Whiplash

[Blinder Data]

Probably the best films about drums I have ever seen.

I found it a very entertaining, involving and thrilling piece with two really good central performances. Considering its indie film credentials I was expecting a more subversive approach, but its standard 'sports film' narrative was executed perfectly enough to leave me zipping out of the cinema on a high.

The occasionally dynamic direction and editing beautifully matched the jazz score - incidentally, who originated the practice of 'zoomed-in quick cuts of manual tasks' for scene transitions? I saw a lot of it in Shaun of the Dead but I assume Edgar Wright would have picked it up somewhere else.

If you like jazz music, drums or have been close to the world of serious musicians, I think you'd get a lot out of this film. 8/10

Here are some pretty good programme notes from my local arthouse, which I recommend reading after watching the film:

The second feature from writer/director Damien Chazelle, Whiplash is both intensely original in its drive and passion, whilst also being a throwback to a myriad of archetypical film types. As will be discussed below, the narrative thrust of the film closely mimics that of a standard sports film, with a certain machismo driving Miles Teller's Andrew to achieve greatness in his chosen field, and let nothing hold him back. However, it also takes influence from classical Hollywood musicals; although there are no song-and-dance numbers à la the great MGM classics of the 1940s and 50s, Chazelle and editor Tom Cross understand that an underlying musicality and rhythm is necessary to make music not only the subject, but also the DNA of a film. As the chosen instrument is a drum kit, and the chosen modus operandi is an oppressing, unrelenting dominance of that instrument, the film becomes enveloped in a terrifying and charged cadence that underlines the characters' motivations and writes the themes across their vein-popping faces.

Both of Chazelle's films as writer/director draw upon his own experiences of taking part in a high school jazz group. His first film, 2009's low budget Guy and Madeline on a Park Bench used jazz in a more conventional way, celebrating the music and the joy of dancing. That film takes the aforementioned influence from MGM musicals and makes it more overt, placing it in a modern day setting complete with a gritty, vérité style of filmmaking (no doubt due to the low-budget nature of the production; necessity is the mother of invention). For this second feature he decided to take the darker elements of his experience, remembering the feelings he had during his time with the high school group. The filmmaker has admitted that he 'remembered being very terrified. That was my overall emotion during those years. Just dread...I wanted to pour that into the movie'.[1]

In order to secure financing for Whiplash, Chazelle sent the script around various production houses, most of whom were not interested in a story of jazz drumming and as such he learnt that he had to pitch it a specific way – 'I think the challenge lay in how I was pitching it to people ....I wanted it to play like a thriller or an action movie'.[2] It eventually came to the attention of genre production studio Blumhouse (responsible in part for franchise hit Paranormal Activity), who brought the script to Juno director Jason Reitman. Reitman recommended that Chazelle fully realise a portion of the script as a short film, and brought in character actor J K Simmons (who had worked with Reitman on all his films since 2005's Thank You for Smoking). This short film, also entitled Whiplash, won the Jury Award for best short film at Sundance Film Festival 2013 (the same accolade Chazelle would win in the feature category exactly one year later) and the team were able to secure financing for the feature version.

This idea of making an 'action' or 'thriller' film has created some backlash within the jazz community, with certain purists citing the film's seeming willingness to support solo virtuosity over group camaraderie and generosity to your fellow players as a chauvinistic and solipsistic trait closer to the traditional over-achieving athletic 'hero' narrative. It has been decreed that the reason for transplanting the 'the rousing mechanisms of the sports drama to the world of conservatory music' is simply a method of giving highbrow filmgoers a chance to 'enjoy' some base macho posturing (an argument somewhat supported by the maleness of the band).[3] However, I would argue that Chazelle is perfectly aware of this comparison, as is made clear in a dinner table scene with family friends, which sees Teller's Andrew squabbling with two amateur sportsman of the same age. He jabs that, as they will never here the words 'come play with us' from the NFL, devoting their time to sports is pointless. However, he is quickly silenced when his father reminds him of his own position. By drawing the audience's attention to this comparison in this way, Chazelle highlights the self-destructive cycle of striving for perfection. As Andrew becomes more obsessed with his singular goal, he begins to dispense with the normalities of adolescent life, until he is left alone.

