Buddhist Catholic Contemplative Evangelical General Christian Hindu Jewish Latter-day Saint Muslim New Visions Progressive Christian

Beliefs

Topics

Columnists

Resource Library

Research Tools

Video

Podcasts

Thought Readers

Faith In Media Tracker

Newsletters

Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In Subscription Support

Follow Patheos

Home
Catholic
History and Religion
“Amadeus” & Historical Accuracy in Biopics

“Amadeus” & Historical Accuracy in Biopics

Last updated on: June 5, 2026 at 11:57 pm by Dave Armstrong

“Amadeus” & Historical Accuracy in Biopics 2026-06-05T23:57:10-04:00 Dave Armstrong

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

I got into an intense discussion with a friend of mine, thus stimulating these thoughts of mine that express a pet peeve that has bothered me since as long as I can remember. I include only my own portion (edited for the purpose of this article).

*****

— Spoiler alert for those who haven’t seen Amadeus: a film about the composer Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart. —

I like movies that are true to the facts, if they are based on actual events. So in the overall mix, I’d put accuracy relatively higher than high artistic elements (if a choice “must” be made between the two).

The classic example I always use in this regard is Amadeus (the 1984 film), which was based on a complete myth of the jealousy of Mozart’s fellow composer Antonio Salieri. So it made for a dramatic movie and a better plot? I don’t give a rat’s rear end about that, if it butchers the known historical facts. I say that actual history is invariably more interesting and complex than myths anyway. I’m not opposed to historical fiction, but that’s dealing with (as I understand it) plausible speculation concerning unknown things, rather than deliberately butchering known historical facts.

As one who writes a lot about history and loves that subject, and as a great lover of biography in particular, I place a premium on historical accuracy and consider it highly important, but at the same time not in and of itself antithetical to artistic elements.

I’ve seen at least 25 documentaries about the making of movies and the filmmakers will expend the greatest effort to get every jot and tittle of period costumes, etc. accurate, but then they will introduce historical inaccuracies into the story. That makes no sense to me. If you’re gonna go to those lengths to get a period sofa or the norms of polite society in any given period and culture correct, then be consistent and get the biographical facts correct too!

I think it’s a decent analogical argument: why do one historical thing (about material items) but care a lot less about the other (concerning human beings and their lives)? Why bother at all if those sorts of things matter so little? They have to do with historical facts, as we can best ascertain them. There is no real debate about whether, say, Brooklyn in the 1940s looked a certain way. We have the photos, and living people who were there.

I don’t “diss” artistic elements in movies at all (I love art and drama and myth in the Tolkien / Lewis / Wagnerian sense). I simply (in my subjective opinion) place a relatively higher value on historical accuracy (which, of course, only applies to movies based on true events). We don’t have to choose between a good dramatic story and historical accuracy (as much as is possible to know and achieve). We can have both.

Amadeus could have simply used a fictional character that was jealous of Mozart (perfectly plausible, given his extreme genius) but was not a known historical person. When the latter was done there was a reputation of a person at stake, and that means something; it’s a moral consideration. If the real Salieri did not have a compulsive jealousy and didn’t try to murder Mozart, then filmmakers, it seems to me, have a duty to not portray a known person in such a cynical and unduly speculative (to put it mildly) way.

Many in the movie business seem to think it’s fine to throw him in there (as one notable example of this in film) to “represent” a host of possibly jealous fellow composers. In fact, if there were indeed so many, isn’t it likely that the writer could have found a real person, documented to have been at least envious, which would have maintained the concept of the film just as well? Another real person could have been used, where there were some actual facts that could be verified. But to make out that he was a murderer is a separate and much more serious issue.

Classical music writer and “Mozart specialist” John Suchet wrote about Salieri:

The rise of the poisoning tale

Within six years of Salieri’s death, the Russian writer Pushkin wrote a play, Mozart and Salieri, which portrayed the danger of envy. In 1898, Rimsky-Korsakov turned Pushkin’s play into an opera.

In both, it is suggested that Salieri’s jealousy of Mozart led him to poison the younger composer.

The murder plot was perpetuated in Peter Shaffer’s hugely successful 1979 play, Amadeus. Through the subsequent film, Salieri firmly entered our consciousness as a Machiavellian manipulator, who sets out not only to destroy Mozart’s career but the man himself.

Salieri’s bitterness sends him mad. In a mental hospital, he announces himself as “the patron saint of mediocrity”.

So, is the story true?

No one quite knows. (“Was Mozart Actually Poisoned by Salieri? Here’s the Truth,” Classic FM, 2-28-19)

Just because a man is dead, it doesn’t give us license to perpetuate such a slander. Another article noted:

Rumours of his being poisoned, perhaps by Salieri, circulated but were never taken seriously. Indeed, Mozart’s widow Constanze remained on good terms with Salieri and sent their son, Franz Xaver Mozart, to him for music lessons. He lived on to the ripe old age of 75. He suffered from dementia in his later years and, according to contemporary reports, sometimes claimed responsibility for Mozart’s death, but always denied it in his lucid moments.

