Upcoming blog projects

Film Lovers! Here is a list of upcoming projects for my blog. Firstly i am planning a monumental review of The Godfather Trilogy which will explore the politics of Machiavelli. Secondly i will also do another Ultimate review on 'Apocalypse Now/Redux' (1979) explaining the correlation with Conrad's Heart of Darkness. I will also explore 'Chinatown'(1974) and its philosophical connotations regarding the truth and the landscape that is Chinatown. I will also do 'Taxi Driver'(1976) and its philosophical connotations regarding city life and the contrasts with 'Midnight CowBoy' (1969).  I chose this period because it is clear that the current releases at this point in time are not mind blowing and so i have decided to take this time to build my archive. I also chose these films to focus on the era of 1970's cinema which i consider to be a golden age of filmmaking (this is with the exception of The Godfather part 3 released in 1990 and Midnight Cowboy (1969)). Stay tuned

'Hoop Dreams' (1994)

William Gates says at the end of the film, ‘If I don’t make it to the NBA watch you don’t forget about me'. This feature film, the documentary Hoop Dreams, is a thorough exposition on the lives of African Americans in urban America. This is probably the best exposition of African American life presented on film. So long we have been befuddled with the sentimental pulp of fiction films that we rarely take the time to spend on a documentary which, although not fiction, has to be presented in a way where it is believable as a story. I know that there will be those people that will go and see this film and hear of the running time (176 mins) and shun it. They would rather go and watch a bad Tyler Perry film or maybe the hogwash present in a pale disillusioned romance or a hackneyed action film. After my disillusionment with these sorts of films I decided to watch Hoop Dreams for a good dose of reality. I however received more enlightenment from the film than I expected. The themes explored in this film have been referred to many times before; you hear the rappers and the dancehall artistes speak poetically about their struggles and the resolve to pursue their dreams. You always hear of the system that looms so vast over our heads that it seems unbreakable. I have heard this many times before but I have never internalized the message until now thanks to one of the greatest films about the black experience in urban America: ‘Hoop Dreams’.

This film centres on two promising black basketball athletes, William gates and Arthur Agee. When we first meet them they are in the prime of their youth and their dreams seem too far removed from the harsh daily reality. Their dream is to play in the NBA and as the film opens in the Chicago projects one of the first shots is both youngsters watching the great Michael Jordan playing for the Chicago bulls. Their dreams however are believable because they are extremely talented players and it seems possible that they will achieve their goals because the great Isaiah Thomas also took the same route to success. They are so talented that a scout comes and recruits them to play for a premier high school St. Josephs. It is emphasized throughout the film that the great Isaiah Thomas used to play for this school and ended up making it all the way to the NBA: the greatest basketball league on earth. The youngsters are accepted into the school and then their paths start to diverge and the relief is that it’s not a fictional twist it’s all apart of the daily vicissitudes of life. William gates receives a full scholarship primarily because he excels in his first year and is granted a benefactor who vows that he will not have to worry about expenses for the remainder of his time there. Arthur’s scholarship on the other hand covers a portion of his tuition and his parents have to foot the rest of the bill. After his first year the coach Pingatore is not satisfied with Arthurs’ attitude to the game believing that he does not have the drive to be a great ball player. He however sees it in William gates. Arthur joins the junior team while William is allowed to train with the senior/ varsity squad. After the first year Arthur is forced to leave the school because his parents can’t foot the bill after his scholarship is revoked. This is the first setback to his NBA dream for as you know the best way to the NBA in America is to do well in high school receive a scholarship to an A list college and then after that who knows maybe the scouts will see something special. St. Josephs is supposed to be one of those elite schools so going there should help you on your way. William continues moving forward however and seems unstoppable until, nearing the end of his sophomore year, damages the cartilage in his knee and has to be put on the sidelines. This is his first setback to the illustrious NBA dream. When these setbacks occur we begin to get a first hand look into the realities of their lives and the film takes you on an emotional journey that lasts five years: from their first year at St. josephs to their first year in college. When the setbacks occur you realise the estrangement of some people when they hear of the American dream. When the cameras make a broad sweep of the block and you hear of the trials such as when Arthurs’ family have to go through the winter without light and heat you begin to understand the distance of the American dream and how, when any slight of hand occurs, the dream might as well rival the distance of the stars from the earth. What the film made me realize is the consequences of daring to dream. This is the heart of the movie because (as does occur with a lot of people) one of the great tragedies in life for a human being is daring to dream (especially dreaming big), daring to pursue that dream and falling by the wayside unable to keep up with the requirements to pursue that dream. Although by the end of the film it’s not clear whether or not they have reached the NBA, although if you are interested in their lives you will discover that they never did make it, it becomes apparent to them by the end of the film that their drive has changed the realities creep in and take hold like tentacles.

We encounter two male figures present in the boys’ lives that have fallen by the wayside and are a constant reminder throughout the film of the fate that awaits these youngsters should they fall. William’s brother Curtis and Arthur’s father Arthur Bo' Agee, he is referred to as Bo. Curtis, William’s brother, also began promisingly like his little brother but lack of discipline and finesse cost him his college scholarship and now he has grown overweight working as a security guard dreaming through his brother. He always makes clear that he wants his brother to make it so bad so at least he can see his dreams come through albeit in a different light. The same goes for Arthur’s father Bo who was also a promising basketball player but also became lost in his pursuit although its not fully explained why he fell by the wayside for he certainly was not as promising as a Curtis for example. He was probably a very talented player who never had the outlet where he could expose his talent to the world. He became a drug pusher and one of the telling scenes in the film is seeing Arthur’s father receiving drugs while the filmmakers were getting footage of Arthur's workout. It’s not done in a close up but at a distance in a little alley. Arthur is clearly ashamed. His father eventually goes to jail because he beat on Arthur’s mother because she tried to resist his propensity to steal goods from the house to buy drugs so as to satisfy his addiction or perhaps to sell. He too, like Curtis, wants to see his dreams fulfilled through his son.

The mothers however are the true anchors in the lives of the two boys. Their solid devotion to the needs of their children is truly inspiring. William gates says he does not know how he could ever repay his mother which is a sign that love is a rare thing from their areas in the projects and the role of mothers is practically a lifeline and we see the consequences that befall Arthur’s best friend because he did not have a solid family background. Arthur’s mother gets more attention in this film as she speaks more about her trials in life especially her inability, at times, to provide for the needs of her children making $268 a month and it gets worse when she's taken off welfare. She asks do you ever wonder how she manages to take care of her children on such a small budget? What the film does without trivializing isin highlighting the efforts made by both families to keep the kinships alive. Dinner is always put on the table even if its scraps and when Arthur celebrates his 18th birthday it is overwhelmingly important for they make it clear that not many of his childhood friends will reach that milestone in their lives. One of the most powerful scenes is when Arthur’s mother receives a certificate so that she can practice as a nurse's assistant and she achieves this milestone at the top of her class. We have some fiction films that trivialise the importance of people reaching the pinnacle or the zenith in some activity like cheerleading or some sports league (imagine the rise of Forrest Gump) but when has receiving the position of a nurse's assistant been so moving. The ceremony is only attended by her son Arthur and his little brother but it’s now one of the most memorable images of my film viewing experience. This scene made me realize that although there are admittedly big achievers there are the  people whose recognition largely goes unrecognized but are keeping the engines turning and setting the platform so that great achievements can be achieved. She achieved it(a summary of what she said) also to give Arthur the extra motivation he needed to complete high school for at the time she received her certificate Arthur was deflated after hearing that he had to drop out of St. josephs, the school of his idol Isaiah Thomas, and would now have to take the weary path of so many of his brothers through the public school of Marshall High. His grade point average became substantially low and the basketball team was an unknown challenger in the high school competition. After that scene with his mother you notice that Arthur becomes more focused on his game and he does so well the team places third in the overall national competition. The focus and determination that made him strive for the NBA when he was younger becomes more apparent yet again and by leading the underdogs to place third in the national championships he is able to go to junior college and eventually goes to Arkansas state university for two years. That was the energy that would have seen him go to the NBA but as a result of various setbacks he had to bite the bullet and by the end you could tell that his heart is not into it anymore as it was when he was younger.