It is important to highlight two aspects of the film that play into the tense, melodic flow of the film; the film's editing and use of sound. Working in tandem with one another, they play off the narrative in an informative way, filling the gaps that dialogue and onscreen action deliberately omit. For instance, when Andrew goes on his first date with Melissa Benoist's Nicole, he is quick to point out the music playing in the café, and the editing matches the musical. The film opens with a darkened, slow and steadily increasing drumbeat – the crash of drumsticks is 'a rudimentary warm-up made to feel sinister — "like gunfire," the screenplay suggests — and it sets up a mounting tension that the movie strives to maintain'.  The film adds layers upon this rhythm, undulating and swelling, at one point reducing it to a low simmer, only to have it boil over again in the grand finale.  Scenes that are not filled with music seem empty, demonstrating Andrew's boredom when he is not behind a drum kit.

The purpose of the film is not to praise Andrew, or even to praise jazz as an art form, it is instead to explore the psyche of its lead, and to question that strive for greatness. The film ends without ever giving the audience closure on Andrew's journey and battle with Fletcher – does the cut to black mean that he has won? One cannot help but question if Andrew would have been better leaving the stage when he had the chance, as his unachievable goal for perfection will never truly be reached.

Sean Greenhorn
GFT Programme Coordinator
January 2015

[1] Damian Chazelle interviewed by A.A. Dowd, Whiplash maestro Damien Chazelle on drumming, directing and J.K. Simmons, The A.V. Club http://www.avclub.com/article/whiplash-maestro-damien-chazelle-drumming-directin-210473

[2] Damien Chazelle, quoted by Peter Debruge, Directors Like 'Whiplash's' Damien Chazelle Drum Up Attention With Short Films, Variety http://variety.com/2014/film/news/damien-chazelle-whiplash-short-films-1201296149/

[3] J. R Jones Whiplash: A jazz movie that has nothing to do with jazz, The Chicago Reader

[ZoyzaSorris]

Just watched a bent copy off the webs, really enjoyed it, lovely crisp clean fun, the two leads were both great I though, tight little story, terse editing, lovely. End sequence was wonderful. I was planning on taking the little un to greenwich picturehouse's baby friendly big scream club this week but there only blood showing this aren't they, that'll teach me for being naughty.

[Head Gardener]

Probably the best films about drums I have ever seen

I said this to my wife and she said "yeah and how many drumming films are there, about 3?"

[Beep Cleep Chimney]

It really is excellent, isn't it?  I loved it.  Saw this and Birdman on the same day, and Whiplash is the one I keep thinking about and want to watch again. 

Watching Birdman, I found myself just marvelling at how technically impressive it was and looking for the edit points, rather than really being involved in the actual story.

But Whiplash just sucked me in straight away.  JK Simmons thoroughly deserves all the plaudits he's been receiving for his performance in this, but even Miles Teller was a bit of a revelation.  I've seen about 3 other films he's been in, and really didn't like him much at all, but he's fantastic in this.

If you haven't seen this yet, you need to buck your ideas up and get it watched sharpish.  You will NOT be disappointed.

[weekender]

If you like jazz music, drums or have been close to the world of serious musicians, I think you'd get a lot out of this film.

I don't really like jazz music, drums and have never been close to the world of serious musicians.

That being said, I thought this film was great.  The two leads were fantastic, and it's just a bloody good story really well told.  Admittedly there were a couple of cliches in places, but that doesn't detract from the sheer intensity that drives the film.  Whilst I found myself warming to the jazz music throughout (I've always subscribed to the 'why don't you play the notes in the right order for once?' theory) it was the characters in the film that really made it for me.  Simmons's performance was great, and well deserving of the accolades he's been receiving, but everyone else was good as well.

