[demonrail666]

Well starting from the principle that no film is objectively good or bad, I never liked it, mainly because I couldn't stand Hulce's bratty performance. I think I heard somewhere that Polanski was meant to direct it, with him playing Mozart (as he did in the original stage version). That may have worked far better. It's weird though because if there's one thing I'd say about all the Forman films I've seen besides Amadeus: whatever I've thought about them generally, the acting's usually been great. But Hulce was a directorial decision that backfired massively for me.

[Severian]

You're right, whether the film's objectively good or bad has nothing to do with how you acted. There's no "justification" for trying to start a fight with "personalized" antagonism.

I said plenty about the film after you acted like a discussion was what you wanted, but a discussion was never what you wanted. As you said, I got on your nerves, and you tried to start a fight, which would have been much less insulting if you'd just said that's what you were doing.

Everything about the way you've acted has been tacky and disappointing. Your entire position has been riddled with holes and red herrings.

But still, I don't feel good about sinking to the level of returning fire, even if you feel just fine about sending the first shots.

[!@#$%!]

Originally Posted by demonrail666

I never liked it, mainly because I couldn't stand Hulce's bratty performance. I think I heard somewhere that Polanski was meant to direct it, with him playing Mozart (as he did in the original stage version). That may have worked far better. It's weird though because if there's one thing I'd say about all the Forman films I've seen besides Amadeus is that whatever I've thought about them generally, the acting's usually been great. But Hulce was a directorial decision that backfired massively for me.

hulce worked for me even if i never heard of, or saw him, or noticed him after that. so maybe he's not a great actor. but the brattiness worked for this role because the whole point was to show how easily things came to him, and by contrast how hard they were for salieri. it's supposed to be grating. it's salieri's point of view.

i mean, in spite of the title, the movie is really about salieri--his envy, jealousy, frustration and growing hate. the movie opens and closes with him, and he's the one who tells the story-- we see through his eyes. mozart is almost a plot element rather than a character proper, salieri is the real human being that we follow here into his torment--so the best actor is put in this role. salieri absolutely loves mozart's music but hates him as a person. so... it's absolutely not wrong to hate hulce here. i think we're meant to.

eta:

Originally Posted by demonrail666

Well starting from the principle that no film is objectively good or bad,

i think this wasn't there when i first answered, but yeah--

also, i just looked up hulce's career and he became famous for his role in... animal house! that cant have been missed in his casting

[Severian]

Originally Posted by demonrail666

Well starting from the principle that no film is objectively good or bad, I never liked it, mainly because I couldn't stand Hulce's bratty performance. I think I heard somewhere that Polanski was meant to direct it, with him playing Mozart (as he did in the original stage version). That may have worked far better. It's weird though because if there's one thing I'd say about all the Forman films I've seen besides Amadeus: whatever I've thought about them generally, the acting's usually been great. But Hulce was a directorial decision that backfired massively for me.

I agree completely. Hulce was the killing stroke for me on the film version. Eliminate him from the equation, and I wouldn't have much to complain about. Honestly, I don't dislike it enough to fight about it, or to deny that it has some excellent qualities. But it does seem to aim for that middling "Academy gold" mark, which so often leans far too heavily on eye-catching production values and far too little on captivating performances. It's cartoonish.

F. Murray Abraham really is great in the film, but Hucle is just embarrassing.

[Severian]

Originally Posted by !@#$%!

hulce worked for me even if i never heard of, or saw him, or noticed him after that. so maybe he's not a great actor. but the brattiness worked for this role because the whole point was to show how easily things came to him, and by contrast how hard they were for salieri. it's supposed to be grating. it's salieri's point of view.

I was genuinely starting to wonder if you knew something about this movie that I didn't. But nope.

the movie is really about salieri--his envy, jealousy, frustration and growing hate.

This is almost exactly how I put it. Different words, mostly... I said jealousy, greed, a childish refusal to let go of ego-driven grudges. But these are unnervingly similar considering the your insistence that I don't know anything about the film. I am simply mystified.

Of course the film is about Salieri's envy. God, there really was no point at any of this.