The more pressing issue in the film is not only the drive of the athletes but of the structures of professional basketball which start at the high school level. William gates by the end of the film does not get much motivation from basketball anymore and this depression occurred with those setbacks due to injury and then the subsequent aggravation of the injury because of the drive to succeed. The pressure of achieving in a sport like this has everyone questioning their potential. The coach at St. Josephs, Pingatore, is a driver he works the boys hard because he has always wanted to go down state and as good as the structure at St. Josephs is the team never went downstate to the national championships even when Isaiah Thomas was on the side. The coach sees this possibility with William gates but without giving his injury a time to heal William goes against the wishes of his doctor and is injured again. His coach simply told him that it’s up to him, and only him, if he wants to play despite William informing him of the doctor's instruction. William says of his coach that basketball became his life and he wanted you to feel the same. He goes on to say that after awhile he felt that he was working rather than playing for love of the game. Its telling because he was only 16 and this is why many talented players never make it as far. We watch in the documentary how the two boys, following in the path of Isaiah Thomas, have to get up at 5:30 every morning to commute to school for nearly a hour and a half journey by bus and train. It’s no surprise that William arrives late for a game in one scene. William however can’t focus entirely on basketball because he has family commitments such as his baby daughter and he becomes disillusioned by his coach who tells him after he asks advice on what to do about the mother's parents annoying him the coach simply tells him to forget about them. It’s clear that by the end it’s not just the dreams and not everyone can make basketball their all consuming desire. I can imagine that some professional players in these top sports leagues are not good at committing to the so called banal activities of family life because of this all consuming desire that needs the regular shot in the arm. I am supposing that if you do make it to the NBA you would want your team to win the championships and so forth and you can see during the final discussion with his coach that William can’t share in his overriding passions for the game and their separation is so estranged that it lingered with me. One satisfying moment was seeing Coach Pingatore watch from the sidelines as Arthur led his team to third position in the national championships; the same Arthur who he said did not have the drive or confidence. Arthur was hard done by that school that at one time refused to release his transcripts to the Marshall school because his parents owed them 1800 dollars. What Arthur’s parents make clear is that he would not have to owe the school anything if the scout had never come and recruited him in the first place. The scout was responsible for sending the not so well to do Arthur to this prestigious school without even considering the negative outcome of such a situation should his parents, who are not so well to do, be unable to find the money to pay.  It’s a telling scene when the parents have to go to the school to beg for the transcripts so that their son would be able to graduate from high school. The parents eventually received it after making arrangements to pay back the school.

The projects are presented as a very cold place and even though you are a part of the city you still feel as if you have to keep pushing because there is a centre from which you are far removed and this reminded me of the struggles of inner city communities in many industrialized countries. In the film the community is a distant urban dwelling given shape and structure by the poverty that lingers in every shop or on every journey through the streets. It can bind you so tight that if you do not have any desires of success you can be rest assured that your fate looks grim. This film captures the essence of family and what a small bundle of faith it is in communities like this for with family there is a chance that you can make it out of the ghetto however without it you are left to the whims of the drug pushers and gang bangers. Although Arthur’s father admittedly falls off and by the end you are aware of his many flaws you can’t help but appreciate his desire to remain a part of his son’s life. There is one duel that they have on the court where Arthur beats his father in a ne on one game but his resentment at his father comes boiling over. Arthur may dislike his father but one cannot deny that he remained committed to his family even seeking repentance with the church although this too was short lived. There are not many fathers who will hang around when times get sticky. William’s father for instance only takes notice of his son when he realizes that his son has a good chance of going pro; prior to this he was not in the least interested in his sons’ future These episodes reminded me of the final scene in the spike lee film released in 1998 'He got game' which was clearly influenced by this film. In this film it is made clear that although the father (Denxel Washington) has his flaws the son cannot deny that his father remained committed to see him be successful.

There are countless films dealing with the matters of race and the struggles of blacks in America however the themes presented in those films are often presented with too much flair and sentimental pulp. These films emphasize too often how the white man sees the black man as a savage and so forth but few of them paint the picture which would give the viewer a sense of the environment that creates the so called. ‘Hoop Dreams’ achieves this in powerful ways because, as a result of their journey, the insights of these boys with regards to life seem fresh. This is all achieved because in the film it’s taken time to develop. ‘Boyz ‘n the Hood’ also does this to an extent but not on the scale of ‘Hoop Dreams’. What these two films have done is to give you a sense of the environment that has been created and which creates an endless cycle of despair unless you have the daring to dream big and work towards it. Now when I see these NBA stars and the riches that they have accumulated films such as this keep you grounded and gives you a look at the other side. You also get a sense of the material motivations of the African Americans and when some people see the success of the black man as crass materialism I have to see it as success for no one splurges money like the capitalist class. This film is eternal, its unpretentious, this is one of the greatest films ever made from a black perspective. There are no forced errors and you can at last sit back and enjoy without wondering how did he do that? or how did that happen? And like all great films the scenes are allowed to develop and most of these scenes  have a definite impact on the final outcome.

There were over 250 hours of film footage which was eventually cut down to three. It was never nominated for best documentary at the academy awards or best film and this gave rise to much public outcry. After watching it you will see why. It was nominated for best film editing which was a first and only for a documentary feature. If you watch only one documentary in your life let it be ‘Hoop Dreams’.

Tags for Blogs

I have created tags for my blogs so that the reader will be able to keep abreast and not see the blog as Hodge podge. These tags are located at the end of the blog post. They are: 1. ‘Great film Series’ and this section deals with films I consider to be masterpieces and this is not to say that they are impervious to criticism. 2. The section ‘Current releases’ which deals with films that have been released within the last year or so. Lastly there is a section entitled ‘Commentary’ that will involve my opinions on a general subject related to film. It does not fall within the category of ‘critique’ in the strictest sense. For instance, if there is some gap to cover such as a comparison between two films or if I write about the relevance of film in the modern world it would fall under this section. Thanks for all those who have viewed my posts and I promise to build a substantial archive that will rival all the other critics.

