Jump to content

Talk:Amadeus (film)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

References to use

[edit]
Please add to the list references that can be used for the film article.
  • Weaver, John; Kreitzer, Larry (2005). "Amadeus: The Destructiveness of an All-Consuming Journey". In Fiddes, Paul; Clarke, Anthony (eds.). Flickering Images: Theology and Film in Dialogue. Regent's Study Guides. Smyth & Helwys Publishing. ISBN 1573124583.

Unnecessary space

[edit]

What is the purpose of the space after the intro paragraph? It is non-standard and I suggest it be removed. - sYndicate talk 16:35, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It was probably just a typo. Go ahead and remove it I say.Broadweighbabe (talk) 15:39, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

...on the same type of correction, shouldn't something on "too many notes" be included in <plot> without giving the whole movie away? Bammon (talk) 12:34, 3 May 2013 (UTC) oops this is already covered elsewhere in Talk under "Memorable quotes" Bammon (talk) 12:53, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The situation with plots is that some people can accept a sweeping overview and some are fixated on the detail.2605:E000:9152:8F00:71AD:75FA:7E81:289F (talk) 23:15, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Salieri's Opera

[edit]

mass grave?

[edit]

I always thought the point of that scene was that Constanza was so poor she couldn't afford a funeral and Mozart was buried with the poor. 4.249.63.47 (talk) 13:09, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mozart certainly should have had his own grave -- heck, his own mausoleum -- but there wasn't enough money. However, it is now believed that mass burials -- accompanied by sacks of lime -- were a form of improved sanitation, and represented progress (in that regard, anyway). WilliamSommerwerck (talk) 12:26, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, no, no. This is an amazingly persistent misconception. Mozart was NOT buried in a mass grave. He was buried in a COMMON grave. There's a big difference. A mass grave is, as the name suggests, a hole in which multiple bodies are buried, the identities of whom are not specified above ground. A common grave is for one body, with the name identified above ground. But there was no guarantee of permanent burial with a common grave, so at some future time the body might be dug up and disposed of, to make way for a more recently deceased body. Aristocrats and members of the nobility had permanent graves, but ordinary (common) citizens had common (impermanent) graves. Nothing whatever to do with mass graves. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 10:48, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

DVD Versions

[edit]

There is two DVD's of the movie. The Director's Cut and the original one. My local library has both of them. The theatrical version has an R rating for brief nudity, as does the director's cut, but the scene in the director's cut where Constanze shows her breasts is not included and the runtime is 20 minutes shorter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.223.219.133 (talk) 17:55, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If, by "theatrical version", you mean the one shown in theaters, it has a PG rating, not R. (It is probably the only PG film that shows an adult man's penis.) I dislike the "director's cut", because most of the scenes add nothing to the story, and the post-Abduction scene in the dressing room is poorly written. WilliamSommerwerck (talk) 16:20, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, WS. It is unlikely that the IP who opened this thread 3 and a half years ago will see your post -- although anything is possible. OTOH I agree with your assessment of the added scenes (with one slight exception -- after what Salieri put her through C's antipathy toward him later in the film makes sense.) I don't like putting the director's cut on my DVD player so, hopefully, a Blu-ray release will give us the option of which version to watch. Cheers. MarnetteD | Talk 16:50, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Correct. We now know why Constanze so badly wants Salieri to get out. We also know why Mozart is swigging a bottle of wine as he stalks the streets. The Blu-ray has been around several years, and does not give one a choice. I just scan over the restored scenes. (Saved the DVD and LV, though.) WilliamSommerwerck (talk) 16:59, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I had missed the fact that it was already on BR. Thanks for letting me know. MarnetteD | Talk 17:28, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Introductory paragraph

[edit]

Peter Shaffer did write the script but credit should be given that it was originally a story by Alexander Pushkin --dunnhaupt (talk) 20:02, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Problems with plot

[edit]

Neither year is given as signage or verbally in the film to indicate time of event(s) so from where do they come to be imposed in this plot.

