Iron Man has been out for over six weeks now, and I managed to catch a matinee last weekend. It is one of the best reviewed movies of the year so far with 93% at Rotten Tomatoes and 79/100 at Metacritic. These are rather high numbers for a super hero movie. Compare to The Incredible Hulk which is now playing opposite Iron Man, and received scores of 67% and 61/100 from those respective websites.
Much of the credit for Iron Man goes to Robert Downey, Jr. Most critics noted that his performance kept the movie going, and that is undoubtedly true. I really enjoy watching Downey. He usually gives a fun performance even if the movie is otherwise bad. He is a lot like Alec Baldwin in that way. Say what you will about the rest of the Baldwin family, but Alec is entertaining as hell.
But there are two other aspects of Iron Man that really push its ratings up. First, it's a tight film. There isn't a much wasted time--the plot just effortlessly flows forward. Credit for this has to go to John Favreau who put it all together, but the writers also deserve credit for not overburdening the script with expository dialogue. Too many superhero movies get bogged down in that sort of thing. In Iron Man, there is a short sequence explaining that Tony Stark is the son of an arms dealer and that he has his own genius when it comes to weapons design. That's about all you need to know and that is all the movie tells you. Favreau and the writers avoid unnecessary explanation, and in doing so, they keep the film focused on the immediate story and the action. Simple, but it works.
The second thing that really helps the film is that its plot is tangentially related to current events. Most superhero movies are designed escapist fun. That means avoiding politics, avoiding our actual wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and when necessary, using stock military characters. The Hulk movies are perfect examples of this. You would think by watching those movies that the army isn't up to anything besides chasing down big green men. Iron Man is different of course, as it features an arms dealer who is captured by terrorists/insurgents in Afghanistan and who has to come to grips with the moral implications of making a fortune off dealing in weapons.
I have been looking for movies that are relevant for a while now. With the state we're in, mainstream movies should have a lot more to say. Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country is an excellent movie even if you are not a trek fan in large part because it was bold enough to talk about the collapse of the Soviet Union. Iron Man isn't Star Trek VI, but it's a step in the right direction.
"And while I'm alive, I'll make tiny changes to earth." -- Frightened Rabbit, 'Head Rolls Off'
Tuesday, June 24, 2008
Sunday, June 22, 2008
On the meaning of Classic Rock
Had a phone conversation with Wyatt a week or so ago trying to determine the meaning of "Classic Rock." I think I have reached my final view.
"Classic Rock" is not simply oldies. Oldies used to be rock and roll from the 50s and 60s--that is, it was hit singles from the initial creation of rock and roll and popular culture targeted at youth in the post war era and early 1950s. Classic rock is more tightly focused around music from the late 1960s through the 1970s to the early 80s. It excludes psychodelic rock, folk, punk, and new wave, but includes glam rock and southern rock.
Furthermore, as wikipedia points out, classic rock is a term that came into being in conjunction with a certain style of radio station. This is what explains the wide range of music that is considered"classic rock."
But for the radio stations to exist, there had to be a market that desired a certain type of music. Radio stations are constantly changing format in order to appeal to changing demographics. What happened with classic rock, however, is that the radio stations were enduring enough to reformulate the genre.
The question then is what was this demographic and what did classic rock represent? I think classic rock became a genre in itself because it represents a period in rock and roll when rock reached a specific height of mainstream acceptance and support. It's largely a result of the history of rock as an art.
In its first couple decades, rock and roll was a rebellious form of art that rejected more adult focussed forms of popular music like jazz, folk, swing. It relied heavily on blues influences, used electric guitars, and introduced the back beat. And it was made by and targeted to teenagers.
By the late 1960s, rock and roll had triumphed and became the dominant popular musical form. It went from being rebellious to being the official art. It was backed by large, well funded record companies. It was still targeting young people, but it was being made by more musicians who had matured under the rock paradigm. These musicians were targeting the people who initially grew up with rock and not just teenagers. Rock and Roll had developed. It became more complex, but in many ways, song structure became more rigid with the standard verse-chorus-verse-chorus-bridge-verse-chorus developed by The Beatles.