One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest (1975)

Introduction

There are very few critics who discuss what the actual cuckoo’s nest is in the film ‘One flew over the Cuckoo’s Nest’. The phrase itself is attributable to this chant which will serve as an epigraph for this review:

Vintery, mintery, cutery, corn,
Apple seed and apple thorn;
Wire, briar, limber lock,
Three geese in a flock.
One flew east,
And one flew west,
And one flew over the cuckoo's nest (taken from the review of the said film by Tim Dirks)

It is clear that the cuckoo’s refers to the mental ward and the dysfunctional patients that lie within however this is superficial for there is more to it than this. The Cuckoo’s nest reflects an important aspect of the human condition in its totality. It is true that the film does explore themes related to the use of authority in curbing the natural impulses of human beings however this is only cursory and an escapist method used by critics to assess the philosophical dimensions of this superb film. Let me start by saying that I have never read the book but I plan to soon enough and when I do I will add an addendum to this my ultimate review of ‘One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest’ which was released in 1975 and won five major academy awards: Best Picture, Best Actor (Jack Nicholson), Best Actress (Louis Fletcher), Best Director (Milos Forman) and Best Adapted Screenplay. As I have not read the book I will not be able to explore fully all the connotations however based on the presentation in the film I have come to some conclusions. The film is centred on Randall Mcmurphy (Jack Nicholson), a convict, who in his attempt to escape work detail in prison fakes insanity (this is questionable and I will elaborate further) and is placed in a mental ward. In this film Mcmurphy is revolted by the repressive policies dished out by Nurse Ratched which is executed by her in the name of conformism. This conflict between Mcmurphy and Ratched is the central conflict of the film however on the sidelines lurks chief a tall Indian who issupposedly deaf and dumb but is quite observant of the system at work and provides the best insights into the machinations of repression. He is the one who flies over the cuckoo’s nest and I will explain these issues later.

What is the Cuckoo’s Nest?

Here is a brief look on what the cuckoo’s nest actually is.  Firstly the Cuckoo’s nest is an accurate reflection of an aspect of humanity because humanity would be incomplete without a cuckoo’s nest. It is a Cuckoo’s nest because of the various personalities that collide. These personalities collide and create division thereby denying humanity of any unity regardless of what the UN tries to say. In this film the characters in the asylum represent   the extreme side of most ordinary individuals and so they are classified as crazy and are thrown into an institution so that they may be corrected.  I say they represent the extreme side because their disorders represent some break with humanity and its oneness and so they form the cuckoo’s nest. The cuckoo’s nest can then be seen as an environment where individuals are placed thereby reflecting some form of separation, forcefully or willingly, from humanity based on prior interactions with the known world. The majority tends to enforce this development because these individuals do not necessarily conform to the so called popular trends. Mcmurphy says to the patients ‘You’re no crazier than the average asshole out there walking on the streets’. Secondly, the anti-authoritarian message in this film is apt to a certain extent considering that most of the patients featured in this film say that they committed themselves voluntarily to the institution. The authoritarian measure arises when they are denied basic privileges that the ordinary human takes for granted. It is only then that they are forced into a corner and come to the conclusion with the help of Randle McMurphy that they should really be out there in the wide world. This is a point completely misinterpreted by various critics simply because they failed to understand the dynamics of the cuckoo’s nest. The epigraph to this review suggests that the cuckoo’s nest is a grounding element as the goose flies over. The goose itself is not bound to its confines because a nest is essentially a place where chicks lay and are taken care of by their mother (or father). The anti-authoritarian message shines through when you discover that the individuals in the cuckoo’s nest have reached the stage where they should be mature enough to leave the nest however the parents refuse to acknowledge that their children have matured and forcefully seek to have them stay in the nest. Unfortunately, as the film suggests, there will always be individuals who will be confined to the cuckoo’s nest. McMurphy is astonished when he discovers that most of the patients in his section of the ward committed themselves voluntarily merely because they do not feel that they are cut out to fly out (not necessarily over the Cuckoo’s nest)into the world. This is as a result of their personality disorders that require state run mental institutions to look after them and as I said before these disorders represent the extreme sides of the ordinary individual based on his/her interaction with humanity. This interaction with humanity which forced the individual to commit him or herself to the institution normally culminates in a shocking event which can break the individual based on their personality type. Their personality type will then go into overdrive and then they will be deemed crazy or not fit by the general populace.

 In this film several personalities are on display that counter the personality of Mcmurphy: There is Mr. Harding (Hard On), the intellectual, who tries to rationalize ‘form and content’ in a vacuum. As an intellectual who merely absorbs existing information he is not very original and so does not seem very effective in his analyses. He accuses his wife of cheating but because he is unable to prove it with actual evidence he is caught in a muddle (vacuum) and can only justify his wife’s adultery simply because she drew stares from men in the street. This is why he can only say he suspects as opposed to definitively having proof that she is an adulterer. This therefore induces some form of rational paranoia where the lack of evidence along with the emotional impulses cannot be justified by a dignified rational response. There is Mr. Scanlon, the hermit and I am not too sure of his back-story. The only reference to his circumstance is when Nurse Ratched (Louis Fletcher) says that they discussed ‘many times’ the issue with regards to the closing of the dorm in daytime and on weekends and that ‘time spent in the company of others is very therapeutic whereas time spent brooding alone only increases a feeling of separation’. He is a hermit who wishes to be alone away from the crowd (an instance where a personality trait creates a division in humanity). There is Tabes the sadist with violent tendencies (Christopher Lloyd) who presents himself in the film as an ineffectual individual who has the impulse to lash out violently but cannot dignify his outbursts with action. In most scenes he is portrayed in that manner although, having not read the book, I cannot point to his specific condition suffice to say he was one of the few in McMurphy’s section that was not voluntarily committed. He was forcefully committed. He seems like a sadist in that he enjoys the humiliation and pain of others. Watch the scene where Mcmurphy is strangling Nurse Ratched and take a look at his face as he urges Mcmurphy on or how he taunts Harding and the scene where a cigarette gets caught in his pants and he excessively expresses his pain. There is Billy Bibbit (Brad Dourif was nominated for Best supporting actor for his performance), the man-child, under the watch of a repressive mother (it’s no wonder she and Nurse Ratched are friends). He stammers incessantly and all his attempts to reach out to a female seem to be thwarted by their rebuff which is why he tries to kill himself after a woman refused to accept his marriage proposal and this is probably why he committed himself to the institution. He has been repressed to the point where he cannot speak clearly and he cannot act independently and there is no doubt that his mother had a role in all of this repression. In the film his attempts to breakthrough are normally through the pursuit of a female and this probably reflects the influence of his mother. His most important moment comes when he is forced into a room with Mcmurphy’s trailer trash girlfriend who takes his virginity.  Mcmurphy says ‘Billy you must be committed (forcefully)’ when Billy says no he is voluntary Mcmurphy says ‘you should be out there in the convertible dogging chicks and banging beaver’. There is Martini (Danny Devito) a diminutive figure who does not have much of a conscience. He is the man who would be a kleptomaniac in the real world or a compulsive liar just so he can get what he wants regardless of the feeling of others. There is Charlie Cheswick who is overly neurotic or excessively emotional. He acts primarily off his emotional response to a situation so if he loves he loves passionately if he experiences fear it will seem as if he is surrounded by ghosts. He cannot stay grounded which is why he is chummy with Harding the intellectual. He is one who certainly needs the company of others however in the real world his behavior would isolate him because he would seem too needy so it is no surprise that he voluntarily commits himself.  There is the Chief, a tall Indian, who is to the patients ‘a deaf and dumb Indian’ however it is clear that he is not so he is a schizophrenic.  He is portrayed in the film (I have not read the book) as a man suffering from delusions as he sees the repressive system at work. In the film he is also repressed to the point where he feels he has to play deaf and dumb which is the ultimate sign of conformism. Whereas the other patients suggest that they have the potential to break out on their own chief rarely show any signs to the staff at the ward that he is capable of breaking out until Mcmurphy comes along. One of the most powerful scenes where Mcmurphy and chief play basketball for the first time shows how low the chief’s self esteem is. Mcmurphy shouts repeatedly ‘put in the basket chief, put it in the basket’ and his shouting seems to be reaching down to the core of the Chief who is buried underneath this rubble. This is one of the great moments of Jack Nicholson’s performance and the directorship of Milos Forman. Chief later reveals that his personality is emerging and reveals how low he thinks of himself when Mcmurphy says that they should escape and he says ‘it’s easier for you you’re a lot bigger than me’. Chief is nearly 7 feet tall and Mcmurphy responds accordingly to Chief’s statement, ‘why chief you’re as big as a goddamn tree trunk’. There are two other characters of this group who do not seem to have any major problems and do not feature significantly in the film although they’re inclined to be jokers and that must be their weakness.