Calling for Mozart's forgiveness as his assassin happens before the attempted suicide not after. After there is disturbing noises.

The young priest starts his visits the following day not the same night as the admission into the hospital.2605:E000:9152:8F00:CDD4:7F19:F384:C927 (talk) 22:30, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Do we need to say that it is 18th century Vienna especially if that is not stated in the film? Just the same as the film never gives a start date or a date of Mozart's death?2605:E000:9152:8F00:CDD4:7F19:F384:C927 (talk) 23:04, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot believe that all manners of inaccuracies can be found and some people so quick to revert without getting a chance to put things down..2605:E000:9152:8F00:3832:5234:5BA4:7DB6 (talk) 23:48, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I see that a statement made elsewhere about an action that I took has effectively been erased from the record unless you are a more advanced participant of Wikipedia and it although said to be better placed here has not been so. So I will comment.

Yesterday I was watching Amadeus and went to read the article to see just how things were portrayed. I was perplexed because what I was watching definitely was not what was in the article. Events were incorrect, or given longer duration, or a number of discrepancies and so after I had closed my editing the first time the following note was left on the article history: "22:23, 23 June 2017‎ MarnetteD (talk | contribs)‎ . . (31,073 bytes) (+97)‎ . . (rvt all manner of inaccuracies - IP has made no post to the talk page either) (undo)". It struck me that having simultaneously watched and composed that what was done was greeted with "rvt all manner of inaccuracies - IP has made no post to the talk pager either". I guess you have to simultaneous make comments to the talk page as you leave that edit summary on the article history page otherwise you seem to get rated as a non-entity worthy of some level of respect to gather your thoughts in some logical order? I am still attempting to understand just how there are "all manner of inaccuracies" in what I wrote especially having just viewed the movie and composed simultaneous; and then editing again to get a more concise and logical understanding of the movie. It makes me wonder if for the sanity of Wikipedia that more detailed objections should be required of those people that wish to more inconvenient the contributions of others than develop a Wikipedia that people can have some level of pride? As I have said before, I am still attempting to understand all the inaccuracies that were portrayed in the first paragraph of the plot that at the time I had posted especially after having just viewed the material a number of times. I know this will rile a few feathers but I could care less how many edits someone has made if their edit count include what can easily be shown as "junk". Did this person bother to review the movie before making these edit summary? Because if they had then it is understandable why some of the inaccuracies remained on the page for such a long period of time as if they were the truth. This is not to pick a fight but if you do stupid things then don't expect to be congratulated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:E000:9152:8F00:71AD:75FA:7E81:289F (talk) 25 June 2017

Plot rewrite

[edit]

I think today's plot revision by 47.185.73.236 has considerable merit, and the revert by User:Joefromrandb was hasty. The remark in the edit summary about a "long-standing version" baffles me – that's not supported by the article's edit history. I suggest to restore 47.185.73.236's version and then discuss any shortcomings in detail. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:19, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Right now the plot's in violation of WP:FILMPLOT by 40 words, which would lead me to say it needs to be shortened. The IP's version was in excess of 900 words, which is far worse. From my perspective the plot needs to be shorter, not longer, or we need a clear consensus that it's appropriate for the summary for this article to ignore that guideline.
All things being equal I'd be happy to take a stab at trimming it myself, but am now reluctant to do so. DonIago (talk) 13:26, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The IPs edits definitely bloated the plot beyond the guidelines. Doniago please have a go at trimming it if ever fits you schedule and motivation. MarnetteD|Talk 16:43, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed that the IP editor had revised his previous edit to obey the PLOT rule. It is now under 700 words, and the prose is decent. This version, however, is indeed poorly written. Sentences like these are simply unreadable: "Salieri explains that when he was young his father had a higher regard to pray to protect commerce than have his son through music, devotion to celibacy and sacrifice achieve the glory of God." "The impression made upon Salieri is that Mozart is not a paragon of virtue and not devoted to his gift at a level as is Salieri. That from one recital of a welcoming tribute for Mozart to the court, Mozart effortlessly improvised on site the "trifle" into what later would become the "Non più andrai" march from his opera The Marriage of Figaro." Artoasis (talk) 09:38, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Amadeus (film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:02, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Awards section draft

