Beethoven and his Beloveds

[Joy]

Originally posted by Peter:
I did watch it and I still thought it was pretty awful - aside from the historical inaccuracies which were legion! Beethoven performing the Emperor concerto, I mean come on - would it have been so difficult to have had him playing the 4th instead which he actually did?

I agree, of course. I don't understand why Hollywood insists on getting the facts so wrong. It must be just as easy to film it the correct way than the wrong way. You use up just as much film!!

The one redeeming scene that I actually liked was B as a boy running through the woods to the strains of the 9th and merging with the stars, I thought that was quite moving, as was the opening of the film with lines from the funeral oration read by the wrong guy, Schindler!!!!

That's my favourite part as well. (running through the woods...) I really liked the symbolism. I think they did a good job with that one. I think they wanted to make Schindler a bigger part of the story than he actually once.

I think anyone who didn't know the story would have been left rather confused and certainly mis-informed. I was with some friends and I constantly had to point out that such and such never happened or if it did in a completely different context.

I know what you mean. When I saw it I had to explain everything to whoever I was with. I don't like the idea of people walking out of a theatre thinking that was all true and factual in any movies not just this one. Call me a purist!!

Joy

[Joy]

Originally posted by Rod:
I watched it just to refresh my memory of how absolutely ridiculous and awfull it is. It presents Beethoven as nothing other than a lunatic, regardless of the numerous inacurracies. I had no sympathy for this Beethoven as presented by the movie. The whole thing is a joke and an embarrassment.

I didn't mean to leave you out, Rod. I thought you were on vacation? Anyway, looks like the consensus hasn't changed a bit no matter how many years it's been since people last saw this movie!! Thanks for the input!

Joy

[This message has been edited by Joy (edited 08-29-2001).]

[MCS]

Originally posted by Rod:
This chain has developed somewhat sice my last visit!! But I'll stick to Beethoven - most of the things I have read about B's treatment of the Credo take the opposite view of the above, ie it is apparent that B is latently rejecting much of the doctrine. Large passages of the Credo in the Missa Solemnis are zipped by, and, importantly, sung almost in plainchant. This treatment, deliberately lacking the personal touch and development shown elsewhere, could indicate a detachment by B from the doctrine, instead making it clear this is the belief of the Church.

After reading your reply, Rod, I sat down and listened several times to the Credo in order to try to determine which parts LvB gave particular emphasis to and which he 'zipped over'. What I discovered was interesting. The parts of the Credo which are most emphasized have to do with Christ's divinity: 'One in being with the Father; through Him all things were made', 'came down from heaven'. Also, I don't think his use of chant indicates less of a personal touch. He studied Palestrina in preparing to write this work and it seems to me he stated that unaccompanied chanting was the most appropriate music for church. He uses this chanting at 'by the power of the Holy Spirit he was born of the Virgin Mary'. I think it underlines the sanctity of the words, rather than making them less stressed. There is also great emphasis on 'was crucified for us, suffered under Pontius Pilot and was buried'. If his arrangement of the Credo is any indication of his personal beliefs, he had no problem with Christ's divinity or the significance of his death.
On the other hand, the latter part of the Creed does seem to be less emphasized. But this part is also given less words in the prayer itself and his composition may simply reflect this.

Mary

[Rod]

Originally posted by MCS:
After reading your reply, Rod, I sat down and listened several times to the Credo in order to try to determine which parts LvB gave particular emphasis to and which he 'zipped over'. What I discovered was interesting. The parts of the Credo which are most emphasized have to do with Christ's divinity: 'One in being with the Father; through Him all things were made', 'came down from heaven'. Also, I don't think his use of chant indicates less of a personal touch. He studied Palestrina in preparing to write this work and it seems to me he stated that unaccompanied chanting was the most appropriate music for church. He uses this chanting at 'by the power of the Holy Spirit he was born of the Virgin Mary'. I think it underlines the sanctity of the words, rather than making them less stressed. There is also great emphasis on 'was crucified for us, suffered under Pontius Pilot and was buried'. If his arrangement of the Credo is any indication of his personal beliefs, he had no problem with Christ's divinity or the significance of his death.
On the other hand, the latter part of the Creed does seem to be less emphasized. But this part is also given less words in the prayer itself and his composition may simply reflect this.

Mary

Of course B would not let his personal opinions influence the musical setting to the extent that the quality of invention would be adversely affected. By default Credo means I believe and this cannot simply pushed to one side. However it still remains that I have read numerous comments relating to my point. How one interprets all of this is a matter of interpretation! For some the issue of the Virgin birth would be the most contentious issue. The issue with the Missa is a slight diversion, I think, from the discussion of B's religious views. Nobody has given me a good reason why, amongst other things I have said, B would be so interested in God as seen by non-Christian writings if B himself was a good Christian! Why didn't B just scribble quotes from the Bible? It is beyond doubt B's concept of God was more sophisticated than that presented to the humble masses by the Catholic Church. This concept of God I believe was not unusual amongst the artistic intelligencia and those with masonic connections at that time.