So I'd recommend this on the basis that it's a bloody good film, irrespective of familiarity with the subject matter.

[Blinder Data]

I don't really like jazz music, drums and have never been close to the world of serious musicians.

That being said, I thought this film was great.  The two leads were fantastic, and it's just a bloody good story really well told.  Admittedly there were a couple of cliches in places, but that doesn't detract from the sheer intensity that drives the film.  Whilst I found myself warming to the jazz music throughout (I've always subscribed to the 'why don't you play the notes in the right order for once?' theory) it was the characters in the film that really made it for me.  Simmons's performance was great, and well deserving of the accolades he's been receiving, but everyone else was good as well.

So I'd recommend this on the basis that it's a bloody good film, irrespective of familiarity with the subject matter.

I think anybody could like this film. I also think that if one or more of the above three points that you quoted applies to an audience member, then he/she could like it more than the average person (or the average film).

[non capisco]

I loved this film, found it completely compelling. The final scene is like a three-act play in itself. Beautifully edited as well as acted, the rhythm of the film reflecting its subject matter.                                                                                                               

[Buttress]

Some people are having a go at the kind of jazz in this film (and this focus on the competitive 'best of the best' attitude). I tend to agree with them. That said, it's still a really well put together film with amazing performances from the lead drummer boy and his paternal domina shouty mcthrow machair JK Row-Simmons.

[ZoyzaSorris]

its not really a film about jazz though is it? its just a film about some good characters.

[Moribunderast]

Some people are having a go at the kind of jazz in this film (and this focus on the competitive 'best of the best' attitude). I tend to agree with them.

Wait, so some people are complaining that a film about two men's compulsive ambition to achieve greatness in jazz focuses too much on competitiveness and jazz music? What exactly are they after then?

[Van Dammage]

Simmons should get an Oscar

[Buttress]

Wait, so some people are complaining that a film about two men's compulsive ambition to achieve greatness in jazz focuses too much on competitiveness and jazz music? What exactly are they after then?

It is interesting a film about 'greatness in jazz' is not really about jazz at all, or music. It is ultimately a film about an abusive paternal relationship (the brutal conductor a stand-in father figure for a father who has obviously had to be something of a mother to the kid) that is self-justifying in the sense that 'only with this abuse can you get greatness out of the truly great' - well if they're truly great why push them so hard? Why not spend some time letting it ease out? Why so violent and desperately impatient?

I think while the film is not 'about' jazz it does use it as a backdrop, the music we hear is all jazz - but cut up, chopped and exaggerated. Technically tuned to perfection but perhaps lacking in the musical relief. But I do realise this is on purpose and perhaps this abusive relationship is characteristic of the problems these highly technical music schools can have.

[phantom_power]

I think that is an interesting reading of the film but not quite what I took from it. For me it was more about the idea that a lot of 'geniuses' work really fucking hard to be good at what they do and if they don't have someone pushing them then they might not achieve that. The Simmons character takes it too far but there may well be truth to what he says and his viewpoint.

There is also the borderline autistic personality of many people who are great at something. That single-minded determination to be great at something which ends up ruining relationships or just plain stopping them from happening.

[Buttress]

I think that is an interesting reading of the film but not quite what I took from it. For me it was more about the idea that a lot of 'geniuses' work really fucking hard to be good at what they do and if they don't have someone pushing them then they might not achieve that. The Simmons character takes it too far but there may well be truth to what he says and his viewpoint.

I think there's truth that we need a master figure to push us into acting, but the brutality shown by Simmons in the film makes him out to be a somewhat impotent master (by the end of the film he shows the extent of his pent-up resentment) who precisely hasn't had much luck in cultivating true genius (and his past students are killing themselves..)