[edit]

A student I oversaw started work on a revamped awards section at User:Icleamons/sandbox. They also started in on some of the reception - the page is a little jumbled about but I was thinking that the tables especially could be useful. I'll try to get back to this, but if anyone wants to work on this first, go for it. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 19:36, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 17 July 2019

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Oh joy, one of these discussions. There is no consensus currently regarding the primary topic of Amadeus other than not being the play. There is clearly a consensus to move the play. A new discussion must take place, probably at WP:RFD, to determine where the link will go. As a fully temporary waiting measure, we will leave the base name redirecting to the dab page, against policy for just the duration of the WP:RFD request. (non-admin closure) Red Slash 22:39, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect discussion here Red Slash 22:58, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

– The film, not the play, is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. The film is much better known, and consistently gets about 10x as many page views[1], even though the play is at the base name, and is considered one of the best films of all time, which makes it more historically significant than the play. В²C ☎ 20:15, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

[edit]
  • Or possibly move the DAB to the base name since the play is likely primary by PT#2, there are other items on the DAB page[2] and to avoid problems with incoming external links. Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:32, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong oppose DAB at basename. At least now the 10% looking for the play are getting to the article they seek when searching with "amadeus"; while those seeking the film are just one click away from their desired article, no worse than if they were sent to a DAB. But if we put the DAB page at the basename we will be serving 0% - sending no one to the page they seek. That would not be an improvement! As to long-term significance, the play is only five years older, and there is no indication that it is more historically significant than the film, which is considered among the best of all time. See AFI's 100 Years...100 Movies. No, I'd say the film is primary by both criteria. --В²C ☎ 20:46, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose both leave as is - neutral swapping (play) with Amadeus (disambiguation). In ictu oculi (talk) 20:55, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, but would support moving the DAB to the base name per Crouch, Swale and per compromise / consensus reached after discussing Andrewa's nomination at Talk:Gone with the Wind (novel)#Requested move 14 September 2016. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 22:35, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. The film covers both facets of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC easily. I don't see how the play has much more long-term significance, considering the reverence of the film. The DAB at the basename is probably the most unhelpful suggestion readerwise. Nohomersryan (talk) 03:28, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - per above. Don't oppose moving to dab page. --Gonnym (talk) 06:39, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose original proposal first suggestion, but how about redirecting "Amadeus" to Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart instead per WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT? George Ho (talk) 06:42, 18 July 2019 (UTC); 06:43, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • That seems like a bad idea. If you were looking for information about Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart, wouldn't you search for "Mozart"? Colin M (talk) 23:23, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Um... There are Rock Me Amadeus and Åh Amadeus? George Ho (talk) 23:23, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • Before the movie, the sorts of people who listen to songs like those two might maybe have heard of "Mozart", but the name "Amadeus" would have meant nothing to them. (I generalise, of course.) There's an obvious connection to the composer, but nobody goes around referring to the composer as "Amadeus", in the way they refer to Bach, Beethoven et al. When used alone like that, Amadeus refers solely to the movie (and to a lesser degree, to the play on which it was based). Hence, anyone in their right mind who googled "Amadeus" should be expecting info about the movie, not about the composer per se. (And anyone who bases their knowledge of the composer on the movie alone is sadly misinformed in a number of respects.)-- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 01:20, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Clear primarytopic by pageviews, and also clear primarytopic by long-term significance. 8 Academy awards, 40+ total overall awards? The current setup is making it harder for our readers to get where they want, and harder for our editors to link. !Opposers have yet to put forward any policy rationale or any kind of argument for keeping the status quo (or even for a dab page). Dohn joe (talk) 14:34, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose first, support second since I think that Amadeus should be a WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT to Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 11:32, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Do you actually think users commonly search with "Amadeus" when they're looking for the article about the composer rather than the film? I'm baffled by this. --В²C ☎ 17:14, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I considered this carefully. I think it was very reasonable to consider, and should be addressed, but my answer was “No”, people looking for Mozart via Amadeus would be doing so because of the film. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:34, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support B2C makes a persuasive policy-based argument in favour of the film being the WP:PTOPIC. I think there's an instinctual aversion to moves like this because it seems natural that when B is based on A, A should be primary over B, even if B wins in terms of PTOPIC criteria. But I don't think there's any policy that supports that intuition, so I'm discarding it. Colin M (talk) 23:30, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Definitely agree that the play is not the primary topic. Although it preceded the film, it barely did so, by five years, and the play was little known in comparison. Also, the film was also based on the much older Mozart and Salieri (play). The stronger contender for the basename is the DAB page, but the film has a very strong claim. I think that no one who knows Mozart doesn’t know the film, and yet many who watch the film don’t appreciate that it presents a real person, Mozart (PT of that title), also known as Amadeus, but that is his familiar name. I added Mozart to the DAB page, very surprised that it wasn’t there. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:31, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, the film has clearly usurped primacy, as with The Godfather. Would support disambiguation as a second choice. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:06, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    For the record, I oppose either Amadeus (play) or Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart being primary. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:20, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed people searching in an encyclopedia are unlikely to search for "Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart" with just "Amadeus" and he doesn't even show up on Google with just "Amadeus" (though he is given as an option on the right of the results). Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:25, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as proposed. Of the articles with "Amadeus" as the first word of the title, the film is easily the most visited.Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart gets more views, but I agree with others that this is not a likely search term for the person in comparison to the film, play, or even any of the other pages in the dab list. For those arguing PT#2 (long-term significance) as a reason to point to the dab page, I note that the play is only five years older than the film; the film was also highly successful, award-winning, and has been continuously available since its release. There have been theatrical hits that led to films that are obscure or even lost, but that isn't at all the case here. So I don't see any obvious PT#2 advantage for the play. --RL0919 (talk) 14:33, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support second, oppose first. Neither is the primary topic. The play is incredibly well-known. And move Amadeus (disambiguation) to Amadeus. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:08, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