------------------
"If I were but of noble birth..." - Rod Corkin

[Chris]

Originally posted by Rod:
Nobody has given me a good reason why, amongst other things I have said, B would be so interested in God as seen by non-Christian writings if B himself was a good Christian!

As I mentioned earlier, the current pope is very interested in God as seen by non-Christian writings. He's about as Catholic as they come. So that by itself proves nothing.

[Rod]

Originally posted by Chris:
As I mentioned earlier, the current pope is very interested in God as seen by non-Christian writings. He's about as Catholic as they come. So that by itself proves nothing.

On the contrary, it proves something! Whereas other Popes in days gone by were happy to sanction the slaughter of thousands or the assasination of rightful Kings...does this mean that these things then also became part of standard official Catholic doctrine? Will these Hindu writers and ancient Egyptians and Greek philosophers and poets be in heaven with the Living God of the Pope? Not a chance, they're all rotting in hell of course. So one should not take the Popes actions as a those of Catholisism, it only proves, perhaps, that he too has become aware that there is more to God than the Church would have us believe.

------------------
"If I were but of noble birth..." - Rod Corkin

[This message has been edited by Rod (edited 08-30-2001).]

[Michael]

Originally posted by Joy:
Michael and Peter,

Did you watch 'Immortal Beloved' last Saturday night? And if so, were your opinions the same as before or did you get a different perspective on the movie after not seeing it for a while?

Joy

I did watch it again and I have to say that, unlike "Amadeus", it does not hold up on repeated viewings. I still think Gary Oldman was very good but totally wasted. Perhaps because of its "Citizen Kane" style of presentation, the film is totally disjointed and only gains any sort of impetus in the last three-quarters of an hour.
B was represented as being more like Sid Vicious than anything else, and only once or twice in the whole movie is he shown doing what he spent 95 per cent of his life doing: composing.
I had to laugh at the number of occasions in the film where some weeping "beloved" wails about the terrible way "they" treated poor Louis, only to see the said Louis insulting everybody in sight when he wasn't thrashing his hotel bedroom.
I agree with Peter about the Ninth Symphony sequence being the best in the movie. If only that imaginative flair had been maintained throughout.
I believe IB is available in the states on a DVD which includes a running commentary by the writer/director Bernard Rose (Is it Bernard?) I would be very interested in hearing this, mainly to see if he pointed out all the places where he deviated from the known facts, but I think that would take up two discs.
However, if it crops up again in a couple of years, I won't be able to resist having another peek at it.

Michael

[Peter]

Originally posted by Michael:
However, if it crops up again in a couple of years, I won't be able to resist having another peek at it.

Michael

I recorded it as I did the first time, and yet again I have no desire to add it to my video collection.

------------------
'Man know thyself'

[Joy]

Originally posted by Michael:
I did watch it again and I have to say that, unlike "Amadeus", it does not hold up on repeated viewings. I still think Gary Oldman was very good but totally wasted. Perhaps because of its "Citizen Kane" style of presentation, the film is totally disjointed and only gains any sort of impetus in the last three-quarters of an hour.
B was represented as being more like Sid Vicious than anything else, and only once or twice in the whole movie is he shown doing what he spent 95 per cent of his life doing: composing.
I had to laugh at the number of occasions in the film where some weeping "beloved" wails about the terrible way "they" treated poor Louis, only to see the said Louis insulting everybody in sight when he wasn't thrashing his hotel bedroom.
I agree with Peter about the Ninth Symphony sequence being the best in the movie. If only that imaginative flair had been maintained throughout.
I believe IB is available in the states on a DVD which includes a running commentary by the writer/director Bernard Rose (Is it Bernard?) I would be very interested in hearing this, mainly to see if he pointed out all the places where he deviated from the known facts, but I think that would take up two discs.
However, if it crops up again in a couple of years, I won't be able to resist having another peek at it.

Michael

Thanks for the reply, Michael. I agree with you about Gary Oldman and about the 9th sequence being the best. I don't even watch it beyond this point, the last 15-20 min. or so, is beyond belief. I think they should have quit while they were ahead (although I don't think they were ahead at any point in the movie). I can't believe how they could have done so well in 1 sequence and not kept it up, but they do that with a lot of movies
where they have a few good bits and the rest is wasted! Too bad they can't be more consistant throughout. I know of the DVD but wouldn't want to waste my hard earned money on it. Maybe I could get it from the library or borrow it from someone. I'm kinda curious myself on what is said at the end.

