I was recently watching Amadeus and there’s a scene where Mozart is watching a performance of his opera, Don Giovanni. However, whereas we see Mozart personally conducting his opera at a grand theater for the wealthy aristocracy, in this scene he’s watching a more “dumbed down” comic version being performed at a much simpler theater for an audience of what looks like commoners.
During the classical era, was opera also enjoyed by common people? How different were opera performances for the aristocracy and commoners (if they were in fact experienced separately)? Did some composers write works primarily for common people as opposed to more influential patrons? Were these opera performances for the common man and woman looked down upon in high society circles?
Operas were indeed enjoyed by many, and as you might guess, the experience was different between upper and lower classes.
For the aristocracy, operas were often taken in from private boxes, much like the ones that you see in the movie, but rarely was the entire opera viewed. Major roles (and therefore major arias, such as the famous one presented by the Queen of the Night in The Magic Flute) in the operas were generally written for specific performers, or at least a specific type of performer, and these are the ones that one would want to see. Think of them as the headlining performers. The famous Queen of the Night aria, Der Holle Rache kocht in meinem Herzen, was written for an excellent vocalist who also happened to be Mozart's sister-in-law. She performed it for ten years. Lesser roles were given to the up-and-comers, so while one might make a name for themselves in this way, certainly fewer eyes would be watching.
Operas were rather long, and it was a social gathering as much as a performance to view. They would view the famous singers at the appropriate time, but would also leave and socialize, have drinks, and the like in between. That's not to say that no one would watch the entire thing; far from it. Still, an evening at the opera would be a varied experience, almost like going to a baseball game in the US today.
Those of lower standing would be unable to do these things even if they could afford them, as they would quickly be unable to regain their position near those with whom they came. They also would likely be unable to reenter without paying again. Sometimes this was quite tenuous. There is a piece of art entitled "Riot at Covent Garden" that depicts commoners storming the stage when spectators were not admitted at half-price after intermission. Indeed, there were several price riots around that time (early 1800s).
As for the question of whether they were viewed together in one theater or separately, it would certainly depend. Who commissioned the work? Was it a debut performance? These would likely be quite limited in attendance, especially if the composer was of the statue of Mozart and/or a person of great import commissioned the opear. After that though, things may be a bit more open, though again separated by the private boxes and the floor.
Finally, you pointed out that this was a more comic version that you see depicted in the show; while the comedy may have been played up a bit depending on the cast and direction, many of these operas had comedic elements. An entire genre of opera, Opera Buffa is intended to be comedic in nature. Sometimes operas were racy as well. While it is possible that the racier elements were played up/down depending on the audience, I don't have a source that says anything about this. I do know that regardless of this, they were quite popular up and down social strata. I could only speculate that it was as different as it would be today when separate theater groups with separate directors put on the same play.
"A History of Music in Western Culture" by Bonds is a primary source for me on this, as well as a couple of music dictionaries - Oxford and Groves.