[edit]

I'm not seeing any basis in policy or guidelines on the opposition side, but I may be missing something, and I have a few questions:

  • Crouch, Swale, after reading comments from others, do you still think the play is PT by criterion #2?
  • Necrothesp, the basis for your claim that "neither is the PT" is the assertion that "the play is incredibly well-known"? The play gets about 10 percent of the page views that the film gets, and that's with the play at the base name. Is that really "incredibly well-known"? Just what would that ratio have to be for you to accept that the film is PT? 100 to 1? 1000 to 1? There are countless examples of primary topics that are far less dominant in page views than this film is. In contrast, look at the page views for the play and film, "Fiddler on the Roof". In that case the play dominates and it is appropriately at the base name. But there the ratio is only about 3 to 1. Do you think "neither is the PT" in that case too?

--В²C ☎ 18:03, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Probably not although its arguably a close one, again the fact that we have more than just those 2 uses and 2 users have suggested Wolfgang should be primary, I don't see basis for that but especially given the incoming links argument I think a DAB at the base name is marginally the best outcome. If this move does take place as proposed then I'd probably put a direct link for the play. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:08, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
So even though the film is PT (clearly by usage and arguably by long term significance), because of the problem of incoming links you still prefer a dab page at the base name? Is there policy basis for this position, as far as you know? --В²C ☎ 19:39, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The point of titling etc is to serve the readers (including those who get to articles through other ways) and there are more than just those topics so we're not in WP:2DABPRIMARY territory. The proposed DAB at the base name would mean those looking for something else are not required 2 clicks and those wanting the play don't have to load a page about the film. Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:58, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
So, you don't know of policy basis for your position. Okay. --В²C ☎ 21:02, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I would also point out that the views show that the film gets 33,236 views while the others (ignoring Wolfgang) get 20,200 so its not like its overwhelmingly searched for (although not all of those are full matches and the play could be getting extra views). But yes because of the current policy (although I think it should change) I'm only weakly against the 1st move. Crouch, Swale (talk) 21:12, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to argue IAR, that's fine, but then be clear that that's what you're doing, which rule you're ignoring, why, and how you think it should be changed to support your position here. --В²C ☎ 21:27, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
So, by your reasoning, presumably pretty much every film based on a play (with probably only a few exceptions) would have primacy over the play? Because films by their very nature are far more accessible to the general public than plays and therefore are far more likely to be looked up on Wikipedia. Sorry, I don't buy that reasoning. Neither do I buy that this multi-award-winning play by one of Britain's best-known dramatists isn't incredibly well-known because the film gets far more page views. I wouldn't argue that the play was primary, but neither do I think the film is. -- Necrothesp (talk) 07:41, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Huh? Did you not get that the other example I gave, Fiddler on the Roof, is the opposite? The play in that case is three times as likely to be sought on WP than the film, so it's the primary topic. Whichever is more likely to be sought is the primary topic, by definition. I couldn't care less whether it's the play or the film for a given situation. And what does one's perception of how well-known the topics in question are have to do with primary topic determination? What matters is how likely they are sought. Remember, the whole point in disambiguation management is arranging articles, redirects and dabs such that most people find the article they are seeking as quickly (fewest clicks) as reasonably possible. So how likely a given topic is sought is key; how "well-known" it is is not. --В²C ☎ 16:55, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