Joy

[Chris]

Originally posted by Rod:
On the contrary, it proves something! Whereas other Popes in days gone by were happy to sanction the slaughter of thousands or the assasination of rightful Kings...does this mean that these things then also became part of standard official Catholic doctrine? Will these Hindu writers and ancient Egyptians and Greek philosophers and poets be in heaven with the Living God of the Pope? Not a chance, they're all rotting in hell of course. So one should not take the Popes actions as a those of Catholisism, it only proves, perhaps, that he too has become aware that there is more to God than the Church would have us believe.

That post was so amazingly full of ignorance, I don't even know where to start. First of all, the current pope believes with all his heart the fullness of truth is contained in the Catholic Church and only in the Catholic Church. He personally released an official document saying exactly that. What this tells me is that paying attention to non-Catholic sources and giving credit where credit is due is in no way a suggestion that the Catholic faith is wrong (or lacking).

Secondly, who says Hindu writers and ancient Egyptians and Greek philosophers and poets won't be in heaven? Certainly not the Catholic Church. Unlike most Protestant religions, Catholics do not believe that explicit knowledge of Christianity is needed to merit heaven.

Lastly, the personal actions of popes have nothing to do with anything, and I don't even see your point in mentioning them.

So, clearly referencing non-Catholic sources does not prove anything in itself. Which is not to say that Beethoven was a normal, devout Catholic (I doubt that he was, during a good deal of his life), but it does not mean he found it to be totally false either.

[This message has been edited by Chris (edited 08-31-2001).]

[MCS]

Originally posted by Rod:
On the contrary, it proves something! Whereas other Popes in days gone by were happy to sanction the slaughter of thousands etc,etc,etc....

I only hope that this diatribe was intended to be provocative and does not represent your true beliefs.

Mary

[Rod]

Originally posted by MCS:
I only hope that this diatribe was intended to be provocative and does not represent your true beliefs.

Mary

It is not my belief, it is a hard fact, you obviously are totally unaware of European history. There were massacres galore in medieval times. Popes were far more political figures then, always ordering fighting, the slaughter of non believers or sects that gerenerally didn't follow the Church's line, and getting up to other mischief. Sometimes there were two contesting Popes fighting for supremacy. As for sanctioning the assasination of rightfull kings, after the creation of the Church of England by Henry 8th, the vatican was continuously encouraging the beheading of whichever King or Queen was its head!!

------------------
"If I were but of noble birth..." - Rod Corkin


[This message has been edited by Rod (edited 08-31-2001).]

[Rod]

Originally posted by Chris:


....Lastly, the personal actions of popes have nothing to do with anything, and I don't even see your point in mentioning them.
either...

[This message has been edited by Chris (edited 08-31-2001).]

This is precisely what you yourself have been doing all along, in your last post especially!! Whatever todays Pope gets up to has got nothing to do with Beethoven or the Catholisism of Vienna circa 1800. I've said all I'm going to say on the issue, I'm tiring of the papal propaganda, I'm sure he's a nice guy.

------------------
"If I were but of noble birth..." - Rod Corkin

[This message has been edited by Rod (edited 08-31-2001).]

[Chris]

Originally posted by Rod:
It is not my belief, it is a hard fact, you obviously are totally unaware of European history. There were massacres galore in medieval times. Popes were far more political figures then, always ordering fighting, the slaughter of non believers or sects that gerenerally didn't follow the Church's line, and getting up to other mischief. Sometimes there were two contesting Popes fighting for supremacy. As for sanctioning the assasination of rightfull kings, after the creation of the Church of England by Henry 8th, the vatican was continuously encouraging the beheading of whichever King or Queen was its head!!

Perhaps you do not know European history as well as you think. There was never more than one pope at any time. Oh yes, there were plenty of bishops claiming to be pope, but there was only one validly selected pope. And of course, the "sins" commited by popes prove nothing other than that those popes were evil men. That is no surprise - there are plenty of evil men in the world. The only thing the papacy is assured of being perfect in, according to the Church, is formally declaring teachings on faith and morals. And those evil popes were hardly interested in doing that. That is what I meant when I said it has nothing to do with anything. My comment was totally relevent to Beethoven, yours was not. Now enough with all of this. I have just purchased a new set of the piano concertos, and I mean to go enjoy it now.

[Rod]

Originally posted by Chris:
Perhaps you do not know European history as well as you think. There was never more than one pope at any time. Oh yes, there were plenty of bishops claiming to be pope, but there was only one validly selected pope. And of course, the "sins" commited by popes prove nothing other than that those popes were evil men. That is no surprise - there are plenty of evil men in the world. The only thing the papacy is assured of being perfect in, according to the Church, is formally declaring teachings on faith and morals. And those evil popes were hardly interested in doing that. That is what I meant when I said it has nothing to do with anything. My comment was totally relevent to Beethoven, yours was not. Now enough with all of this. I have just purchased a new set of the piano concertos, and I mean to go enjoy it now.

You make me laugh Chris.

------------------
"If I were but of noble birth..." - Rod Corkin