It was the Russian poet, Alexander Pushkin, who first took Mozart’s last days and turned them into a ripping yarn. In his A Little Tragedy Pushkin portrays Salieri slipping poison into Mozart’s wine as they dine together. (“Did Salieri really kill Mozart?”, Harriet Cunningham, The Sydney Morning Herald, 6-10-14)

But Salieri fits the bill for a good story, so he is used in this way. I think it’s pitiful exploitation.

I think there is this thing called “historical accuracy” that people are either concerned with or they are not. Good storytelling (that I love too), and respect for known historical facts (when bringing up real people in movies) can all exist together. I see no good reason why they can’t.

My main point is that it’s exploitation of the memory of a real person, to make out that he was compulsively envious and a murderer of a genius like Mozart. There is no hard evidence (as far as I can tell) that he did any such thing. He made a few comments while out of his right mind, but denied it when in his right mind. So we have Hollywood sending out a message to many millions of people that historical person X (Salieri) was a murderer.

It’s unethical to bear false witness against real people: dead or alive. One can’t just appeal to “we simply can’t know all historical details” to justify an outrage like this. Again, I suggest several perfectly plausible, do-able scenarios that would overcome this moral transgression in Amadeus: use a fictional fellow composer (standard historical fiction) or a real person where there was at least solid documentation (diaries, eyewitnesses, etc.) that he was jealous (although it would still be a likely problematic accusation of murder). But instead they took a real person and use him for the purpose of a catchy drama.

None of us would stand for that for a second if someone lied about us and spread some thing you supposedly did, simply for the purposes of giving audiences a good story. Golden rule . . . What we would never tolerate for a second in our own case ought not be done to another: dead or alive.

A BBC article stated:

Alex von Tunzelmann, writing in the Guardian, is one of the many historians frustrated by the glittering success of a film that is so inaccurate, historically speaking. She describes it as “laughably” wrong – “a deadly rivalry that never was, a dried-up bachelor who was actually a father of eight, and flops that were hits in reality” – and reckons nothing about the film can redeem “the fact that the entire premise – that Salieri loathed Mozart and plotted his demise – is probably not true”.

Von Tunzelman in this review gives the film a D+ for history and a D for entertainment. She writes:

Salieri (F Murray Abraham) opens the film by cutting his own throat. This is based on a rumour spread by Ludwig van Beethoven’s nephew, Karl, but there is no evidence for it – meaning Amadeus gets its first inaccuracy in before the opening credits. . . .

So enraptured were the audiences of The Marriage of Figaro, which the film implies was a flop, that the emperor was obliged to restrict its encores after the first three performances. Don Giovanni, shown in the film as an even floppier flop, was an immediate and sensational hit. . . .

The Requiem was really commissioned by Count Walsegg-Stuppach, who did try to keep it a secret, though Mozart almost certainly knew his identity. Salieri did not, as the film suggests, assist in writing it, though Franz Xaver Süssmayr did. Meanwhile, Mozart was on good terms with Salieri at the time of his death, inviting him to The Magic Flute and writing warmly of him in his diary. Later, Salieri gave his bereaved younger son free music lessons.

Some fine research into Mozart’s annoying personality doesn’t really make up for the fact that the entire premise of this film – that Salieri loathed Mozart and plotted his demise – is probably not true.

In an article about historical accuracy in films, it was stated:

[M]ovies with a fair amount of historical accuracy have succeeded in the past. Outlaw King (yes, another movie about Scottish rebellions) [referencing Braveheart], although not as famous as a movie like Gladiator, was a popular movie that premiered on Netflix in 2018. This movie, although not perfect in its history, was generally seen as being a good representation of Robert the Bruce, certainly a more accurate depiction of the Bruce than Braveheart’s was. Outlaw King’s representation of Scottish clothing, culture, and battle has typically been seen by critics as showing Scottish culture correctly, but also in a way that was exciting to watch.

So at least this one person agrees with me that an exciting movie and concern for historical accuracy are not mutually exclusive, and that it is good to to seek to achieve as much accuracy as is possible.

I ran across an article entitled, “15 Movies That Nailed Historical Accuracy.” Some of the movies included are Lincoln, Schindler’s List, Spotlight, All the President’s Men, Tora! Tora! Tora!, Apollo 13, Full Metal Jacket, A Night to Remember, and A Lion in Winter. That’s a bunch of great films. The article states:

Bringing complete historical accuracy to the screen isn’t an easy task, and many movies and television shows that attempt to do so can easily fail. However, there are some great examples out there of films that went above and beyond in order to portray as accurately as possible the historical events at play. Let’s take a look at some of the best! . . .

[A]s much as the film industry loves history, artistic license has been taken over and over again. Fortunately, there are films that strive to maintain as much accuracy and truth as they possibly can, whether that truth is glorious, hideous, uncomfortable, or unbelievable.