I think if the film's core thesis is genius = lots of hard work and pushed into it, I would agree but only for some types of genius. Some genius is quite literally pick up drum sticks and you're away, smashing out whiplash in your sleep.

[phantom_power]

Isn't Teller's success at the end of the film also Simmons' as well though. Would he have become as great a drummer as he is without that external drive? He may still have been good but could have needed that bit more to achieve his true potential; a mentor that matched him in his obsession and conviction

[brat-sampson]

By the end though I didn't think Simmons was 'pushing him' as such, but simply

Spoiler alert

fucking him over for losing him his job

[close]

like that. The fact that he

Spoiler alert

came back and blew everyone away

[close]

is something I'm sure he respected and was thankful for, but I don't think he planned it at all.

[phantom_power]

Yeah I completely agree with your assessment of the ending but it was his teaching throughout the rest of the film that made Teller the sort of person who would do what he did, it could be said. It was inadvertent but there nonetheless.

[Blinder Data]

Something I've just remembered about the film: does anyone have any idea who

Spoiler alert

took the other drummer's black folder?

[close]

. I didn't see any hints; perhaps it was Fletcher being a bastard to fuck things up, or the protagonist in a moment of self-deception, or another band trying to steal a march on their rivals.

I agree with Mark Kermode's review that the film deliberately shoots along at such a pace that you forget/forgive its apparent plotholes (so did the band not rehearse at all before the final performance?). But it's still great fun.

[weekender]

perhaps it was Fletcher being a bastard to fuck things up

I don't *think* it's answered, but this is my preferred interpretation - it explains why he doesn't appear that surprised and subsequently fucks over the 'owner'.

[Noodle Lizard]

Call me another underwhelmed chap.  Given the hype, I was expecting a lot more from the film itself, which I found very predictable and quite by-the-numbers in many ways.  I understand it was initially made as a short and then expanded into a feature, and I think that really shows.  It's very repetitive, and things like the superfluous love interest and "tense family dinner" scenes seem far more for narrative convention than anything of any actual substance.

I also thought it was badly directed and edited.  It has this horribly incongruous David Fincher look to it, which is what every student filmmaker does to give their film a bit of "edge", and there are some unforgivable choices in editing for a film about music.  Watch the first performance in Fletcher's class again and keep an eye on the second piano close-up.

JK Simmons was good and he'll probably walk the awards campaign, but to be honest he's basically playing the same character he's been known for playing in everything he's done, just with a bit more swearing and chair-throwing.  I'd rather the Oscar went to Edward Norton for Birdman, who (despite being a notorious cunt) is a far more diverse actor and is overdue for one.  JK Simmons's performance ticks all the boxes and he has ample opportunity to chew the scenery, but it's a bit of an overdone character isn't it?

[phantom_power]

The love interest was far from superfluous. It is the most important character beyond the main two. It shows the sociopathic dedication to his craft that Teller has. That character is needed to show how much he is willing to sacrifice.

I thought the direction and editing were brilliant. I would equate it more with Raging Bull than anything Fincher has done. I don't give a shit about continuity errors though, if that is what your piano comment was about.

I also disagree about Simmons. Yes he did a lot of scenery chewing but what made his performance so great was those turns from seemingly affable to raging control freak. You always had an inkling that something was bubbling under the surface without it being too obvious. His acting in the last twenty minutes was particularly great, from the bar scene onwards. His malevolence on the stage at the end was a joy to watch.

I don't think he is a stereotyped actor either. My first thought of him is as Juno's dad, where he is very loving and affable. I haven't seen Oz though, where I think he got his badass reputation

[Noodle Lizard]

The love interest was far from superfluous. It is the most important character beyond the main two. It shows the sociopathic dedication to his craft that Teller has. That character is needed to show how much he is willing to sacrifice.

Yes, I understand the plot device, which would be nice if we'd had more than one or two scenes with her, but we don't.  I bet that's not in the short.

