In the film "Whiplash," director Damien Chazelle takes us on Andrews journey to greatness. From his rise to fall, and to his ultimate recovery, Chazelle crafts a story of triumph for a character that isn't likeable in the slightest. Andrew's only redeeming quality is his motivation which, at some point, disappears. This quality is only redeemable if you can respect it, and the same goes for Fletcher—a character who also isn't likeable. However, for most of the film, you wouldn't think that these two characters are similar at all, yet they are. They both care about one thing; greatness. We could go on about the dichotomy of these two characters for a while, but I want to talk about something I noticed in the film's climax.
Throughout the entire film you hear Andrew, and the band, practice two songs. Mainly the song Caravan, with the other song being Whiplash. However, what you don't hear are the songs in their entirety. They are always pieces, usually the main riffs. If not that, you hear Andrew and the other drummers, practice their tempo. It isn't until the final ten minutes of the film that you get to hear one of the songs in their entirety. Oddly enough, the song that Andrew forces the band to play once he returns to the stage after being embarrassed by Fletcher, is Caravan. Not Whiplash. The film finishes by finally revealing the song it's been building since the beginning, and the film ends on the final snare hit of the song. Concluding the song at the same time as the film.
Now, I find that interesting. Mainly because this final reveal of the song is also when the final pieces of each character are revealed. Mainly in Andrew and Fletcher, but also in Andrew's father.
Let's start with the father. I believe the shot where Andrew is looking out the door to see the crowd walking in when he spots his father, isn't just to show us that his father showed up. I believe this shot is meant to show us his father's body language. He's slumped, tense, there isn't a smile on his face. He doesn't seem excited for Andrew, he seems disappointed. Why? Well, he's probably disappointed that after all Andrew went through, he's back working with the guy who caused him so much stress and emotional pain. I think this makes sense because Andrew's reaction to seeing his father changes from happiness to being unsure. But that's not going to stop Andrew, he's about to play the JVC, that's what his mind is set on. Back to the father; when Andrew is "laughed" off stage, his father runs to his aid and comforts him. However, right away Andrew turns back to the stage. Again, his father is worried, disappointed, what have you. You don't see his father until the last few minutes when Andrew is playing his heart out. You see him peering into the auditorium with a look of worry, but as he sees and hears Andrew playing his heart out, his worry turns to awe because now he understands what Andrew has been trying to do with Jazz. Throughout the film, you can tell that his father is supportive but he doesn't quite understand what Andrew is doing, this changes at that moment. I also find him peering into the auditorium interesting. He had enough time to make his way back to his seat, but instead he stood outside of the auditorium. I think he was scared of going back in there, scared of what might happen to his son. So he watches from behind a door. What do you think of that moment?
That's all I have for the father. Let's move on to Andrew and Fletcher. Before the JVC event, Andrew runs into Fletcher after watching him play in a jazz bar. Then, Fletcher has a monologue of sorts about Charlie Parker and he talks about the cymbal being thrown, and he completes that story by saying Charlie trained and came back better than ever, giving the performance of a lifetime. This is him laying out what's about to transpire in the final scene, at least, to some extent. It doesn't happen exactly like he says but this is how it goes. Fletcher convinces Andrew to play at the JVC, Andrew says sure and is excited. On the day of, Andrew is blind-sighted on stage when Fletcher calls for an unknown song to be played, a song which Andrew doesn't have the sheets for and isn't prepared to play. Andrew tries to play along with the song, but clearly, his drumming doesn't fit the part. Fletcher lets it slide because he wants Andrew to fail, he wants to get back at him. Then Andrew leaves the stage, embarrassed by Fletcher and now will never be a professional jazz drummer. However, after being comforted by his father, something changes in Andrew and he goes back to the stage. And, instead of letting Fletcher react to this, Andrew begins to play Caravan and he cues the bassist. Then, to not let himself get embarrassed, Fletcher cues the rest of the band and so he roles with it. Throughout the performance, Andrew doesn't let Fletcher react or say anything to him.
This is when things change. We've already seen Andrew change by going back on stage and sticking up to the man, but Andrew is actively controlling the band. He is leading the performance with his drumming. His drumming is so impressive that Fletcher realizes what is going on and his expression goes from "Fuck you Neeman," to awe, like Andrew's father. This kid is finally standing up to him and proving to him that he is great. Fletcher then helps Andrew finish his performance of a lifetime by guiding him and the band to a perfect finish. At this point, Fletcher isn't coaching or conducting, he's working in tandem with Andrew because he is witnessing greatness. I noted this change after the song dies down and Andrew keeps playing, Fletcher goes up to Andrew and instead of saying "Neeman, what are you doing?" In a negative tone, he says "Andrew, what are you doing man?" In a positive, and endearing way, as though he is genuinely curious as to why Andrew is still playing. His performance was great, he didn't need to keep going. But he does.