But there were moves that were more expansive from bands like Lynyrd Skynyrd with Freebird and a lot of Led Zeppelin where instead of the normal pop structure, the songs would build in intensity over time. The themes of rock also changed to reflect an older and more experienced audience.
Nonetheless, what all this represented was the fact that rock and roll had become the official
art. It was what all the popular kids at school aspired to. Like Jack in John Mellencamp's classic, the even the football star dreamed of becoming a rocker. Rock and roll represented the middle class, white dream.
And all the ended in the early 1980s under the simultaneous assaults of punk, new wave, resurgent pop by Michael Jackson and Madonna, etc, and ultimately by hip hop. Hip hop killed rock and roll, in turn became the official art, and is now suffering it's own assaults.
So, classic rock is really classical rock because it was the last time that rock and roll was the dominant genre. It's like classical music generally which was the officially supported court music that dominated Europe in the late 18th century.
That's my argument at least.
"Classic Rock" is not simply oldies. Oldies used to be rock and roll from the 50s and 60s--that is, it was hit singles from the initial creation of rock and roll and popular culture targeted at youth in the post war era and early 1950s. Classic rock is more tightly focused around music from the late 1960s through the 1970s to the early 80s. It excludes psychodelic rock, folk, punk, and new wave, but includes glam rock and southern rock.
Furthermore, as wikipedia points out, classic rock is a term that came into being in conjunction with a certain style of radio station. This is what explains the wide range of music that is considered"classic rock."
But for the radio stations to exist, there had to be a market that desired a certain type of music. Radio stations are constantly changing format in order to appeal to changing demographics. What happened with classic rock, however, is that the radio stations were enduring enough to reformulate the genre.
The question then is what was this demographic and what did classic rock represent? I think classic rock became a genre in itself because it represents a period in rock and roll when rock reached a specific height of mainstream acceptance and support. It's largely a result of the history of rock as an art.
In its first couple decades, rock and roll was a rebellious form of art that rejected more adult focussed forms of popular music like jazz, folk, swing. It relied heavily on blues influences, used electric guitars, and introduced the back beat. And it was made by and targeted to teenagers.
By the late 1960s, rock and roll had triumphed and became the dominant popular musical form. It went from being rebellious to being the official art. It was backed by large, well funded record companies. It was still targeting young people, but it was being made by more musicians who had matured under the rock paradigm. These musicians were targeting the people who initially grew up with rock and not just teenagers. Rock and Roll had developed. It became more complex, but in many ways, song structure became more rigid with the standard verse-chorus-verse-chorus-bridge-verse-chorus developed by The Beatles.
But there were moves that were more expansive from bands like Lynyrd Skynyrd with Freebird and a lot of Led Zeppelin where instead of the normal pop structure, the songs would build in intensity over time. The themes of rock also changed to reflect an older and more experienced audience.
Nonetheless, what all this represented was the fact that rock and roll had become the official
art. It was what all the popular kids at school aspired to. Like Jack in John Mellencamp's classic, the even the football star dreamed of becoming a rocker. Rock and roll represented the middle class, white dream.
And all the ended in the early 1980s under the simultaneous assaults of punk, new wave, resurgent pop by Michael Jackson and Madonna, etc, and ultimately by hip hop. Hip hop killed rock and roll, in turn became the official art, and is now suffering it's own assaults.
So, classic rock is really classical rock because it was the last time that rock and roll was the dominant genre. It's like classical music generally which was the officially supported court music that dominated Europe in the late 18th century.
That's my argument at least.
Movie Update: My Kid Could Paint That
My Kid Could Paint That is a documentary filmed largely in 2005 following the story of a four year old girl who became famous for creating abstract paintings. The story has a lot of natural hooks. First, it's potentially the story of a child genius--a toddler who can paint with the same skill of Jackson Pollock. But it's also a story about modern art: Don't believe that Jackson Pollock really did anything? Well, here is a four year old to prove it.
Those are the two aspects that seem to have drawn the filmmaker, Amir Bar-Lev, into the story. But he got into a story that he didn't fully understand. The four year old, Marla, is the daughter of an amateur artist, and she apparently began painting after her father gave her some materials. Marla has and initial flush of fame--an article in her home town newspaper leads to the New York Times, which leads to other magazines, and then television. And this all naturally leads to a media backlash.
Charlie Rose, working on 60 Minutes went looking for fraud and managed to find a little evidence. The father repeatedly claims that cameras change Marla's behavior, and it is therefore difficult to show her working. To solve the problem, 60 Minutes installed a hidden camera to catch her painting naturally, but on the film, it also caught the father encouraging her to paint. And when the tapes of Marla painting were shown to a child psychologist, the psychologist didn't see anything in her behavior that demonstrated unusual genius for a child.
These charges of fraud essentially destroy the narrative that had been built up around the girl, but there is no resolution to the competing stories. There is no way to show fraud, but there is no way to prove this little girl made these paintings herself. Ultimately, it was a good documentary. Well constructed, tightly controlled, and an interesting subject. That's about as much as anyone can say for any documentary.
Some of it's themes are worth mentioning, though. First, the woman who wrote the initial newspaper story about Marla came to see the episode as a demonstration of how the media works--grabbing onto an interesting story, pumping it for all it's worth, and then turning against the subject in order to keep the story going. That is certainly a good way of interpreting it.
Second, it is a story about modern art, and it presents the interesting idea that abstract art, because it is abstract, necessarily relies on the story of the person who made it. In one of the special features, Bar-Lev notes that you can have two identical objects but one will have more value if, for example, you can show a connection to Abraham Lincoln. Abstract art is not simply about the quality of the art, but also about who made it.
Finally, this was a story about this family. The father is a manager at a factory, the wife a dental assistant. The wife claims to have her child's best interests are heart and appears to be genuinely hurt when the story about her child changes. It's odd, however, that they continue to exploit their daughter. The 60 Minutes piece happened in 2005. They kept putting their daughter out for this sort of scrutiny in 2006, 2007, and presumably this year as well. The difference between their intentions and their actions is really strange.
So, good movie, worth watching.
Those are the two aspects that seem to have drawn the filmmaker, Amir Bar-Lev, into the story. But he got into a story that he didn't fully understand. The four year old, Marla, is the daughter of an amateur artist, and she apparently began painting after her father gave her some materials. Marla has and initial flush of fame--an article in her home town newspaper leads to the New York Times, which leads to other magazines, and then television. And this all naturally leads to a media backlash.
Charlie Rose, working on 60 Minutes went looking for fraud and managed to find a little evidence. The father repeatedly claims that cameras change Marla's behavior, and it is therefore difficult to show her working. To solve the problem, 60 Minutes installed a hidden camera to catch her painting naturally, but on the film, it also caught the father encouraging her to paint. And when the tapes of Marla painting were shown to a child psychologist, the psychologist didn't see anything in her behavior that demonstrated unusual genius for a child.
These charges of fraud essentially destroy the narrative that had been built up around the girl, but there is no resolution to the competing stories. There is no way to show fraud, but there is no way to prove this little girl made these paintings herself. Ultimately, it was a good documentary. Well constructed, tightly controlled, and an interesting subject. That's about as much as anyone can say for any documentary.
Some of it's themes are worth mentioning, though. First, the woman who wrote the initial newspaper story about Marla came to see the episode as a demonstration of how the media works--grabbing onto an interesting story, pumping it for all it's worth, and then turning against the subject in order to keep the story going. That is certainly a good way of interpreting it.
Second, it is a story about modern art, and it presents the interesting idea that abstract art, because it is abstract, necessarily relies on the story of the person who made it. In one of the special features, Bar-Lev notes that you can have two identical objects but one will have more value if, for example, you can show a connection to Abraham Lincoln. Abstract art is not simply about the quality of the art, but also about who made it.
Finally, this was a story about this family. The father is a manager at a factory, the wife a dental assistant. The wife claims to have her child's best interests are heart and appears to be genuinely hurt when the story about her child changes. It's odd, however, that they continue to exploit their daughter. The 60 Minutes piece happened in 2005. They kept putting their daughter out for this sort of scrutiny in 2006, 2007, and presumably this year as well. The difference between their intentions and their actions is really strange.
So, good movie, worth watching.
Monday, June 2, 2008
Reading Update
War is a Force that Gives Us Meaning was a decent book, but not amazing. I did not feel like Hedges was telling us any great truths even though as a long time war reporter he has rather deep insight into the subject.
The big points:
1. Most war is based on nationalism and therefore derives from racism.
2. In the middle of war, most people even good people will do things that are unimaginable in a normal context.
3. But some people will not submit to the nationalist rhetoric and corrupted modes of thought that are necessary for war.
4. Young people in love are the antidote to war.
Good book, but it didn't blow me away.
The big points:
1. Most war is based on nationalism and therefore derives from racism.
2. In the middle of war, most people even good people will do things that are unimaginable in a normal context.
3. But some people will not submit to the nationalist rhetoric and corrupted modes of thought that are necessary for war.
4. Young people in love are the antidote to war.
Good book, but it didn't blow me away.
The Day the Earth Stood Still
The Day the Earth Stood Still was really enjoyable and well deserving of its reputation.
It was very 1950s, but in a good way. I don't have much to say about this movie other than I enjoyed it.
It was very 1950s, but in a good way. I don't have much to say about this movie other than I enjoyed it.
Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull
Is terrible.
The story is really screwy. If you don't know, it's about aliens. Apparently, between Last Crusade and now, Indiana Jones helped with the alien autopsies at Roswell, New Mexico, and before that, he was in the OSS during WW2. These are not good additions to the mythology of Indiana Jones. I kind of think that Indiana Jones needs to stay within the spiritual realm for its stories and not venture into science fiction. So, for me, this movie was a lot like putting the character Indiana Jones into a movie in which he did not belong.
This is true in two other ways. First, the actions sequences were not Jones-y. Combined with the story being the way it was, this movie felt to me like a cross between National Treasure and Pirates of the Caribbean. Both NT and Pirates are essentially knockoffs of the Indiana Jones franchise. So, this movie felt like a cheap imitation of imitations of Indiana Jones. There was one really cool motorcycle chase scene through Indy's college campus. But that was outweighed by Shia LaBeouf swinging through the jungle on vines like Tarzan with monkey helpers, a sword fight in which LaBeouf straddles the gap between two speeding trucks, and an unnecessary tomb sequence in which Indy and Mutt (LaBeouf's character) are attacked by blow dart wielding amazonian natives.
Now normally, when you say things like "blow dart wielding Amazonian natives," that should be pretty cool. It was in Raiders, after all. But this brings us to the second problem: the entire scene was shot on a soundstage and obviously so. It looked terrible. And this is true for most of the film. Even when they introduce the character at the beginning, they are supposed to be standing outside in New Mexico. But nope, it's on a soundstage. Shia LaBeouf doing Tarzan? Soundstage. Amazonian Natives? Soundstage. Things that should have been and could have been easily done outside were shot on a soundstage.
Ultimately because of this, it just didn't look like an Indiana Jones movie. Instead, it looked like Peter Jackson's 2005 version of King Kong which was largely computer created. Everything was lit with bright white lights and then shot in soft focus. Having watched it on Saturday, my impression of it at this point is that the highlights were essentially washed out, but that they used post production processes, either computers or normal techniques, to up the color density of the rest of the composition. If you know what I mean. The point is think King Kong. That's what it looked like.
So, insofar as it involved aliens, that the action sequences were not in keeping with previous versions, and the fact that it simply didn't look like the other entries in the franchise, it felt to me like a movie where the character was out of place.
Generally, I don't have a problem with using soundstages and alternate sites. I mean, Tunisia isn't Egypt, and I know that all the tomb scenes in the previous IJ movies were shot indoors. But they shot them straight and didn't manipulate them afterwards. And when possible, they shot outside. They had that good natural light to help make it look like something.
Piece of Crap. Don't watch it.
The story is really screwy. If you don't know, it's about aliens. Apparently, between Last Crusade and now, Indiana Jones helped with the alien autopsies at Roswell, New Mexico, and before that, he was in the OSS during WW2. These are not good additions to the mythology of Indiana Jones. I kind of think that Indiana Jones needs to stay within the spiritual realm for its stories and not venture into science fiction. So, for me, this movie was a lot like putting the character Indiana Jones into a movie in which he did not belong.
This is true in two other ways. First, the actions sequences were not Jones-y. Combined with the story being the way it was, this movie felt to me like a cross between National Treasure and Pirates of the Caribbean. Both NT and Pirates are essentially knockoffs of the Indiana Jones franchise. So, this movie felt like a cheap imitation of imitations of Indiana Jones. There was one really cool motorcycle chase scene through Indy's college campus. But that was outweighed by Shia LaBeouf swinging through the jungle on vines like Tarzan with monkey helpers, a sword fight in which LaBeouf straddles the gap between two speeding trucks, and an unnecessary tomb sequence in which Indy and Mutt (LaBeouf's character) are attacked by blow dart wielding amazonian natives.
Now normally, when you say things like "blow dart wielding Amazonian natives," that should be pretty cool. It was in Raiders, after all. But this brings us to the second problem: the entire scene was shot on a soundstage and obviously so. It looked terrible. And this is true for most of the film. Even when they introduce the character at the beginning, they are supposed to be standing outside in New Mexico. But nope, it's on a soundstage. Shia LaBeouf doing Tarzan? Soundstage. Amazonian Natives? Soundstage. Things that should have been and could have been easily done outside were shot on a soundstage.
Ultimately because of this, it just didn't look like an Indiana Jones movie. Instead, it looked like Peter Jackson's 2005 version of King Kong which was largely computer created. Everything was lit with bright white lights and then shot in soft focus. Having watched it on Saturday, my impression of it at this point is that the highlights were essentially washed out, but that they used post production processes, either computers or normal techniques, to up the color density of the rest of the composition. If you know what I mean. The point is think King Kong. That's what it looked like.
So, insofar as it involved aliens, that the action sequences were not in keeping with previous versions, and the fact that it simply didn't look like the other entries in the franchise, it felt to me like a movie where the character was out of place.
Generally, I don't have a problem with using soundstages and alternate sites. I mean, Tunisia isn't Egypt, and I know that all the tomb scenes in the previous IJ movies were shot indoors. But they shot them straight and didn't manipulate them afterwards. And when possible, they shot outside. They had that good natural light to help make it look like something.
Piece of Crap. Don't watch it.
Metropolis
I watched Metropolis and Amadeus a couple weeks ago. Both were very interesting movies but I had different experiences with each. Let me talk about Metropolis first.
Metropolis is a German silent film made in 1927, and by now the story is a fairly familiar tale. In the future, there is a great city. It is beautiful and rich. The city is run by a man named Jo Frederman, and he is primarily concerned with keeping the economy running. The economy, of course, is run on the backs of ignorant laborers who work machines all day and barely survive their lives of numbing drudgery. The wealthy men live above ground in tall buildings and big apartments, and their sons live lives of leisure playing games at the coliseum, dancing in the pleasure district, and frolicking in the Eternal Garden.
The laborers live below ground in cramped and bland tenements. They operate huge dangerous machines by day, but spend their nights listening to woman preach about the coming mediator who will lift up out their drudgery. The woman, Maria, takes a group of children above ground one day and meets Freder Frederson, the son of Jo Frederson. Freder falls for Maria at first sight and decides to seek her out below ground. He sees and experiences the lives of the working men, hijinks ensue, and turns out he's the mediator they've been waiting for.
