1
Literature into Film
Formulate an argument that examines the ways in which authorial voice is translated into an
adaptation.
The authorial voice in Peter Shaffer’s Amadeus (1980) is particularly resistant to cinematic
adaptation. In the stage play, Antonio Salieri presents the narrative as his own musical drama.
The medium of theatre, primarily verbal and metaphorical, allows for Salieri’s highly
theatrical authorial voice. Film, however, is principally a visual medium which demands
realistic, natural depictions of human behaviour. The cinematic counterpart to Shaffer’s play,
also titled Amadeus (1984) and directed by Milos Forman, therefore demanded a revision of
the authorial voice. Indeed, Shaffer described the film as ‘a telling of the same material by
other means’1, not as an adaptation.
In Amadeus the drama, Antonio Salieri confesses to the theatre audience the story of
his role in the death of Mozart. The play is presented as Salieri’s own construction, with
himself as the author of this dramatic opera of his life. The authorial voice is established
through Salieri’s direct engagement with the audience, who are implored to be his
‘Confessors.’2 The audience, the ‘Ghosts of the distant Future’ (p.14), must be summoned by
Salieri through an operatic ‘Invocation’ (p.14). During this invocation the light on the
audience grows in intensity symbolizing Salieri’s authority to conduct the narrative. As
Salieri begins his confession the audience become his confederates. Consequently, the
authorial voice is confidential. Salieri does not want to ‘deceive’ (p.16) his listeners; he
admits to his desire for ‘Fame’ (p.16) and his bargain with God that began his life as a
composer. It is from Salieri’s perspective that the audience processes events on stage. The
narrator will ‘present’ (p.17) to his listeners, for ‘one performance only’ (p.17), his ‘last
composition’ (p.17). The dramatist, as Shaffer comments, can ‘presume the attentiveness of
his audience: its mutual agreement to listen, and to remain in one place while the performance
is going on.’3 Live theatre, therefore, allows for a direct and personal authorial voice. In
, 2
Amadeus the voice of Salieri, the invented narrator of the drama, is defined by the presence of
a theatre audience.
The authorial voice in the stage play of Amadeus presents the narrative to the audience
while providing a commentary of events on stage. The narration oscillates between the elderly
Salieri speaking in November 1823 and the younger Salieri narrating his eighteenth-century
past. When the scene first shifts to the earlier period, the stage directions instruct for the
elderly Salieri to remove his dressing-robe to reveal ‘a young man in the prime of life’ (p.17).
After adopting ‘a young man’s voice’ (p.18), Salieri begins to act out his confession while
continuing to speak with his listeners. As he has a retrospective insight into his past, and has
complete control over his narrative, Salieri can establish and comment on events on stage.
The audience is informed that the ‘place throughout is Vienna’ (p.18) and the year ‘to begin
with- seventeen eighty-one’ (p.18). As narrator, Salieri also provides details of the characters
on stage, which are ostensibly heard by the audience only. At the Palace of Schönbrunn, for
example, the court officials stand upstage while Salieri is downstage offering derisive
comments. Of Baron Van Swieten, Salieri remarks to his listeners that he was yet ‘to find
anything funny’ (p.21) and was known ‘for his enthusiasm for old-fashioned music’ (p.21).
Theatre, as Chatman argues, ‘is a medium available for the presentation of stories.’4 Indeed, in
Amadeus the authorial voice displays, rather than statically recounts, the narrative.
In Shaffer’s Amadeus the authorial voice dominates the drama and has the power to
orchestrate the characters and proceedings on stage. In the second act, for instance, Salieri
informs the audience that by blocking God he would be ‘obstructing a disliked human rival’
(p.58). In the previous act, Salieri intended to achieve this through seducing Constanze; now,
however, he decides to reject her. When she is struggling with Salieri, Constanze ‘freezes’
(p.60), allowing him to speak in an aside. He tells the audience that now he ‘wanted nothing
petty’ (p.60) as his quarrel was not ‘with Mozart- it was through him’ (p.60). Salieri,
Literature into Film
Formulate an argument that examines the ways in which authorial voice is translated into an
adaptation.
The authorial voice in Peter Shaffer’s Amadeus (1980) is particularly resistant to cinematic
adaptation. In the stage play, Antonio Salieri presents the narrative as his own musical drama.
The medium of theatre, primarily verbal and metaphorical, allows for Salieri’s highly
theatrical authorial voice. Film, however, is principally a visual medium which demands
realistic, natural depictions of human behaviour. The cinematic counterpart to Shaffer’s play,
also titled Amadeus (1984) and directed by Milos Forman, therefore demanded a revision of
the authorial voice. Indeed, Shaffer described the film as ‘a telling of the same material by
other means’1, not as an adaptation.
In Amadeus the drama, Antonio Salieri confesses to the theatre audience the story of
his role in the death of Mozart. The play is presented as Salieri’s own construction, with
himself as the author of this dramatic opera of his life. The authorial voice is established
through Salieri’s direct engagement with the audience, who are implored to be his
‘Confessors.’2 The audience, the ‘Ghosts of the distant Future’ (p.14), must be summoned by
Salieri through an operatic ‘Invocation’ (p.14). During this invocation the light on the
audience grows in intensity symbolizing Salieri’s authority to conduct the narrative. As
Salieri begins his confession the audience become his confederates. Consequently, the
authorial voice is confidential. Salieri does not want to ‘deceive’ (p.16) his listeners; he
admits to his desire for ‘Fame’ (p.16) and his bargain with God that began his life as a
composer. It is from Salieri’s perspective that the audience processes events on stage. The
narrator will ‘present’ (p.17) to his listeners, for ‘one performance only’ (p.17), his ‘last
composition’ (p.17). The dramatist, as Shaffer comments, can ‘presume the attentiveness of
his audience: its mutual agreement to listen, and to remain in one place while the performance
is going on.’3 Live theatre, therefore, allows for a direct and personal authorial voice. In
, 2
Amadeus the voice of Salieri, the invented narrator of the drama, is defined by the presence of
a theatre audience.
The authorial voice in the stage play of Amadeus presents the narrative to the audience
while providing a commentary of events on stage. The narration oscillates between the elderly
Salieri speaking in November 1823 and the younger Salieri narrating his eighteenth-century
past. When the scene first shifts to the earlier period, the stage directions instruct for the
elderly Salieri to remove his dressing-robe to reveal ‘a young man in the prime of life’ (p.17).
After adopting ‘a young man’s voice’ (p.18), Salieri begins to act out his confession while
continuing to speak with his listeners. As he has a retrospective insight into his past, and has
complete control over his narrative, Salieri can establish and comment on events on stage.
The audience is informed that the ‘place throughout is Vienna’ (p.18) and the year ‘to begin
with- seventeen eighty-one’ (p.18). As narrator, Salieri also provides details of the characters
on stage, which are ostensibly heard by the audience only. At the Palace of Schönbrunn, for
example, the court officials stand upstage while Salieri is downstage offering derisive
comments. Of Baron Van Swieten, Salieri remarks to his listeners that he was yet ‘to find
anything funny’ (p.21) and was known ‘for his enthusiasm for old-fashioned music’ (p.21).
Theatre, as Chatman argues, ‘is a medium available for the presentation of stories.’4 Indeed, in
Amadeus the authorial voice displays, rather than statically recounts, the narrative.
In Shaffer’s Amadeus the authorial voice dominates the drama and has the power to
orchestrate the characters and proceedings on stage. In the second act, for instance, Salieri
informs the audience that by blocking God he would be ‘obstructing a disliked human rival’
(p.58). In the previous act, Salieri intended to achieve this through seducing Constanze; now,
however, he decides to reject her. When she is struggling with Salieri, Constanze ‘freezes’
(p.60), allowing him to speak in an aside. He tells the audience that now he ‘wanted nothing
petty’ (p.60) as his quarrel was not ‘with Mozart- it was through him’ (p.60). Salieri,