I totally agree! Then there is another article entitled, “The Most Inaccurate Biopics of All Time” which includes A Beautiful Mind, The Doors, The Elephant Man, 300, The Untouchables, Bonnie and Clyde, Alexander, Birdman of Alcatraz, The Iron Lady, Braveheart, The King’s Speech, Amadeus, The Buddy Holly Story, Cobb, and The Imitation Game.

There’s a book out now strenuously arguing that Ty Cobb (though no saint) has been ferociously and unfairly demonized. That was true in this film and also in Ken Burns’ otherwise magnificent documentary Baseball. But again, folks love the antagonist (womanizing, irresponsible glutton — albeit altogether lovable — Babe Ruth was Burns’ “hero”), so if that means butchering the known history of real people, so be it.

I think I could actually possibly be persuaded of the preferability of relatively more dramatic license, as a matter of degree and of art and its goals, but I can’t get over portraying a real person who lived a real life (and attained considerable success in music), as a scoundrel and a murderer, especially when it seems as if all the available evidence shows otherwise. We couldn’t do that to a living person (under threat of lawsuits), and it ought not be done to a dead one, either, because it’s bearing false witness.

The only way I could stomach Amadeus in this regard is if it started out with a huge disclaimer to the effect of: “there is little to no historical evidence for the composer Antonio Salieri being the way we will portray him in this film. We’re simply using him as a personified example of the envious person. We are not claiming to be historically accurate at all: except for Mozart’s toilet humor and goofy laugh.”

I’m being a bit tongue-in-cheek at the end there, too, but I trust that readers can follow my thought (agree or disagree).

***

Photo credit: Portrait of Antonio Salieri (1750-1825), by Joseph Willibrord Mähler (1778-1860) [public domain / Wikimedia Commons]

***

Political & Ethical & Moral Issues

ethics in moviemaking

filmmaking

films

golden rule

historical accuracy in film

historical accuracy in movies

Previous Post

December 1, 2020

Pastor Aeternus (1870): Can a Pope Ever Make Heresy Binding?

Next Post

December 3, 2020 Kwasniewski vs. Cdl. Newman Re Pope- & Council-Bashing

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category & Last Things About Me Anti-Catholicism Atheism & Agnosticism Baptism and Sacramentalism Bible and Tradition Blessed Virgin Mary Books by Dave Armstrong C. S. Lewis Calvinism & General Protestantism Catholic Apologetics Catholic Apologists Catholic conversion Catholic converts Christmas Church (Ecclesiology) Church History Conversion and Converts Development of Doctrine Eastern Orthodoxy Ecumenism & Christian Unity Eucharist & Liturgy Fathers of the Church French Translations G. K. Chesterton Hell Hell & Satan Hell & Satan & Last Things Heresies & Comparative Religion Holistic Health Inquisition & Crusades & Scandals James White Jews & Judaism & Old Testament John Calvin John Henry Newman Liberal / Modernist Theology Life Issues Literary Resume Lutheranism Mariology Martin Luther Music Orthodoxy Papacy & Infallibility Personal Page Philosophy & Science Political & Ethical & Moral Issues Protestant Persecution & Intolerance Protestantism Purgatory Purgatory & Penance Romantic & Imaginative Theology Saints & Purgatory & Penance Salvation Salvation & Justification Satan & Last Things Sexuality and Gender Issues Spanish Translations Traditionalism vs. Radical Catholic Reactionaries Traducciones al español / tradução para português Trinitarianism & Christology Uncategorized Videos

Select a Month October 2026 September 2026 August 2026 July 2026 June 2026 May 2026 April 2026 March 2026 February 2026 January 2026 December 2025 November 2025 October 2025 September 2025 August 2025 July 2025 June 2025 May 2025 April 2025 March 2025 February 2025 January 2025 December 2024 November 2024 October 2024 September 2024 August 2024 July 2024 June 2024 May 2024 April 2024 March 2024 February 2024 January 2024 December 2023 November 2023 October 2023 September 2023 August 2023 July 2023 June 2023 May 2023 April 2023 March 2023 February 2023 January 2023 December 2022 November 2022 October 2022 September 2022 August 2022 July 2022 June 2022 May 2022 April 2022 March 2022 February 2022 January 2022 December 2021 November 2021 October 2021 September 2021 August 2021 July 2021 June 2021 May 2021 April 2021 March 2021 February 2021 January 2021 December 2020 November 2020 October 2020 September 2020 August 2020 July 2020 June 2020 May 2020 April 2020 March 2020 February 2020 January 2020 December 2019 November 2019 October 2019 September 2019 August 2019 July 2019 June 2019 May 2019 April 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 December 2018 November 2018 October 2018 September 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 April 2010 March 2010 December 2009 October 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 March 2009 February 2009 October 2008 September 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 May 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 October 2005 June 2005 April 2005 February 2005 July 2004 May 2004 April 2004

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz