Me Spamming My Fanfics @chatgateau - Tumblr Blog

Posts

How it feels to finish my thesis on this goddamn movie

#amadeus 1984 #amadeus #wolfgang amadeus mozart

my1nnerw0lfg4ng

bitch i need to rewatch that homo movie Amadeus

Just in case you wondered what the difference between the two are

#amadeus 1984 #amadeus #wolfgang amadeus mozart #milos forman #antonio salieri

oranjj5

write my requiem boy

Sharing some more iconographic curiosity about Amadeus that I realised while writing my thesis.

The framing and the position in which Mozart is sleeping seems to be influenced by a very famous 19th century picture: “The Death of Chatterton” (1856) by the pre-raphaelites painter Henry Wallis. The picture shows Thomas Chatterton (1752-1770), a first generation romantic poet, which was known under the name of Thomas Rowley. Chatterton became famous because he sadly suicided at 17, by drinking arsenic. Thus, he was saluted as the epitome of the Romantic Hero, a symbol of independent artist’s fight towards the general public and the oblivion. The story of his life was romanced in two main productions by the French writer Alfred de Vigny (the play Chatterton in 1835 and the novel Stello in 1841), who openly supported the freedom of artists from patronage and political influence. His work was crucial for the raising of what we call today “poètes maudits”, namely “damned poets”. I think it is not a mere coincidence if the Mozart’s framing actually recalls Chatterton’s, since his myth has much to share with the fight of the Romantic Hero. Moreover, the same visual reference (which is a quote, in this case) can be found in another fortunate 18th century historical drama: Kubrick’s Barry Lyndon (1975). Since the critics often quote Amadeus and Barry Lyndon together to describe the interest around historical drama in Hollywood at the time, it might even be Forman’s quote to both the film and the picture.

What do you think? Do you see any similarities?

#amadeus 1984 #amadeus #wolfgang amadeus mozart #milos forman #antonio salieri

The W A Mozart tag is giving schizo because what do you mean I have eminent musicologist talking about the most beautiful piece of music among 18th century doomed yaoi and 2010 gay emos?

#amadeus 1984 #amadeus #wolfgang amadeus mozart #antonio salieri

I need to find some motivation to finish that fanfiction work with Salieri and Freud but boy am I lazy

#amadeus 1984

ghostofthedistantfuture

I find it funny how the original national theater poster for amadeus is so wildly different than any others cause the broadway one was so peak everything else is inspired by it

chatgateau

So! I got something to say about this because I did some research for my thesis.

The image of the original 1979 poster is a reworking of Henry Fuseli’s 1774 pen-and-ink drawing Dante and Virgil on the Ice of Cocytus.

The film poster, by contrast, was designed by Peter Sis at the request of Milos Forman, taking as its model Robert von Nutt’s poster for the Broadway production (1980). It depicts black hooded figure with outstretched arms and barely visible eyes. Despite its graphic stylization, the composition appears to reproduce the features of a typical Venetian mask, the bauta, consisting of a tricorne hat, a domino cloak, and the mask known as the larva.

My hypothesis is that this aesthetic shift was also influenced by another major Mozart-related event of 1979: Joseph Losey’s cinematic adaptation of Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart’s Don Giovanni. In this distinctive opera-film, set in an imaginary Venice, masks play a central role, particularly in the finale of the first act, when Donna Anna, Don Ottavio, and Donna Elvira—having identified Don Giovanni as the murderer of the Commendatore—enter his house in disguise during the ball. In Losey’s film, the masks retain the domino cloak (or tabarro) and tricorne hat, but the traditional larva of the bauta is replaced by a white face with distinctly feminine features. Since the film was released in the United States almost simultaneously with the stage production of Amadeus (Amadeus premiered in September 1979, and Don Giovanni was released inNovember 1979) it is not implausible that it helped shape the visual imagination that would later become iconic.

In Forman’s film, the black carnivalesque figure remains, but the larva is replaced by an original bifront mask depicting the faces of Comedy and Tragedy. This choice appears to invoke the theatre explicitly, not only as the original medium of the narrative (Peter Shaffer’s play), but also as a stylistic principle underlying the entire film, whose events and modes of representation are marked by a pronounced theatricality. In an article published in The New York Times ( “Paying Homage to Mozart”, 1984. https://www.nytimes.com/1984/09/02/magazine/paying-homage-to-mozart.html.) Shaffer himself stated that the use of masks constitutes a tribute to Mozart, who frequently employed disguises in his comic operas.

I couldn’t help but notice, anyway, that the recent blue ray posters have started to introduce the double faced mask as an iconography: meaning that, in fact, now it is this specific icon mostly associated with Amadeus!

#amadeus 1984 #amadeus #antonio salieri #wolfgang amadeus mozart #milos forman

Yeah so I made this since I heard complaint about not hearing enough Queen in the finale 😄

Also like it’s the first edit I’ve ever made be kind

#goodomens spoilers #good omens finale #good omens 3 #good omens #good omens edit #michael sheen #david tennant #aziraphale #crowley

SPOILER GOOD OMENS 3

I wanted to add something else that might ease — or absolutely not ease — your pain and grief over the finale.

I have the impression that, driven by the excellent writing of the first season and especially the second, most of us ended up identifying far more with Crowley than with Aziraphale. Crowley simply seemed to make more sense overall, didn’t he? The whole “we’re on our own side” philosophy was incredibly compelling. That’s exactly why so many people were devastated by Aziraphale leaving at the end of season two: how could he still believe in Heaven after everything? Was everything they went through really not enough for him to realize that there was nothing left to do except stay with Crowley, the way Gabriel and Beelzebub did?

But I think many people who disliked the finale were upset precisely because they had become so deeply absorbed into Crowley’s own worldview and flaws.

Aziraphale’s flaws are obvious and painfully transparent. He constantly makes choices that are questionable, frustrating, sometimes even absurd. Crowley, on the other hand, is selfish in a much subtler and therefore more seductive way. Completely, inevitably selfish. Aziraphale spent centuries trying to teach him selflessness in his own messy and imperfect way, but Crowley never truly understood that until the final decision.

When Crowley made that proposition, I was genuinely shocked. At first it felt completely out of character. If anything, Aziraphale should have been the one to say something like that. Instead, Aziraphale simply smiles, lets him speak, and ultimately agrees — because that is exactly what he has always been trying to do. I was mad at him but when he came back and repeatedly, desperately told Crowley “at least I had to try” I finally got it. For the first time, in those last 15 minutes, they’ve finally reach the same moral and emotional level. They understood each other and they became truly “angelic” together, only once they have both moved beyond their flaws.

(And the reason why this initially feels slightly off for Crowley is something I explained in another recent post: https://www.tumblr.com/chatgateau/816584180811038720/spoiler-good-omens-3-still-while-trying-to)

The truth is that we believed in Crowley more than we believed in Aziraphale the entire time. The show knew perfectly well that we wanted them to run away together, because we ourselves had adopted Crowley’s individualistic perspective. But the story gradually hints that Crowley is not entirely right in wanting only a peaceful private existence when his supernatural nature and powers place him in a position of responsibility that cannot simply be ignored. Aziraphale never ignored that responsibility, not even once.

This finale is the moment when they finally understand each other completely. That is the highest form of love possible — the culmination of more than 6000 years together. There is nothing beyond that. No cottage, no sex, no kiss, nothing.

This is how the story was meant to end.

#good omens #good omens finale #good omens 3 #goodomens spoilers #azicrow #david tennant #michael sheen #aziraphale #crowley #ineffable lovers #ineffable husbands

SPOILER GOOD OMENS 3

I’ve been wondering whether to make this post because for almost twenty-four hours now I haven’t been able to stop thinking about the ending we got for Good Omens. One could argue that I clearly don’t have anything better to do. Fair criticism.

Still, while trying to understand my feelings about the finale, I came across a lot of comments that genuinely bothered me, so I’m here to unpack a series of thoughts that ultimately led me to believe that this was not only the ending we deserved, but also — from a certain perspective — the most coherent one possible.

Let me start with two premises.

The first: the finale very obviously suffered from the radical cuts in time and budget, which meant the narrative arcs never had enough room to fully develop in a way that would allow viewers to completely understand Crowley and Aziraphale’s final decision.

The second: this is an emotionally devastating ending. There is no happy ending here. They did not erase their memories. I’m writing this in tears, but the ending of Crowley and Aziraphale’s story is that they die. That is what happened. We can discuss later whether we want to embrace the “in every universe” trope as the “sweet” element within the bittersweet ending, but that’s another conversation entirely. Aziraphale and Crowley did not become human — they died. Period.

Now for my actual thoughts.

1. Despite how negatively I’ve seen people talk about it, this is an incredibly mature and carefully thought-out ending. What I mentioned in my first premise — the lack of time needed to properly build the arcs leading to Crowley and Aziraphale’s final choice — does not mean that their decision was impossible to foresee. Quite the opposite, actually. From what little we saw, I’m fairly convinced that the formal structure and the Christ-like trajectory of the story were always pointing toward the conclusion we ended up getting. The compressed format only gave us fragments of that direction, but I do not believe the choice to end their arc this way was caused by production issues. I think this was exactly the ending they intended from the start.

I’ve seen a lot of criticism claiming the characters felt “out of character.” Sure, compared to their season 2 selves, maybe. But they probably wouldn’t have felt that way if season 3 had actually been allowed to develop their arcs properly. In the end, choosing to sacrifice themselves for humanity is something they decide together, and that being the way their story ends feels deeply coherent to me. Their “reward” is existing in another universe.

2. Simply turning them into humans would have solved nothing especially while preserving their memories. Theyve been living for 6000 thousand years what is the point of spending 30 more years together and then die, knowing that Hell and Heaven are still there? Do you really mean to tell me you would rather have watched these supernatural beings live an ordinary absolutely boring human life when their all purpose was to live together through a non-human experience and managing somehow to love each other despite the différence which was structural to their existence? I think that would have been the easier ending, but not one worthy of the important reflection Good Omens has been developing for two seasons.

3. Here I’m going to sound radical: I know a lot of people in fandom are young, enthusiastic, and horny, which is not a crime in itself. But if I read one more comment complaining that they didn’t kiss, I genuinely have to ask: why are you watching this series? Is that really the only thing you care about? Do you honestly believe that a love story stretched across 6000 years of history can only be expressed in one singular way?

People complain that Aziraphale is out of character and then act surprised when he doesn’t throw himself at Crowley like he’s in some random pwp. To me, that reaction is genuinely incomprehensible, and if I’m honest, a lot of the comments I’m reading show a staggering amount of media illiteracy.

Maybe this slip under your understanding but Crowley and Aziraphale are NOT human. The fact They got used to behave as such has nothing to do with the fact they actually feel it. The kiss we got in season 2 was Crowley’s desperate attempt to explain — through every possible means, including the most human one imaginable — what loving someone meant. That does not mean they experience love the way humans do. It was never fan service, and there was nothing remotely erotic about it, because the eroticism of this story lies in their encounter itself, not in physicality.

Those are my thoughts on the matter. I’m deeply disappointed that we never got a full season, but honestly, I’m glad they committed to this ending, however emotionally brutal it was. To me, it was the right choice, and regardless of the form it ultimately took, I support it completely.