[Severian]

Originally Posted by demonrail666

You're definitely not seeing straight on this one. You may not like Severian's dismissal of Amadeus, but to suggest that he's somehow 'unequipped' to criticise it is patronising in the extreme, whether you meant it like that or not. It also elevates the film and the maker way above their actual level. For me Amadeus represents the very worst kind of middlebrow cinema, which of course is exactly the kind that the Academy and the broadsheet critics love. I'm only surprised you could feel so inspired to lash out over it the way you have.
In which case, guilty as charged

Hey you.
Thanks.

[demonrail666]

Originally Posted by !@#$%!

hulce worked for me even if i never heard of, or saw him, or noticed him after that. so maybe he's not a great actor. but the brattiness worked for this role because the whole point was to show how easily things came to him, and by contrast how hard they were for salieri. it's supposed to be grating. it's salieri's point of view.

i mean, in spite of the title, the movie is really about salieri--his envy, jealousy, frustration and growing hate. the movie opens and closes with him, and he's the one who tells the story-- we see through his eyes. mozart is almost a plot element rather than a character proper, salieri is the real human being that we follow here into his torment--so the best actor is put in this role. salieri absolutely loves mozart's music but hates him as a person. so... it's absolutely not wrong to hate hulce here. i think we're meant to.

eta:

i think this wasn't there when i first answered, but yeah--

also, i just looked up hulce's career and he became famous for his role in... animal house! that cant have been missed in his casting

Hulce didn't work for me, not because he was dislikable (he was meant to be, I know) it was that he didn't feel credible, either as a general representation of Mozart, or as a version of him created in Salieri's mind. It was a cartoonish performance, which if anything actually undermined the true brilliance of Abrahams' performance by making it so easy for us to empathise with Salieri from the beginning.

[!@#$%!]

Originally Posted by demonrail666

Hulce didn't work for me, not because he was dislikable (he was meant to be, I know) it was that he didn't feel credible, either as a general representation of Mozart, or as a version of him created in Salieri's mind. It was a cartoonish performance, which if anything actually undermined the true brilliance of Abraham's by making it so easy for us to empathise with Salieri from the beginning.

ah, that. well, like any middlebrow product for mass consumption (millions get spent and millions must be made), a movie like this is not going to be too high on the ambiguity business. take alan alda in crimes and misdemeanors-- he's a fucking douche through and through and we easily identify with the woodly allen character in his hatred of him. is he a cartoon of douchery? he's certainly a stereotype.

as for the cartoonish aspect (i was going to use that word in my original reply to you actually, but avoided it so as not to inject other conversations into this one) i read somewhere that schaffer based his play on some of mozart's letters to his cousin, which were apparently like the babblings of a child; and he was impressed with the contrast between the goofy content of the letters and the music mozart wrote. i really don't mind the mozart-as-a-giant-baby characterization. for me, it works. he was no beethoven.

also regarding mozart's characterization i don't expect historical accuracy from a fiction film. salieri was mozart's friend and pushkin is the one who came up with the idea of making them rivals for dramatic purposes. the thing about killing him with music was an old rumor apparently started by his wife. the thing about the masons in the magic flute and mozart's state of paranoia approaching death are apparently true. bits of truth mixed with ample bullshit make for a good yarn though.

besides-- say that hulce isn't believeable for you (it was actually the casting of the wife that didn't work for me)--the mise en scene is fucking INSANE. it's a massive display of craft and the result is beautiful. the spectacle of sound and sight is not nothing.

i have a friend who used to make avant garde films and got burned on "cultured" movies and now only watches things for the spectacle. and the spectacle, in amadeus, is fucking great. like eating a big greasy giant hollywood hamburger of music and light and sensory msg.

after i first saw this movie i had this chorus going confutatis maledictis in my head for weeks. actually it just returned!

but yeah, f. murray abraham was fucking great in it too, and that's another reason to like this movie.

abraham beat hulce for the best performance oscar btw-- not that i give much credence to the oscars, but it's funny to me that the rivarly continued after the movie was over and the assassin won.

the story is great too of course-- yes, total bullshit and not historically accurate, but that was never the point of schaffer or pushkin anyway.