"Hijinks ensue" is pretty much like "yada, yada, yada" in the sense that it covers a lot of ground.
Nonetheless, the movie was fun. What is really impressive about it is the special effects, which look good even today. Specifically, several parts of the film were shot using a mirror technique that allowed the filmmakers to combine live action and full sized sets with matte paintings and miniatures. The matte paintings are not particularly unusual, but the miniatures are very cool. The coliseum where the sons of the rich play games and the underground tenements of the laborers look very real. Not too shabby for an 81 year old film.
Now on to Amadeus. Amadeus won Best Picture in 1984 and F. Murray Abraham won best actor for his portrayal of Antonio Salieri. Essentially, it is a picture about rivalry and envy, and how you can hate what you love. Much of the story is fictional, but it is based on a long history of stories that draw a rivalry between Salieri and Mozart. It begins with Salieri in his dotage confessing to killing Mozart, and most of the film operates as a flashback wherein Salieri relates the story to a priest who has come to hear his last confession.
Salieri is a few years older than Mozart, and eventually becomes court composer for the Emperor of the Austro-Hungarian empire. Salieri spends his life in devotion to music. He is chaste and respectful and humble. He admires Mozart even before he meets him, and more importantly, he loves Mozart's music. The problem is that he meets Mozart, a childish and lecherous drunk. Mozart's facility with music is, as we all know, extraordinary and far surpasses Salieri's, and more over, he produces such beautiful compositions without hardly trying.
Various bits of rivalry occur. Salieri blocks Mozart from getting a job in the Emperor's court; Mozart embarrasses and mocks Salieri at various points. But eventually, Salieri sets on his plan to kill Mozart: He anonymously commissions a requiem, a death mass, from Mozart, and plans upon it's completion to kill Mozart and play it at his funeral, passing the work off as his own. He'll steal Mozart's work and kill him, and the music will restore his reputation.
Of course, it doesn't quite go off as intended. Instead, Mozart continues to work on other things, operas and symphonies, without finishing the requiem. When Mozart falls ill while conducting an opera, Salieri takes him home to rest. But instead of rest, he uses the chance to help Mozart finish the requiem and they spend the night working furiously. In the morning, Mozart is found dead. Salieri has killed Mozart by forcing him to work, but that was not his intention--Salieri was in love with Mozart's genius and basked in it even as he was killing him.
Famously, at the end of the movie with the tale complete, Salieri declares, "I speak for all mediocrities in the world. I am their champion. I am their patron saint!" The themes are really striking in that way, and the movie is rather enjoyable. It is obvious why it won Best Picture--it is a large production and a period piece. It focuses on famous men in old European cities--it allows Hollywood to do its thing to the fullest extent.
I made an interestingly little mistake when I watched the movie, however. It was one of the older double sided DVDs. Before dual layer DVDs existed, they would occasionally imprint half the movie on one side of the disc and half on the other sort of like a record. I wasn't paying attention when I put it in and so I started in the middle. Eventually, I decided it wasn't right, but only after watching about an hour of the movie.
The odd thing was that I really liked it. The second side starts with the scene where Salieri dresses up in a rather mysterious mask and goes to Mozart's apartment to commission the requiem. Since that is the major plot point in the movie, the second half works as a film in itself, and it's not the same film. Watching the second half alone, you have to work a little more to bring yourself up to speed in understanding the plot. Without the back story established in the first half of the movie, the narrative is much more spartan and intense.
An unusual mistake, but definitely an experience.
Metropolis is a German silent film made in 1927, and by now the story is a fairly familiar tale. In the future, there is a great city. It is beautiful and rich. The city is run by a man named Jo Frederman, and he is primarily concerned with keeping the economy running. The economy, of course, is run on the backs of ignorant laborers who work machines all day and barely survive their lives of numbing drudgery. The wealthy men live above ground in tall buildings and big apartments, and their sons live lives of leisure playing games at the coliseum, dancing in the pleasure district, and frolicking in the Eternal Garden.
