partially inspired by his name--seems too happy a coincedence, that the Salieri’s anomosity stems from his revalation that God loves Mozart. Just a little something to think about...

I thought the most valuable aspect of reading this play in terms of playwriting was actually Shaffer’s preface. I read it after I read the play (I’m too impatience to read forwards first, if at all, and am wary of spoilers even though I’ve seen this play and the film). What a crazy revision process! I can’t imagine writing something, having it published, having it performed (to wide acclaim), but still be in the process of thinking about it and tweaking it for twenty years! I wonder if it wouldn’t have been so popular if he would have wanted to revise it or if he would have been allowed to. He was afforded lots of workshopping opportunities because people wanted to work on it with him. I just can’t imagine not letting it go after it’s published--I guess this is a counter argument to the “it’s out of your hands argument.” It’s out of your hands unless it’s crazy popular, performed on Broadway, made into a movie, and then remounted on Broadway again. If that happens, you can do whatever you want. On the other side of things, I was really impressed with, in talking about the process, how in tune Shaffer seemed to be about pace and creating this moment and “what the play wanted.” That’s probably why his play is so good in the first place-- everything is so intentional, thought out. I can’t imagine seeing my play performed on Broadway, to a packed house, but still be thinking “hmm, yeah, that scene feels just a degree off... a crutial degree which changes the whole play! It doesn’t matter that everyone is lauding my play with a stading ovation--it’s back to the drawing board for me!” That’s crazy. But I respect it.

Amadeus is bought a lot with the convention of Salieri’s relationship with the audience. It allows us to move seamlessly into flashbacks and then back into “current day,” it allows us to know when and where we are in those scenes in an explicit, not dropping hints way. Psychologically, it allows us to understand motivations driving the entire plot in a easy-to-connect with way--we not only can understand what is going on, but why. As we talked about a bit in class Tuesday, it also fosters a complicated audience relationship with Salieri as if we are hearing his inner thoughts, it’s much harder to write him off as the villan. It is much more interesting if we feel for Salieri--complicated audience/character realtionships are good. Mozart could just be seen as the victim and we could feel only pity for him, but he’s also an annoying child so it’s sort of nice for someone to shut him up, right? Don’t we wish too, that Salieri could write a smash-hit opera and feel like he was channeling a bit of God himself? You know that part when he’s all “I was born a pair of ears, and nothing else. It is only through hearing music that I know God exists. Only through writing writing music that I could worship...All around me men hunger for General Rights. I hungered only for music”(117). I mean, that’s tragic in a way that makes you care for Salieri, like maybe Mozart was being a little greedy with his talent. I guess this is moving from complicating characters through nurturing an audience/character relationship, but really at the heart of his is just that establishing complicated characters through any means is nessecessary. If characters aren’t complicated, than the audience cares less cause they don’t have to go through any personal struggle to figure out who they’re really rooting for.