Well, he must have known they’d all blame him for the guy hanging himself, so I’d’ve changed the cause of death too.
I saw another comparison “…like Mommy Dearest with a better soundtrack”
Here is a thing I don’t understand. How did jazz education come to be dominated by such anal retentive types (as this movie suggests and this article seems to confirm)?
I thought the whole point of jazz was freedom of form and improvisation. Hence the common expression “Close enough for jazz.” Yet in the movie jazz seems a very rigidly structured form. What am I missing?
My favorite of 2014 as well, just ahead of Birdman. I played in collegiate jazz groups and though nothing in the vein of Fletcher, I did have my share of asshole perfectionist directors.
As somebody who has been in that world, though at a vastly lower level, the move rang true. In fact, the writer/director based it on a real-life director he had himself in college.
And yes, schools do allow these types of maniacs to operate in their systems if it means bringing something of value to the brand. It’s why Bobby Knight got away with his antics for so long.
It might be the difference between a jazz trio, and big band jazz. You want a band to sound tight (in between solos, of course).
A minor miracle itself, since Reiser is always such a hateful presence (regardless of whether he’s supposed to be a good or bad guy). But the very last shot of him in this movie is heartbreaking, because he knows he’s lost his son.
All I can say is…Wooosh! The movie in know way is justifying Fletcher’s behavior or rationalizing his style of teaching as rough in the short term but beneficial in the long term. He’s a monster, though a self-deluding one.
But the Miles Teller character (and yes, he did his own drumming) is also an obsessive, willing to sever all personal ties, subject himself to any physical rigor in the pursuit of “excellence”. It borders on the pathological, and the way he’s bought into the Myth of Fletcher and the tactics he uses means that he will resort to any length to please him. When they find that rapport in the climactic concert, it is the moment he’s doomed himself. He has genuine talent and this dysfunctional relationship he’s created will not end well for him. At all.
It may be not only one of the most tightly constructed films of the year, but also the saddest. And I’d argue that gaffa’s points would be more appropriate if this was meant to take place in the Real World. But this story is all about creating myths and investing in them. This is a fable, just one that sizzles.
Well one of us was whooshed, anyway.
Actually, the movie was doing exactly that. Or at least leaving that as a possible interpretation. From the director:
Unfortunately a lot. Jazz is about improvisation within the context of mastery. If you don’t have the chops, you’ll get cut, period (cut meaning dismissed condescendingly)…
But I didn’t see anyone being given any space for improvisation. “Here’s the page, play these rigidly defined notes perfectly.” If you are playing a set piece with no deviation allowed, is that really “jazz” any longer?
The only improvisation we saw was at the end when Teller’s character busted loose.
That’s a movie. You have to learn big swing arrangements and be able to hold your own after hours…
Of all the people I asked who liked and hated this film, the only two people I know who hated it were anti-social jazzbos who felt it defamed the art form. One is an over-educated, overly analytical miscreant who’s a fantastic drummer but very pompous. The other is just a pathological liar. Neither of them was intelligent enough to step away from their own feelings and analyse the film for what it was; a film construction based on the notion of ego and desire.
To this end, I will go wherever a director wants me to go provided he actually gets to his/her destination and explains the path thoroughly. I like nuance, but I dislike it when it comes at the expense of necessary exposition. Did I believe that any of these characters could possibly exist on any level? Yes. Was it realistic that the conductor would fuck up the other musicians in the band at the end just to stick it to some drummer? Of course not.
But it’s a movie. If I want real life, I’ll go outside.
Huh, I guess I missed that. I thought his success at the concert meant all the critics in the audience they were supposed to be impressing would take note, and he wouldn’t need Simmons anymore.
This was my original interpretation as well, that Fletcher sabotaged him out of pure spite and a need for revenge. As the credits were rolling, my girlfriend opposed this theory, saying: “Fletcher wasn’t trying to sabotage him him at all. He probably wasn’t even sure it was Andrew who blew the whistle on him. All Fletcher did was to throw down the last gauntlet for Andrew to overcome, to finally coax out of him his “Charlie Parker” performance.”
Y’know what? After watching the movie again, I think she was spot on in her assessment.
Just saw this movie a couple weeks ago and loved it. However, I do not necessarily agree that Fletcher was just providing one more thing for Andrew to overcome. I think he really was trying to screw him over and at that point, didn’t really care of Andrew had his little moment or not.