For another example, Necrothesp, consider Les Miserables in which the novel is the primary topic, barely by usage, but clearly by historical significance compared to the musical and films based on it. But if, say, the musical (or the 2012 film) was getting 10 times as many page views as the novel, then the musical (or the 2012 film) would be the primary topic. Here, we have the film getting ten times the views of the play, so the film is the primary topic. This shouldn't be so difficult. --В²C ☎ 17:00, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm talking about straight plays, not musicals. The latter tend to have a wider fanbase. And I would actually say in the case of Les Mis there is no primary topic, as the musical is as primary as the book, although the film and TV adaptations are not. Note that I am not arguing for the source material to be the primary topic at all. I'm arguing that in these cases there is no primary topic (although I would agree that the stage version of Fiddler on the Roof is primary). And you should know by now that page views are not the be all and end all of primary usage. -- Necrothesp (talk) 17:06, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
They should be the be all and end all of primary usage. "primary" is something of a misnomer - it makes people think it means "most important". It has nothing to do with importance or how well known it is. It's a consideration we use to improve overall navigation results for our users, period. And for that, likelihood of being sought is all that matters, and for that page views are key. --В²C ☎ 17:51, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that's a personal opinion, which I disagree with. And the fact is that under our guidelines they are not. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:59, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Being "incredibly well-known" is not a PT criterion, especially relative to an alternative that is far better known. Being much more likely to be sought is clearly a criterion. This proposal is based on policy. Your opposition is based entirely on JDLI personal opinion. --В²C ☎ 16:50, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Redirect discussion

[edit]

Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2019_July_27#Amadeus Red Slash 22:58, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unneeded edits

[edit]

Just to cover all the bases this attempt to add an unknown cast member to the list does not meet the guidelines at WP:FILMCAST. Occasionally an uncredited cast member can be mentioned in an article as with Sam Waterston at Hannah and Her Sisters but there isn't even a name for the person that the 2 Ian's are trying to shoehorn into this article. There are dozens of unnamed actors in the crowd scenes of this film and none of them merit inclusion in this article. MarnetteD|Talk 04:18, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Plot point about burial accurate?

[edit]

I recall watching Amadeus on TV in the late 1980s, and my memory clearly has it Mozart was not buried during a 'rainstorm' as the end of the Plot section in the article states, but in snow (or to be precise a synthetic imitation of it) which I recall seeing lightly covering over the bodies in the grave. Can someone check this out? It was Beethoven who was buried reputedly amidst a storm.Cloptonson (talk) 06:04, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's such a minor detail and so irrelevant to the plot that I've simply removed it. DonIago (talk) 07:03, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Amadeus_(film)&oldid=1204774326"