[ilduclo]

another pretty spectacular period piece is Barry Lyndon

[SuchFriendsAreDangerous]

Originally Posted by demonrail666

Hulce didn't work for me, not because he was dislikable (he was meant to be, I know) it was that he didn't feel credible, either as a general representation of Mozart, or as a version of him created in Salieri's mind. It was a cartoonish performance, which if anything actually undermined the true brilliance of Abrahams' performance by making it so easy for us to empathise with Salieri from the beginning.

thank you, a voice of reason. cartoonish is EXACTLY what was wrong with Amadeus

[Severian]

Originally Posted by !@#$%!

as for the cartoonish aspect (i was going to use that word in my original reply to you actually, but avoided it so as not to inject other conversations into this one)

Right, because you made fun of me for liking "cartoons."
I see what you did there.

the story is great too of course-- yes, total bullshit and not historically accurate, but that was never the point of schaffer or pushkin anyway.

I said that last bit too.

We actually agree about most of the things you seem to find important about this movie. I know you're carefully ignoring me and all, but I wish I knew why you spazzed out in the first place. And why you're acting as though I have been the cause of the unpleasantness.
Did I do something to you? Offend you somehow? I don't expect an answer at this point, but I'd rather not have "enemy vibes" in the air here. I'm not looking for a fight, just hoping you might drop the silent treatment and communicate.

[demonrail666]

[quote=!@#$%!]

i don't expect historical accuracy from a fiction film.

My issue with Hulce's performance is that it jars with the film, not history. I just think it goes too far in the direction of pantomime. A TV comedy sketch show version of a pampered prodigy.Maybe that's what Forman wanted but for me it was a mistake.

[!@#$%!]

Originally Posted by Severian

I don't expect an answer at this point, but I'd rather not have "enemy vibes" in the air here. I'm not looking for a fight, just hoping you might drop the silent treatment and communicate.

it's not silent treatment

i just need to cool it

i get it that your response to everything is to always talk more, and while i'm always in favor of communication some times the answer is to shut the fuck up for a while

i appreciate you making this overture for sure, but let's take it slow

plus, long weekend-- go have fun with it while it lasts

[!@#$%!]

Originally Posted by demonrail666

My issue with Hulce's performance is that it jars with the film, not history. I just think it goes too far in the direction of pantomime. A TV comedy sketch show version of a pampered prodigy.Maybe that's what Forman wanted but for me it was a mistake.

i see what you're saying now, and i'm sorry it ruined the film for you, but for me he was hilarious. the most memorable part when they ask him to play salieri at the party. it's been a while though-- this whole thing has made me want to rewatch it and i'm curious to see how i'll read it this time around.

[!@#$%!]

Originally Posted by ilduclo

another pretty spectacular period piece is Barry Lyndon

that's one of the most beautiful movies i've ever seen

i mean, visually, it's the greatest-- well not 100% sure but definitely one of the top ones

i get that ryan o'neal wasn't the most scorsesean actor and i've had this discussion with demonrail before but sometimes a weak actor fits the part like a glove

since barry lyndon is about how a naive boy can bite more than he can chew (same as tom cruise in traumnovelle... eyes wide shut) it fits well

and besides, kubrick was always GREAT with the music

barry lyndon was the first time i heard the schubert piano trio that punctuates the whole film (is it the whole film? i forget)


https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=91EJwsIVOqU

[ilduclo]

it's rated pretty low on the Kubrick scale, but I think it bears watching more than once, I didn't like it at first

[!@#$%!]

Originally Posted by ilduclo

it's rated pretty low on the Kubrick scale, but I think it bears watching more than once, I didn't like it at first

space exploration meets the XVIII century

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Rti_nDcnTPw

[Severian]

Originally Posted by !@#$%!

it's not silent treatment

i just need to cool it

i get it that your response to everything is to always talk more, and while i'm always in favor of communication some times the answer is to shut the fuck up for a while

i appreciate you making this overture for sure, but let's take it slow

plus, long weekend-- go have fun with it while it lasts

Thanks.

[LifeDistortion]

 

Saw this movie this weekend and its still lingering in my head. A brutal film.

[!@#$%!]

Originally Posted by Severian

Thanks.

okay, so, i'll send you a PM later today to spare everyone the sight and get back to the business of movies in this thread