Mcmurphy vs. Nurse Ratched

The Question arises: How do these personalities collide with Mcmurphy? The personality of Mcmurphy is one who should or cannot be confined to the Cuckoo’s nest. He thinks so clearly that it’s almost startling and this is because his problems hardly seem to bog him down due to his free spirited nature. His simplicity flies in the face of the establishment.  He moves with the flow or the tide; he dislikes authority because it stifles his movement which embraces life in its entirety. Look at how Mcmurphy responds after undergoing electric shock therapy. A lot of people would have been in disarray he says however, ‘The next girl that I meet is going to light up like silver dollars’. It is as if he brushed it aside nonchalantly.  In one of his meeting with a group of psychiatrists one of them asks him a pertinent question and it is this question that captures the essence of Mcmurphy: ‘Are you familiar with the term a rolling stone gathers no moss?’This is what Mcmurphy is: a rolling stone moving so fast it has no time to gather its thoughts or to form any meaningful attachments. He appears crazy because he lashes out against authority and in lashing out he seems loud and disruptive and he must be repressed by the establishment. Nurse Ratched says to the panel of psychiatrists, who are trying to decide whether he is crazy or not,  that they should not shirk their responsibility in seeking to curb this individual by handing him back to the authorities of the law. It is mandated that they should do everything in their power to reform him and thereby have him conform. She probably understands that this would only fit with Mcmurphy’s propensity to roll with the tide doing as he pleased. Chief also recognises the impending doom surrounding Mcmurphy when he speaks of his father who was similar in some respects to Mcmurphy.

Mcmurphy says ‘I can’t take it anymore. I gotta get outta here’ and the chief responds: 

‘My poppa is real big. He did like he pleased that’s why everybody worked on him. The last time I seen my father he was blind in the cedars from drinking and every time he put the bottle to his mouth he don’t suck out of it. It sucks out of him until he shrunk so wrinkled and yellow even the dogs don’t know him.' Mcmurphy says ‘killed him uh’. Chief: ‘I’m not saying they killed him they just worked on him the way they’re working on you’.  

This is linked to what Ratched said about the establishment doing everything in their power to have him conform. Mcmurphy seems out of place in the cuckoo’s nest because of the sort of people that reside there. The personalities of these people in his section of the ward represent some contradictions to his character because of their inherent lack of self confidence. This has been missed by several critics and it is an embarrassment that they have ignored this issue because of the absence of a proper theoretical framework so as to assess the film. This is regardless of their personality disorders for the inherent contradiction they represent to Mcmurphy is their lack of self confidence. I cannot remember where I browsed but a critic made a foolish remark saying that the film did not spend enough time examining mental illness. I wondered how the film was to do this when that was not the message it was trying to put forward. The film ‘Awakenings’ starring Robert Deniro and Robin Williams had that as its focus because that was the message it was trying to promote: breakthroughs in medicine. In any case this is the main contradiction: lack of self confidence vs. confidence.

It is because the other patients at the ward lack self confidence why Mcmurphy becomes their champion against the establishment which is manifested in this film in the form of Nurse Ratched. Nurse Ratched recognises that the patients lack self confidence which is why she manipulates them to conform to her dictate. It is only after the thrust by Mcmurphy that you begin to see changes in the structure of the ward’s curriculum. The main thrust everyone talks of is the scene where he is denied access to the television to watch the World Series despite winning the vote against Nurse Ratched. She claimed that the time for the meeting had elapsed so the vote of chief does not count. The vote of chief would have shifted the vote in Mcmurphy’s balance. In a brilliant scene Mcmurphy, refusing to bow out, looks at a blank screen and tries to re-enact the match in his head by playing commentator. This rouses the imagination of the patients and although they cannot see what is going on the kinetic impact of Mcmurphy’s commentary excites them to the point where Nurse Ratched feels that they will become unruly when they are in fact only enjoying a sports game. Nurse Ratched is an ultra conformist and appears sexually repressed a position a woman has to take if she is to enter the cutthroat world of men. One of the jokers states in reference to her sexual repression ‘maybe Mcmurphy should just let out his thing (penis) and she (Nurse Ratched) would open the gate for him’. Dr. Spivey says that ‘the person he (Mcmurphy) is closest to is the one he dislikes the most. That’s you Mildred (Nurse Ratched).’ The duel between Mcmurphy and Nurse Ratched is classic because it has been imitated by so many films most notably ‘The Dark Knight’ (2008) with the Joker vs. The batman. It echoes the duel between an unstoppable force and an immovable object. The unstoppable force (Mcmurphy) cannot be cooled whereas the immovable object (Nurse Ratched) simply won’t budge. Mcmurphy is closest to Nurse Ratched for several reasons: Firstly, he cannot do as he pleases with her and secondly the both of them are fighting for control of the minds or souls of the patients. This is certainly echoed by the Batman and the joker in ‘The Dark Knight’. They both see clearly the implication of their actions which is why their antithesis (Mcmurphy or Nurse Ratched) looms so largely. They can only see each other because the patients are subject to their will. They only take note of the patients’ behaviour when they see that the other is holding sway over them. So for instance if Nurse Ratched has them doing exercises and following their daily routine the patients seem ok but Mcmurphy will resist and say I don’t feel like doing this anymore then there will be a shift because the patients will then think twice about what they’re doing.  It ebbs and flows between the two. There are two tragic sequences where this is apparent. When Billy is escorted into the room, at the behest of Mcmurphy with Candy (trailer trash) who will take his virginity it seems to have the effect of almost transforming him. When he encounters Nurse Ratched he seems almost liberated and his stuttering is not at all visible; Nurse Ratched knows that this is the work of Mcmurphy. She strikes a low blow at Billy by threatening to discuss this with his mother but that is really directed at Mcmurphy. After Billy reveals that he was led into the room with Candy at the behest of Mcmurphy look at the stare she gives Mcmurphy. Billy eventually commits suicide and so Nurse Ratched wins for Billy paid the price for his non conformity. McMurphy then tries to kill her by the strangulation method and almost succeeds but he is thwarted by the guards. Mcmurphy is lobotomized perhaps at the behest of Nurse Ratched but that is not made clear and so his spirit appears to be extinguished and Nurse Ratched appears to have won. In the final scene the patients go back to their routine following the conflict between Mcmurphy and Nurse Ratched however it has been altered slightly thanks to the thrust made by Mcmurphy and it highlights that he did make some inroads. The patients have not forgotten Mcmurphy they discuss the mythic circumstances surrounding his predicament in another ward. When Mcmurphy does return he is lobotomized; almost a shadow of his former self. Chief performs an act of mercy killing for if the patients see Mcmurphy in his lobotomized state wallowing in the mud or blind in the cedars then they will feel that it is probably better to conform to authority. Chief smashes the glass with an instrument and escapes into the wild unknown and in this way he and Mcmurphy escape from the cuckoo’s nest. Physically it is only Chief but the influence or spirit of Mcmurphy also goes with him and this will add to his legend in the ward and thereby give him some form of victory over the authoritarian principles of Nurse Ratched. I have heard that in the book it is all the patients who are cognisant of their surroundings that escape along with Chief and so it would have been a resounding victory for Mcmurphy over Nurse Ratched. In the film the victory seems very small as it is the Chief alone who escapes which suggests that change is gradual and it would be interesting to see how the patients in the film would respond after Chief smashed the window and escaped. They would be more confident now knowing that going into the wide world is not so challenging after all.

There is also one other important point to emphasise about Mcmurphy in this film. Most of his attempts to escape are thwarted. You would think that he would be the one to fly over the cuckoo’s nest given his penchant knack for disorder however it never comes through and this is why it is clear that the film is more about the influence of Mcmurphy than his actual attempts at escape. As I said before a man like Mcmurphy could not exist in a mental institution because he is obviously not crazy he is simply a rolling stone however the true reality of the film would see the patients going about their daily routine day in day out until they are finally liberated by death without the influence of Mcmurphy or his sort of spirit. In every sphere of life there is someone like that who shakes up the system and whose influence grows in stature even after they’re gone as some symbol of resistance to the establishment of the day. The only reason people revolt against an existing establishment is because of the reasons given in this film. They are being denied some privileges or some form of rights that they feel should be their due and in turn they conform to the system. This is where you need people like Mcmurphy who challenge the system and his challenge appears so forthright that the existing establishment cannot ignore his influence and will be forced to concede in some instances. This is why by the end it is clear that the thrust by Mcmurphy does have some sway over the inmates and boosts their self confidence.  It is this message of the film that endures above all else and I will soon draw my attention to the limited scope of these so called top critics when they seek to assess the greatness of this film. The film itself is the only one of its kind that can serve as some form of inspiration to people seeking to challenge the establishment. Nurse ratched represents the values of the establishment and appears overly conservative and resistant to change and this duel has been fought from the beginning of time. If the liberal thrust makes inroads into the conservative class they (the conservatives) will never be the same although they still impose their traditional customs. If the liberals took over completely then it would be chaos for a time until the said liberals would settle into a conservative mould and therefore begin to function normally. In this film this is apparent several times. Mcmurphy’s thrust reaches a point where the inmates appear to want to revolt and disorder ensues. You can see this in the farewell party that they have when the whole place is in tatters the following morning. The question is how many people would want to return home and find their place looted, bundled or turned upside down. Not many people I suppose.  The reality is there are people who are like Nurse Ratched  however there comes a time when you must accede that a change is necessary and when you do not accede to this things fall apart whether you want them to or not. After Billy commits suicide Nurse ratched exclaims rather foolishly ‘We must continue with our daily routine’. This is a clear indicator of a conservative who cannot understand that things are falling apart, despite the sway of establishment, and that change is needed. A balance must be struck between the liberal and the conservative. There is an extended shot of Mcmurphy where he seems to be thinking about escaping or whether all this revolting is really worth it. It is a silent shot and stroke of brilliance by Milos Forman. When you watch this scene you realise that Mcmurphy is really meditating on his extreme behaviour and the rolling stone is actually slowing down and gathering moss. The events that follow this shot are heartbreaking but not surprising for the Great escape has come to an end and that is always the tragedy of life when we as individuals cannot fly anymore and are forced to stay grounded in the cuckoo’s nest. You will also notice that after the extended shot Mcmurphy does not say anything after that (I mean anything meaningful for he does utter to chief ‘lets go’ but that does not really count since they never went anywhere. Apart from that lets go he does not say anything) and it is brilliant for it is now left to see to what extent he has had a major influence on the other supporting characters. It is a stroke of genius in the screenplay.

The Fishing Scene debate?

This debate is neither here nor there. They say that it the scene does not fit etc but the point is it did not affect the structure of the film and therefore it can be allowed. These critics do not understand that films need some shocking elements to drive home their message. The fishing scene is that for ‘One flew over the Cuckoo’s Nest’ for it is the only chance we get of seeing the inmates interact with the wider world or how they would really function if the opportunity did come for them to embrace humanity in its totality. This scene was in the book so I do not understand the debate. This debate only serves to show that these so called top critics are not assessing the film within a proper theoretical frame work. It is clear from the fishing scene that these inmates have been so far removed from humanity that they cannot function without the hospitals supervision i.e. unless they have an influential character such a Mcmurphy in their midst; a man who knows they ways of the world. It is a part of their schedule that is lacking for they do go on drives in the bus but it seems as if it is only within the confines of the bus that they get a glimpse of the world outside. It is clear from the fishing scene that they are incapable of interacting with the wider world.  The critics  say that it appears irrational without any justification as to why this fishing trip occurs t but I have just outlined one rational basis for its inclusion and for me the debate is neither here nor there if you understand the cuckoo’s nest.

What some critics had to say about the film’s greatness?

I am not here to discuss the ratings of various critics; I am here to discuss what some had to say which would seem to detract from the film. How critics rate a film is not the point it is how they justify their rating that comes into question. James Berardinelli gives a very dim witted review of this film and one wonders why these people are called top critics. Here is the reason why he says the film falls shy of greatness: ‘Although the picture has not aged as well as some of its contemporaries, its themes remain germane, the story has lost none of its punch, and the performances retain their freshness. Viewed 30 years after its release, One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest remains a very good motion picture, although one that perhaps just misses the pinnacle of greatness where its reputation suggests it resides.’ Although the themes remain germane (relevant) it ‘perhaps just misses the pinnacle of greatness.’ If the themes remain relevant then the film has reached the pinnacle of greatness. In his review he seems stuck between a rock and a hard place he seems to be saying that the film is not relevant however its themes remain relevant. If you say a film has not aged well what do you mean by this when this film is the only one of its kind that influenced several others such as ‘Awakenings’.  He is looking at it through the modern lens with no sense of the theoretical framework of the film which is why he claims: ‘The negative aspects of mental health care impugned by One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest are largely no longer in place today (electroconvulsive therapy is rarely used, frontal lobotomies are not performed), but the film's other themes are germane.’ Nice use of the word germane. In any case if you acknowledge that it is a duel between an autocrat and the individual then that is the real issue but there is more to it than this for the concept of the cuckoo’s nest has to be discussed. If you do not discuss it then you will never understand the significance of such a film. He says that the negative elements of mental health care ‘impugned ‘ by the film are no longer in place however that was the period and it cannot be ignored you have to be more consistent and say that these methods are used as elements of control. The film did not impugn them they showed the drastic means by which the autocratic environment crushes an individual. I am sure in an effort to maintain law and order the US still uses the lethal injection as opposed to the electric chair but it is still a method of murder. ‘A Beautiful Mind’ had a very dramatic scene where John Nash was exposed to electroconvulsive therapy although this film was released in 2001. It was simply the methods used at the time. In these times I am sure they have very intense drugs and injections to place the individual under control. The method changes but not the reality. I was amazed that Berardinelli  says that ‘Brave Heart’ is a great film when the themes are the same.  He must have thought that ‘Brave Heart’ aged well. Roger Ebert rightfully acknowledges that this is a great film although I was not too clear on his reasons for it when he asks the question:

 ‘Is One Flew over the Cuckoo’s Nest not a great film because it overly manipulative or is it a great film because it’s superbly manipulative? (His answer) I can see it through either filter. It remains enduringly popular as an anti-establishment parable, but achieves its success by deliberately choosing to use the mental patients as comic caricatures. This decision leads to the fishing trip, which is at once the most popular, and most false, scene in the movie. It is Mcmurphy's great joyous thumb in the eye to Ratched and her kind, but the energy of the sequence cannot disguise the unease and confusion of the men who, in many cases, have no idea where they are, or why.'

I have already given one rational reason why the fishing trip was included if one understands the concept of the cuckoo’s nest. There is no film that is not manipulative and lastly the mental patients are not comic caricatures. If they seem comic it is because of how we perceive them for there are few people that can hold a straight face when a crazy person starts to do something outrageous. It is in us to laugh when their extreme personality is manifested unless you’re the Nurse Ratched type and can hold a straight face all the time. As I explained without the theoretical framework one cannot understand how effective this film is.

This is without a doubt a great achievement in filmdom.

Amadeus (1984): The Mediocre vs. the Sublime

(image courtesy of cinema1544.wordpress.com)


 Amadeus (1984)


Introduction


The film ‘Amadeus’ is essentially a meditation on ideas about the superior and inferior in life despite the inherent contradictions in its presentation. The inherent contradictions stem from its presentation which centres on a mythical story about envy and so the film appears to have no foundations although it does have two foundations which are the envious Antonio Salieri (F. Murray Abrahams won the Oscar for best actor in a leading role for his portrayal of Salieri in this film) and the music of Mozart. This film seems completely implausible from a historical perspective but works because the portrayal of the conflict between Salieri and Mozart does the myth justice thereby making it a great film. Whether or not one accepts the concept of mythology you must always remember that myth has some grounding in reality. The reality I speak of is the mundane existence which we all endure day in day out. What myth does is to exalt the mundane in us and make it more palatable and this explains why we exalt our stars be it in music or film or sport. These stars are humans like us all but they seem to have qualities that do not reflect the mundane; they have qualities that seem unearthly, almost godlike and this is where myth is born. Myth is an exaggeration of reality that is all. These individuals are not necessarily godlike they are merely perceptive or have a distinct advantage and we therefore claim that they are geniuses or godlike simply because the concept  which they created was never developed in such a fashion prior to their arrival. The foundation of this film may be reality but the missing link here is speculation. When the startling effect does occur and shatters our mundane existence speculation becomes rife as to the causes or influences that influenced the direction of this particular moment.  The myth is born out of this speculation but differs from it because myth normally constitutes a narrative or a logical sequence of events with speculation as its foundation however this speculation originates out of some startling real live experience. What the person who writes myth does is to dispense with those stories surrounding the event that seem implausible and then tie in those that add some gravitas to the story. Speculation is babbling whereas myth represents its logical opposite. With myth it would appear that the narrative has some grain of truth. This film is based not just off Peter Shaffers play but off the play ‘Mozart and Salieri’ by Alexander Pushkin which influenced Shaffer. When the play ‘Mozart and Salieri’ was written it reflected what was already reinforced in people’s minds:  that Salieri was jealous of Mozart’s godlike musical talents and had him murdered. The events in this play were based off speculation or rumours however Shaffer expands on the reasons why Salieri should be jealous: his vanity and the music of Mozart. Shaffer's screenplay does not deviate much from the myth but simply expands it to the point where you have to see these two main characters as symbols of our humanity much like the Batman and the Joker. If there is one thing that myth is grounded in it has to be the reality that is human nature for this is the basis for the development of so called civilisation.

The Mediocre vs. The Sublime

  Let me start by explaining what this film is basically about: Salieri the renowned composer of his day and loved by his contemporaries knows that he is inferior because of Mozart. He however resents the fact that god has chosen to bestow this superior musical talent on Mozart who he considers  a creature or some wild man who employs scatological based humour in his escapades. Salieri cannot believe this because he thought that by giving his chastity to god he would be renowned and he would play music that would immortalize him. He, however, painfully finds this not to be so for as he tells the priest: ’32 years (after Mozart’s death), 32 years of watching myself become extinct. My music growing fainter and fainter till no one plays it at all’. This is no mere talk and the film balances this in one clever scene where Salieri, at first, plays for the priest (who comes to receive his confession after he screamed that he killed Mozart) some compositions of his that were popular when he was in his prime however the priest cannot recall these compositions and he might be forgiven because he is not so well trained in music. Salieri, however, knows that when something is immortalized even the most vulgar person must be aware and so he says, ‘Aaah what about his one?’  and so starts to play a tune of Mozart on his piano. Salieri is evidently not surprised that the priest knows the tune for he is able to belt out the notes. The priest, who is not gifted in music (a very clever device in the screenplay), says he was not aware that Salieri composed that tune; Salieri corrects him when he says ‘that was not me that was Mozart...Wolfgang  Amadeus Mozart’.  It does not take long to establish that he is a vain man. He says to the priest: ‘Everybody liked me; I liked myself’. 

This is the first element that demonstrates why he would be envious of Mozart for a vain man cannot see anything but himself and so when the spotlight shifts he is either humbled or becomes envious. It is human nature. While watching those apocryphal Jesus films (a mere retread of the gospels) while growing up I was struck by one statement made by John the Baptist and I am not sure if these lines are in the gospels themselves. While baptising and simultaneously telling the assembled congregation to repent, John is asked if he is the messiah and he says, ‘No I am not the messiah; there is one who is coming that is greater than I’. As he says this Jesus himself parts the crowd and is baptised by John and after his head emerges from the water a white dove perches on his shoulder. This is one case where a man is humbled however Salieri refuses to be humbled and grows jealous. He will be eventually humbled because, as mentioned before, his music grows fainter day by day. It grows so faint that by the end he declares that he is the saint for mediocrities; he is their champion. A clever device is that when he says this, a resonant laugh from Mozart reinforces his ignominy. This reference to Jesus is crucial to this story for the religious based theme runs throughout the film. In the film the talents of Mozart are not attributed to a genius, although that is what we would call him nowadays, they are attributed to godlike attributes for as Salieri says ‘God was speaking through this little man’. It is not Mozart but god himself that manifests himself as Mozart. This reinforces the religious theme associated with the story of Jesus. Everyone knows that Jesus was from a poor background and his main opponents would come from the members of the established church that had grown fat on success. The message that Jesus delivered has immortalized him whereas those members of the established church in Jesus’ day have been largely forgotten no matter how prominent they were in their own day. They will only be remembered as the ones that allowed Jesus to be crucified and this would therefore enhance the image of Jesus especially as he, despite being crucified, begged god to forgive them anyway (a completely startling event in his time). Jesus never enjoyed the fruits of his labour but his message was immortalized and so he was raised to the stature of being godlike. Likewise Mozart is said to be godlike because of his musical talents and he will be persecuted by Salieri on earth however his persecution or underhandedness will exalt Mozart for eternity. There is a significant scene that should not be missed and symbolizes Salieri’s reputation as a devil. He realized that God would not grant him the gifts that he so desires so he breaks with god by throwing a crucifix into the flame. The main reason he gives for this is: ‘Why give me the desire? Like a lust in my body and then make me mute.’ His desire was to be a great musician however he is mute but his desire to be great forces him to recognize greatness in another which is Mozart. This story is reflective of the apocryphal tale of the break between god and the devil when the world was just formed.  Lucifer was the right hand of god that he could acknowledge true power but he was limited because he was mute he simply had to follow but being the second in command, being so close, made him aspire. He was therefore humbled after the defeat by god and cast into shadow. The devil will always be remembered for the same reason that the captors of Jesus were remembered: as the one who always sought to undermine but in his effort to undermine exalts god even further. (I am sure some will believe that the devil has won some victories in the battle for the soul of man). 

