Slippedisc daily comfort zone (27): Mozart hates dogs

Slippedisc daily comfort zone (27): Mozart hates dogs

Daily Comfort Zone

norman lebrecht

May 10, 2021

This scene was omitted from the mainstream release of Amadeus, perhaps to avoid offending dog owners.


  • DG says:

    It’s in the director’s cut, I believe. For some reason, the director’s cut seems to be the only version you can stream anymore. I actually prefer the theatrical release version, because most of the added scenes seem like they were cut for good reason (although the dog scene here isn’t bad).

  • fierywoman says:

    Wasn’t this in the director’s cut?

  • fflambeau says:

    A delightful movie. OUTSTANDING. No need for the dogs.

  • Peter says:

    Extraordinary ! Is it a joke ? Was it made and discarded ? Did it only just surface now ?

  • Edoardo says:

    Good they did…

  • Darrell says:

    What I hate the most about living in the city is the amount of dogs and motorcycles that surround us, the city is not the place for either of those two, they only cause annoyances, noise and dirt. Fortunately in a few generations both problems will have been solved. In the case of dogs, the sum of wokeness and the prodigious Islamization of Europe will erase them forever from buildings and streets. In the case of motorcycles, electrification will be the salvation. The Mozart family in Salzburg had one such animal, Mozart in Vienna does not seem to have owned another. It would have been nice to know his opinion about motorcycles and the noise they generate.

    • Greg Bottini says:

      “In the case of dogs, the sum of wokeness and the prodigious Islamization of Europe will erase them forever from buildings and streets.”
      That’s the stupidest thing I’ve read all week.

      • BRUCEB says:

        …and it’s only Tuesday.

      • Darrell says:

        Are you sure you have read all my comments for the week? Besides, it’s only Tuesday.

        And by the way:

        1. The Quran does not accept dogs.

        2. The absurd humanization of those animals can only end with their absolute liberation from submission to human beings.

        And have no doubt who will advance such activism (no.2) in a generation or two.

        • Alexander T says:

          From Milos Forman and Amadeus to
          the Coran.
          As asinine comments go, this one takes the proverbial biscuit.

  • Larry W says:

    They could have omitted all scenes with Tom Hulce, whose mischaracterization of Mozart confused childlike with childish.

  • Luca says:

    I can never believe that Mozart was such an oaf.

  • mary says:

    Musical historians and biographers hate this film, and deep down, if you admit it, it is a rather far fetched premise to have a bunch of English and American actors doing this film, Mozart speaking in English with an American accent, but the film is absolute genius, absolute brilliance, irresistible, so many iconic scenes and classic lines, I could watch it over and over again, repeating the lines, and never tire of it.

    Why couldn’t they repeat the formula with another composer film? Chopin: Paris, the glam, the sex…

    Oh well, one is good enough

  • M McAlpine says:

    The movie is no doubt entertaining for the ignorant but is mostly historical fantasy. It appears to be based upon the fact that because Mozart wrote vulgar letters to his friends and family he didn’t know how to behave in real life. Mozart certainly wasn’t the god-like figure of myth but to have him caricatured with totally unhistorical nonsense thrown in is annoying – especially on repeated viewings.

    • Marfisa says:

      “… entertaining for the ignorant …”! That’s me, then.

      Recommended: Pushkin, poetic drama, Mozart and Salieri (1830); Rimsky-Korsakov’s opera based on it; Peter Shaffer, stage play Amadeus (1979); basic understanding of the difference between literature/drama and biography/documentary.

      Informative blog:

      “…. based upon the fact that [because Mozart wrote vulgar letters to his friends and family] he didn’t know how to behave in real life.” Did you mean to say this?

    • Max Raimi says:

      Like so many others, you completely missed the point. See my reply to Luca above.

      • BRUCEB says:

        Well, there’s missing the point — and then there’s ducking out of the way to make sure the point misses you

        (I guess the standard term is “willful misunderstanding”)

    • Stuart says:

      “entertaining for the ignorant” – made my day. The original play is wonderful – the film less so due to casting and the direction. The recent National Theatre production was a delight to see when it was shown free during 2020. The only ignorance is thinking Amadeus has anything to do with Mozart historically. Peter Shaffer wasn’t writing about Mozart but he did produce a thoughtful drama. Does it matter in Schiller’s Mary Stuart that the two queens never met in real life? Of course not – historical accuracy wasn’t the aim but to produce an interesting drama. Cracks me up about your reference to “repeated viewings”. Given what you wrote, why would you subject yourself to repeated viewings? Stop thinking in terms to Mozart and Salieri historically, but of Mozart as a rough-edged over achiever and Salieri as a mediocrity.

    • Allen says:

      “The movie is no doubt entertaining for the ignorant”

      Don’t fall off your pedestal, it’s a long way down.

  • John Borstlap says:

    It’s always a surprise to find in Hollywood versions of history that all Europeans speak American.

    • Max Raimi says:

      Ah yes. And how foolish of Shakespeare to have Danes speaking Elizabethan English in “Hamlet”.

    • Marfisa says:

      It always amazes me that all the Danes in Hamlet and all the Italians in Othello and all the Romans in Julius Caesar speak English!

      • HugoPreuss says:

        Unless you take the versions of Thomas, Verdi, and Händel. Then, all of a sudden, its French, Italian, and Italian again. Doesn’t make it any better, though! 😉

  • Nijinsky says:

    New Guinea Singing Dog Has more youtube views than a lot of [Classical] opera singers:

  • John Borstlap says:

    One of the many problems of that movie is the way people are overdressed. We know that in the 18th century, people did not look like that. Also, all clothes are always extremely bright and clean and ironed, which simply can never have been the case. I won’t comment on the wigs which are cheap and tasteless American fantasy stuff….. and often completely misfitting. They should have looked to the portraits of that period.