Peter Shaffer on Revising "Amadeus"

If revisions weren't intimidating enough, Peter Shaffer certainly raises the bar. I really admire the way he doesn't get so attached to his early drafts that he is able to cut out entire chunks and re-write and re-write and re-write. Its not that I think my early drafts are perfect and don't need work, its the idea that I could put so much time and energy into a scene or an entire act (or an entire chapter in fiction writing, an entire stanza where I had agonized over every word but still disrupted a poem) that in the end will be cut and the work will have been nothing. But writing is a process and thinking through ideas is a processing and sometimes you just have to try out the idea and develop in order to come to the brilliant idea that ties the piece of writing all together.
In Shaffer's revisions, its not that he finds his endings ineffective. In fact he says "In some ways the above [1st] scene...was tremendously effective" (xxi). He talks about the themes it emphasizes (atonement) and how that theme has come and gone throughout his revisions. Its the whole "What does this approach cost me and what does it buy me" approach that we use so much in literary analysis and analysis in our on writing and in Laurie Frankel's classes! It took Peter years to realize the revisions excluding the theme of atonement had been an error (xxii). This is daunting...really shows you how a piece of writing is never ever ever ever years later even ever done. So much for a sense of accomplishment! In his third version Shaffer talks about how his revised climatic scene "On paper...looks to be pretty uncinematic-- just line after line of instrumental and vocal notation-- but when it is played on screen, it bursts into vibrant life" (xxvi) and Shaffer's ability to imagine this in his head before seeing it played out is something I am very envious of.
I was really struck by his like that "The work I did in Stratford was really not radical enough, but it did start me thinking very seriously about how I could humanize Salieri more" (xxvii). This line stood out to me so severly because it shows how, as Shaffer rearranges the ending time after time, his understanding of his characters changes. He is able to get in their minds more, he is able to see what is missing in their portrayals and how to put together a more convincing production. This is powerful because it affects more than just the ever-evolving ending of "Amadeus" but the character of Salieri throughout the entire play. The idea that Salieri needs to be more humanized is going to sit with Shaffer as he re-reads each scene and he is going to start reading the character of Salieri differently and see where, in other parts of the script, he can humanize Salieri even more.
As an aspiring playwrite, I am both intimidated and inspired by Shaffer. His commitment and his ability to form such a deep understanding of his characters is astounding and admirable. His refusal to settle for something that isn't all-around the best it can be is incredible. He keeps pushing himself.
"Indeed, sometimes I wonder at those writers who display no desire to alter anything when work is revived. And sometiems, too, I envy their seeming certitude-or even their indfference, which maybe a form of instinctive wisdom" (xxxiv) Shaffer writes.
No Shaffer, indifference is not wise. Being stuck and certain in one way, one story, one possibility, close-minded to unearthing full characters and understanding what REALLY FITS with them, is cheating the audience. Its telling a story with characters who are not as true as they could be and there is no wisdom in producing something untrue. To alter work reflects the author's growth and passion, to never be satisfied is a sign of requiring the best work out of one's self. And these are traits and habits to strive for.