This then is the role being played by Salieri. He wishes to undermine Mozart but fails miserably because it is Mozart whose music becomes immortalized whereas Salieri is only remembered as the underhanded achiever. There are many signs in the film that show that Salieri is renowned in his day and grows fat on success. Firstly, he loves sweet things and this motif establishes his penchant greed. Secondly, he is the court composer in Vienna and instructs Emperor Joseph and every tune that he plays is considered a masterpiece by his contemporaries even after Mozart just debuted with ‘The Marriage of Figaro’ and ‘Don Giovanni’. Salieri knows that these works are superior to any opera that he will ever compose but everyone else won’t know it for two reasons: Salieri’s subterfuge and that the music is unfamiliar to his contemporaries. The emperor says after Mozart debuts with ‘The Abduction from the Seraglio’ that, ‘You (Mozart) have given us something quite new tonight’. He is not trained so well in music so he would not know why it is new. Salieri certainly knows why. Despite this the emperor decrees that one of Salieri’s operas is the best opera ever written up to that point (probably in Vienna the so called home of musicians in its day). If I was there I would have probably agreed because that is what the people are used to; they are not accustomed to the strange music of Mozart and so they would rather stick with the mundane/familiar that is Salieri’s music.

Mozart’s Music in the Film

Then how is the music of Mozart portrayed in this film. It is one thing to acknowledge that this music is greater than yours but how is that relayed to the average viewer.  Salieri heard the stories of Mozart growing up during his youth: ‘While I was playing childish games; he was playing for Kings and Emperors even the Pope’.  He was prodigious certainly and this was why Salieri admired Mozart’s father more than Mozart himself because as a child certainly Mozart would resort to childish behaviour as did salieri. Mozart’s father having recognized his talent would have ordered Mozart to hone his musical talents and this would require some form of separation from his childhood (Have you seen my childhood? says Michael Jackson).  Salieri meets Mozart for the first time in Vienna where Mozart has come to play ‘at the Residence of his employer: the Archbishop of Salzburg’. I will not get into the politics here only to say that Mozart is considered a servant of the Archbishop in this film and this is something that Mozart resents.  Salieri discovers Mozart in the room where the food is kept. Mozart and his wife to be, Constanze, are playing hide and seek. Salieri is revolted by the scatological (look it up) banter between the two but is astonished that when the music starts to play Mozart arises, assumes a studious air and says ‘my music...they’ve started without me’. Salieri cannot believe this is Mozart, ‘that dirty creature giggling on the floor; that was Mozart.’ Mozart would seem dirty because his behaviour seems lowly and probably brings to mind the ideas of class. I say this for when Salieri speaks to Constanze(Mozart’s wife) he says ‘Dont call me sir. It puts me at such a distance. I’m from a small town, just like your husband.’ After the performance Salieri recounts to the priest the musical notes on the manuscript that was left on the podium while Mozart met with the Archbishop: ‘the beginning was simple almost comic; bassoons, basset horns, like a rusty squeezebox but then an oboe hanging there unwavering before it was taken over by a clarinet. This was not the composition of a performing monkey (this reference to a performing monkey is a phrase from his father)’.  The film does not relay this message simply in dialogue for while Salieri speaks of Mozart’s many compositions throughout the film the producers cleverly interspersed the actual recordings with his dialogue. One would then be able to understand definitively the greatness Salieri saw in the music of Mozart because you too are able to hear the music for yourself. This therefore makes the music a grounding element in the film. Salieri commenting on a series of compositions says, ‘Music finished as no music has ever been finished before....displace one note and there would be diminishment.’ 

His colleagues cannot understand the music of Mozart and their main complaint is ‘too many notes’ or as Count Orsini Rosenberg (a composite fictional character based on an actual personage who did exist), a radical conservative, states ‘A young man trying to impress beyond his abilities.’ This may seem conservative but let us take a more theoretical approach to understanding the gravitas of this problem for it is a situation that is as old as time. What Orsini is hearing is the type of breakthrough that is bursting at the seams. When someone makes a breakthrough normally there is, or appears there is, no foundation for what he is doing. It appears as if it does not have structure; it appears as if it would collapse which is why salieri says ‘displace one not and there would be diminishment’. There are situations where people do not follow through with their breakthroughs; they see the opening but when they make the thrust they end up back where they started although the gap has been found. The real breakthrough occurs when you can push and push until you are literally soaring so that even if you fall people who were normally comforted by the existing knowledge will make the journey with you and so what was previously the accepted norm is replaced by another. This is why you have the phrase ‘up, up and away’. The person making the breakthrough normally sees a vast range of possibilities. Mozart in his defense of writing an opera on the then banned play ‘the Marriage of figaro’ says to the emperor ‘the maid, is followed by the husband, then by the wife (all singing at the same time) septet, sextet, octet. How long do you think I can keep this (different harmonies) going your majesty? Just guess’ (The emperor guesses 8 minutes’) ’20 minutes sire and no recitatives (‘ a style of delivery (much used in operas, oratorios, and cantatas) in which a singer is allowed to adopt the rhythms of ordinary speech’. Wikipedia).’ This would have been something amazing indeed but not all goes the way Mozart planned. The Emperor yawns once during this piece which is four hours in length. Mozart cannot understand why ‘The Marriage of Figaro’ was not a success during its run at the National theatre and so Salieri has to explain to him( Mozart does not know that Salieri is trying to undermine him): ‘The poor man (the emperor) can barely sit through an hour (of opera); you gave him four.’ Mozart asks ‘why did they (the Viennese public) not come?’ Salieri answers, ‘You underestimate our dear Viennese my friend. Did you know you did not even give them a good bang at the end of songs so that they would know when to clap?’ Mozart replies ‘I know, I know. Maybe you could give me some lessons in that’. This obviously offends Salieri. This is therefore the struggle one encounters when he or she is trying to demonstrate a new product it must still have some grounding in the conservative tradition so that people will embrace it more readily. If you are too liberal people tend to mock and jeer you with the disclaimer that you will have your moment and then fade out. This is how it seems at the present moment but when you take a step back you will realize that people have indeed embraced your method although unknowingly or reluctantly. This is a sign that you have made a breakthrough.  This would explain why it was primarily after Mozart’s death that his legend grew in stature.  