The laborers live below ground in cramped and bland tenements. They operate huge dangerous machines by day, but spend their nights listening to woman preach about the coming mediator who will lift up out their drudgery. The woman, Maria, takes a group of children above ground one day and meets Freder Frederson, the son of Jo Frederson. Freder falls for Maria at first sight and decides to seek her out below ground. He sees and experiences the lives of the working men, hijinks ensue, and turns out he's the mediator they've been waiting for.
"Hijinks ensue" is pretty much like "yada, yada, yada" in the sense that it covers a lot of ground.
Nonetheless, the movie was fun. What is really impressive about it is the special effects, which look good even today. Specifically, several parts of the film were shot using a mirror technique that allowed the filmmakers to combine live action and full sized sets with matte paintings and miniatures. The matte paintings are not particularly unusual, but the miniatures are very cool. The coliseum where the sons of the rich play games and the underground tenements of the laborers look very real. Not too shabby for an 81 year old film.
Now on to Amadeus. Amadeus won Best Picture in 1984 and F. Murray Abraham won best actor for his portrayal of Antonio Salieri. Essentially, it is a picture about rivalry and envy, and how you can hate what you love. Much of the story is fictional, but it is based on a long history of stories that draw a rivalry between Salieri and Mozart. It begins with Salieri in his dotage confessing to killing Mozart, and most of the film operates as a flashback wherein Salieri relates the story to a priest who has come to hear his last confession.
Salieri is a few years older than Mozart, and eventually becomes court composer for the Emperor of the Austro-Hungarian empire. Salieri spends his life in devotion to music. He is chaste and respectful and humble. He admires Mozart even before he meets him, and more importantly, he loves Mozart's music. The problem is that he meets Mozart, a childish and lecherous drunk. Mozart's facility with music is, as we all know, extraordinary and far surpasses Salieri's, and more over, he produces such beautiful compositions without hardly trying.
Various bits of rivalry occur. Salieri blocks Mozart from getting a job in the Emperor's court; Mozart embarrasses and mocks Salieri at various points. But eventually, Salieri sets on his plan to kill Mozart: He anonymously commissions a requiem, a death mass, from Mozart, and plans upon it's completion to kill Mozart and play it at his funeral, passing the work off as his own. He'll steal Mozart's work and kill him, and the music will restore his reputation.
Of course, it doesn't quite go off as intended. Instead, Mozart continues to work on other things, operas and symphonies, without finishing the requiem. When Mozart falls ill while conducting an opera, Salieri takes him home to rest. But instead of rest, he uses the chance to help Mozart finish the requiem and they spend the night working furiously. In the morning, Mozart is found dead. Salieri has killed Mozart by forcing him to work, but that was not his intention--Salieri was in love with Mozart's genius and basked in it even as he was killing him.
Famously, at the end of the movie with the tale complete, Salieri declares, "I speak for all mediocrities in the world. I am their champion. I am their patron saint!" The themes are really striking in that way, and the movie is rather enjoyable. It is obvious why it won Best Picture--it is a large production and a period piece. It focuses on famous men in old European cities--it allows Hollywood to do its thing to the fullest extent.
I made an interestingly little mistake when I watched the movie, however. It was one of the older double sided DVDs. Before dual layer DVDs existed, they would occasionally imprint half the movie on one side of the disc and half on the other sort of like a record. I wasn't paying attention when I put it in and so I started in the middle. Eventually, I decided it wasn't right, but only after watching about an hour of the movie.
The odd thing was that I really liked it. The second side starts with the scene where Salieri dresses up in a rather mysterious mask and goes to Mozart's apartment to commission the requiem. Since that is the major plot point in the movie, the second half works as a film in itself, and it's not the same film. Watching the second half alone, you have to work a little more to bring yourself up to speed in understanding the plot. Without the back story established in the first half of the movie, the narrative is much more spartan and intense.
An unusual mistake, but definitely an experience.