Now that its On Demand for free there may be some other first time viewers like myself.
Loved the drumming and the characters… the overall story-line was good too. A couple of complaints…
-
I know that Fletcher was over the top on purpose and that all of the band were in fear of him but, is it even semi-reasonable that he could have identified that the drummers were off when he was rapidly switching between them??
-
I had a big problem that Fletcher sabotaged the kid (and himself) at the end. Did I miss something in that it wasn’t a showcase of any kind or important for/to Fletcher. No rehearsals at all either…makes no sense.
Well, I might not be the majority here but this is my take:
-
I think when Fletcher was rapidly switching between the 3 drummers, he was incredibly upset about the death of his former student, and he was abusing the new drummers for it. That’s the kind of narcissistic a-hole he is. So, no, I don’t think he was really identifying anything - just pushing them to their limits to see who really wanted the part.
-
No rehearsals because Fletcher told Andrew that they were going to play songs he already had mastered. I believe the band rehearsed with a session drummer for the actual songs they intended to play, and the band had no idea he was setting Andrew up for his final “become Charlier Parker or don’t” moment.
That’s my take on the whole movie. Everything Fletcher did was to get the best out of Andrew. At the beginning, he walked into Andrew’s rehearsal, heard 3 seconds of his playing and took him on board. He knew right from then that he had a potential legend on his hands.
My wife finally caught this not too long ago, and at the end she threw up her hands and said, “that’s it?!?” I just looked at her and said, “he found his Charlie Parker.”
My wife and I recently watched this, we both hate jazz with a fiery intensity but that makes not a jot of difference as this film is not about jazz and as it turns out we both loved it. The music was incidental.
My own take is that this is an exploration of the the two characters desires to find greatness and to be great. They both want it, they both accomplish it but it leaves us with the question… “was it worth it?” They both find greatness and lose everything but each other and that does not bode well for a happy future.
I’m obviously very late to the game, here, but I’m still sitting in my chair, having just finished watching.
I love jazz, though I’m no musician. I felt like the story was a fictional account of how some of the greats (who sometimes met with tragic endings) pushed themselves or got pushed into becoming great in the first place, and how it takes a somewhat dangerous set of obsessive personality traits to get there.
I absolutely loved this movie, but it was in no way a happy ending to me. Simmons’ character got justification for being the incredible asshole that he was, and Andrew accepted and embraced that there was no hope for him ever having a normal life, and that he would also be driven to the point of breaking by his desire to be a legend. I imagine an epilogue where Andrew is an alcoholic, a drug addict, or just dead at a young age. With Simmons mocking him the whole way there.
Anyway, I thought it was an incredible ride, and I’m glad I finally got around to watching it.
I know I’m really late to this thread but I wasn’t around when the thread was contemporary with the actual movie, and I didn’t feel my opinion merited starting a new thread but I wanted to share it anyway in the hope that some others might want to discuss it.
I love this movie so much; I can watch it over and over again without getting bored of it. There’s something about the way it’s shot, the whole atmosphere of it, which is very immersive and captivating. The acting is amazing. J.K. Simmons is so awesome.
At face value, the story and message of the movie are actually really fucked up and totally wrong. You have to really, really put aside any concept of “the real world” when watching Whiplash. It is not a realistic portrayal of music education or of any kind of education. There is no way in hell that a band director like Mr. Fletcher would ever be allowed to teach at a real conservatory. The intensely personal verbal abuse including ethnic and homophobic slurs, the physical violence - repeatedly slapping musicians in the face?! It’s ridiculously over-the-top and you have to just go with it.
Mr. Fletcher is not a good teacher at all. Mostly because he’s constantly playing mind games and being needlessly cruel. The real-life drummer Peter Erskine, who needs no introduction for those who are knowledgable about real-life jazz music, explains the problem with taking Whiplash literally in this review much better than I could. Suffice it to say, from the perspective of an actual jazz musician and educator who has climbed his way through the music business to the absolute apex of technically-demanding, sought-after musicianship, Whiplash is ridiculous and even a personal affront to the cultural and emotional underpinnings of jazz.
Whiplash isn’t really about jazz or music. It’s a dark psychodrama about a masochist and a sadist who are a perfect fit for each other. In this, the movie succeeds spectacularly. And often hilariously. It’s a totally over-the-top parody of musical ambition and it is absolutely going to be a cult classic among music students and professional musicians forever.