The Portrayal of the Godlike Mozart in the film

Mozart is portrayed as a childish man in this film (much like Michael Jackson). He obviously never had the luxury of playing childish games while growing up.  He also has a bombastic laugh that explodes on contact, wears coloured wigs and he is obsessed with scatological humour. He is portrayed in the film as a figure that stands out against the sea of grain whereas his contemporaries are all portrayed as so called elevated beings. Mozart makes a pass at this when he says of legends ‘people so lofty they seem as if they shit marble. Who would not rather listen to his hairdresser than Hercules?’ There is some criticism of this portrayal of Mozart who probably was not as exuberant in real life but I agree with Roger Ebert when he says that too often geniuses are portrayed in films as if their work is a great burden. Mozart is a down to earth man who seems not to take his work seriously when in fact he does. This is why Salieri says ‘It’s as if he takes dictation from God’. This is evident when Salieri is presented with drafts of Mozart’s music ‘which show no signs of correction’. This would fit into the religious theme but from a practical perspective it is clear that few people who transcribe their ideas on paper make no mistakes whatsoever. There are times when they have to go over their notes and check whether or not this or that fits in with the narrative. Revisions are therefore necessary even for the greatest thinkers. This is why we call them geniuses and not godlike. They give us the final product and not drafts. If they did give us drafts we would be merciless with our criticisms and therefore it is amazing that Salieri found no fault whatsoever with the drafts. As a fictional account however it fits within the religious theme ‘taking dictation from God’. Salieri therefore does not see Mozart as a man but as a creature which serves to enhance the strangeness in Mozart but at the same time highlights the reason why he should be exalted above other men. It is therefore something one should think about. How much is Salieri’s perception of Mozart influencing how Mozart is portrayed in the film? Salieri’s account seems distorted because of his love/hate relationship with Mozart which is why Mozart appears so different in the film itself since it is primarily a recount by Salieri himself. There are three episodes in the film which serve to illustrate that Mozart was a learned man but through Salieri’s testimony, that is given to us, he appears disdainful of the music of Salieri and others who seem to represent the mundane. Mozart had to to master those that came before him before he could move forward.  Firstly, Mozart says in reply to the chamberlain who says there are other composers in Vienna who could teach the niece of the emperor. Mozart replies ‘I know but I’m the best’. Secondly when Mozart first meets Salieri he says ‘Y’know i actually composed some variations on a melody of yours. A funny little tune but it yielded some good things.’ Thirdly, when Mozart is at a party salieri in a mask asks him to play Salieri, Mozart says to the crowd,’ Now that is a challenge’. He starts to play the piano with his head bowed as if serious but when his face emerges it is contorted (to reflect Salieri’s constipated approach to music) he then breaks wind as a sign that Salieri later releases this tension after composing his music. It is a pretty funny scene. Salieri says ‘Go on laugh but soon I’ll be laughing at you’. It is this scene where Salieri decides to find some means of achieving Mozart’s death.  Mozart even tries his hand at Johann Sebastian Bach on the piano by playing one of his melodies upside down. The actual history says that Mozart did grapple with Bach when he came into contact with Bach’s manuscripts so this scene would probably reflect his mastery of Bach’s musical compositions.

Mozart would seem like a feather in the wind (Forrest Gump intro?) if it were not for his wife and father who are the grounding elements in his life. They are both practical people. His wife Constanze says ‘ money just slips through his fingers. Its ridiculous’. His father also dedicated his life to training Mozart and he too wanted Mozart to pursue a suitable musical career which would involve teaching students, ‘composition does not pay you know that’ after Mozart says that students get in the way and ‘he must have time for composition’.  In the film Mozart does not take them seriously until his father dies and his wife gets too ill and has to go to the spa. When Constanze does return by the end, right before Mozart’s death, she says ‘show me that you need me’. When she was away he did miss her in his own way but as his mother in law reminds him ‘you only care about your music’. These two characters therefore add some gravitas to the character which is why Salieri tries to use them to achieve Mozart’s destruction. He tries to seduce Constanze by offering money when times get hard and after the death of Mozart’s father he tries to manifest himself in a costume once worn by his father so as to commission Mozart to write his famous requiem mass which was unfinished at the time of his death. These were the only two people Mozart really loved according to the film because they counteracted his flighty ideals with hardnosed reality. This film is fictional but actual historical accounts do state that Mozart did have concerns about money and he was commissioned to compose some melodies for the emperor’s balls. He fell on hard times not because he was so consumed with music but because Austria was at war and the government could not afford to keep musicians on its payroll. I emphasise this because it contradicts the portrayal in the film which centres on religious based themes. There are therefore noticeable gaps in the presentation for instance no real account is given why Mozart does not perform at the National theatre any more or the real circumstances for his lack of funds.

 Mozart also distinguishes himself from his colleagues because he wants to be loved from top to bottom i.e. from the aristocrats to the regular man in the street and this is why Mozart does not blush when his opera ‘Don Giovanni’ is vulgarized as a vaudeville. This would however help to explain why his stature grew after his death because at least the so called common man would carry the music of Mozart around after his death. Salieri only played for the aristocrats and whereas he was accepted by them if you do not find means to be absorbed within the collective memory as opposed to a particular class you will certainly be forgotten. Mozart in the film performs ‘The Magic Flute’ with its fanciful elements which, simultaneously, catch the eye of the ordinary man and the aristocrat (Salieri could not  miss anything performed live by Mozart) because it would be grounded in the typical Mozart brilliance for pushing the limits of music.


 The Death of Mozart

Salieri seeks to achieve Mozart’s death not by physical means but by coveting the music of Mozat for his own. The play by Pushkin simplified the issue by having Salieri visibly poisoning Mozart. Salieri under the guise of a costume once worn by Mozart’s deceased father commissions him to write a death mass or Requiem. Mozart agrees because he is reminded of his dead father; he exclaims later on that ‘it is killing me’. This is no surprise since having such godlike abilities he would naturally be in tune with what it’s like to face death from an artistic point of view. This is why you have scenes which show him trying to counter this imposing menace of death by writing ‘The Magic Flute’ which was written for everyone. In the final scene Mozart says to Salieri who is helping him to finish write the ‘Requiem’ ‘Do you believe in it a ever burning fire?’ (not exact quote). Mozart has finally come to grips with his limits but was still able to pen his final unfinished masterpiece. Salieri also suffered a death at this point as well which was why in the film’s final brilliant scene he is trying to coax as much out of the dying Mozart so that he can use it for his own. If you ever do watch it try and see if you pick up how they show Mozart dictating to Salieri who cannot keep up thereby emphasising how behind he is and why Mozart himself was the only one capable to take ‘dictation from God’. (Salieri offers to assist Mozart in writing the final sections of the requiem on Mozart’s death bed). Salieri, who obviously was a fictional composite of the other mediocre musicians of his day, dies because how else will he be able to relate to god now that one of his prophets is gone. Mozart humbled him on earth and this was necessary because Salieri is portrayed as a vain man and normally they can only learn through forceful means. Salieri does learn when he acknowledges that he is the champion for all mediocrities where as Mozart will blaze into the future. Tupac says ‘you thought it was but it wasn’t now disappear, bow down in the presence of a boss playa’.