I thought the direction and editing were brilliant. I would equate it more with Raging Bull than anything Fincher has done. I don't give a shit about continuity errors though, if that is what your piano comment was about.

It doesn't look much like Raging Bull, though.  I'm talking about that colour scheme.

And not just bad continuity, look at the scene where he first meets cinema girl.  That's almost Birdemic levels of bad.

I also disagree about Simmons. Yes he did a lot of scenery chewing but what made his performance so great was those turns from seemingly affable to raging control freak. You always had an inkling that something was bubbling under the surface without it being too obvious. His acting in the last twenty minutes was particularly great, from the bar scene onwards. His malevolence on the stage at the end was a joy to watch.

I think Kevin Spacey did a good job of that in Swimming With Sharks.  It's not a bad performance by any means, but I'd still give it to Ed Norton over him.

[phantom_power]

I don't think it needed any more scenes with the love interest than it had. It was there to set up a potential other life he could have where he might be happy that he shuts down because it doesn't serve his aims. What other scenes would it need? How else would he have conveyed that without it being distracting and even more superfluous?

As for the colour schemes, I don't have the technical knowledge of any of that stuff. I just know how a film makes me feel and the direction and editing really gave the music scenes and back and forth between Simmons and Teller and drive and kinetic energy that improved the film in my eyes

Spacey was great in Swimming With Sharks, the gold standard for that sort of devious sociopath. I think Simmons is on a par. Norton was great in Birdman as well and I wouldn't be disappointed if he won but I think Simmons has the edge

[Buttress]

I thought at the end he tried to rekindle the love interest but she had already gotten another boyfriend. Flabbergasted, he ham-fistedly (fistingly?) asks both her and her boyfriend to come to see him perform.

[phantom_power]

That was to fool you into thinking everything would work out nicely until Simmons fucked him over and sent him over the edge once and for all

[Don_Preston]

It is interesting a film about 'greatness in jazz' is not really about jazz at all, or music.

Yes. For that, watch Bird, Round Midnight or Ken Burns' Mo Better Blues.

[scarecrow]

The three problems I had with this otherwise enjoyable movie were:

1) I was always conscious of the director's intention to create suspense during the band practice scenes, to the point that it took me out of the moment. Any sense of there being anything at stake didn't feel very organic.

2) Simmons' profane dialogue, compared by Sight & Sound to Malcolm Tucker's, wasn't as funny or inventice as it could have been. It all felt pretty tossed off to me, and never really advanced beyond calling the kids 'faggots'. Wouldn't the movie have been better if there were some properly decent lines among his tirades?

3) Don't make a movie that depicts talking during movies as an acceptable thing to do. Have some self respect! Rififi, of all things.

[phantom_power]

1) I don't really understand this. I think you may be overthinking it

2) He isn't meant to be a Tucker-like witty bastard. He is just a rude, sociopathic cunt. To make him witty would be to make him too likeable

3) No arguments there

[Buelligan]

I absolutely loved this film. 

I don't agree about the love interest criticism, the point in my opinion was that there was no room (in Andrew's life, in the film).  And I'm not sure I agree about the film attempting to justify the appalling behaviour of Fletcher, wasn't the point rather that there was no evidence that Fletcher's ideas were correct?  That genius isn't manufactured?  That one cannot expect virtuosity to arrive on a regular and predictable basis?

An extremely good film, one that I'll definitely watch again.

[phantom_power]

I think the film made no judgement about Fletcher's methods. Teller's character had his own internal drive that led him to working with Fletcher, and might have led him to where he is at the end of the film anyway. I think the only point the film was making was that they were both as single-minded as each other and that was fairly toxic to both of them.

I don't think Fletcher's idea was that genius could be manufactured, more that it has to be nurtured and grown and protected against the idea of "good enough". The spark has to be there to start with and then Fletcher, in his view, could take them to their full potential using his aggressive methods