Andrew doing this shows to us that he is now incredibly confident in his abilities. Not by pre-determined thought, but by a decision he made in that instance. He made the choice to not give up. To not let someone else dictate whether he would be great or not. What's even crazier is that Fletcher notices this. And then the characters who, throughout the film, went from Fletcher holding power over Andrew to Andrew holding power over Fletcher, and then back and then forth. Until finally, both characters wind up on the same plane as the two work together to finish an incredible performance. In the end, Andrew still has respect for Fletcher and Fletcher himself gains respect for Andrew.
I love this film, it is one of my favourites and often it sits atop my Top 10. I'd love to know what you think of my analysis? Also, any constructive feedback is welcome.
Here's the ending from when Andrew returns to the stage:
Part 1: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZZY-Ytrw2co
Part 2: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2TAfvMn8_EQ
Here's when he gets "laughed" off stage: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S9itwiyTeNM
Sort by:
Best
Open comment sort options
Best
Top
New
Controversial
Old
Q&A
Fletcher finally gets what he wants - Torturing someone with talent into one of the greats, at any cost, just like his previous student that killed themselves.
Andrew's Dad's face says it all when he walks away - He's lost him.
This was all backed up by Chazelle as well, saying he didn't understand why people thought it was an ending where he overcomes the odds, or is uplifting like An Officer and a Gentleman. Chazelle said it was made to be a dark ending where Andrew ultimately loses and gives into his oppressor.
Fletcher doesn't respect Andrew at all - He knows he has another prodigy to exploit.
I actually did a break down of this shot-by-shot to show that this was Chazelle's point. Glad he confirmed it.
The shorthand version:
Watch the lighting in the scene and where the camera is. It's not about Andrew, it's about Fletcher. The final shots are Fletcher *controlling* Andrew's tempo and then Andrew waiting for Fletcher to tell him what to do. Fletcher NODS and that makes Andrew smile. It validates his entire purpose, he gives Andrew absolute control. This isn't a partnership. And then the final two shots are in order 1) Andrew jumping up into the air bathed in extremely bright golden light as if he's GOD and then 2) FLETCHER STILL IN HIGH KEY LIGHTING with the camera over his shoulder -- this is his point of view -- projecting the camera at Andrew. He CREATES Andrew.
Fletcher wins. Andrew's lost.
This is an extremely toxic and destructive relationship. Fletcher tries to destroy Andrew when he won't play on his terms. The only common ground they have is Andrew letting Fletcher take control of him and giving up everything else so that Fletcher can be famous through him.
I agree that it's a way of looking at it, and if you interpret it that way then yeah, it works! However, I don't interpret it that way and so I don't see it as a dark ending where Andrew loses and Fletcher wins. But that's my opinion and who knows what it's worth. And I don't disagree with your point, I think it makes sense, but I don't see it that way and I think the more positive and optimistic ending makes more sense — to me — than the dark, hopeless one that Chazelle and yourself suggest to be the reality.
Neither of us is wrong, even with the director's opinion. If someone were to suggest that Fletcher is actually a jazz-loving alien searching for the best jazz musician to take back to his home world, I'd say it's a bit of a stretch (although, some people can be pretty convincing with their wild theories). But we're both arguing probable interpretations of the film!
That's why I love discussing films because as long as your argument is sound, you can make a valid point.
I see what you're saying and Chazelle's reasoning is fine. This is just my interpretation of the film and based on my viewing, I respectfully disagree with Chazelle.
I don't agree that Andrew gives into his oppressor, the dialogue, the body language, the eyes. All this points to him standing up to Fletcher. But as the scene progresses he isn't standing up to Fletcher anymore he's just playing. This change happens when Andrew notices that Fletcher approves of what he's doing. I would, however, argue that Andrew's rediscovered admiration of Fletcher is a little rash, but from the beginning, we know how much he respects Fletcher. He respects him so much so that he doesn't care about what Fletcher did to him. So I will agree on that note. But I don't think Andrew loses. I believe that a person makes their own decisions, and Andrew chose to go back on stage to finally prove to Fletcher that he can be and will be, great. To me, that isn't a loss.
Maybe I'm just an optimist.
He dissolves his relationship with a girl that likes him, he gets himself removed from school, and his Father - His only backer to this point, knows it's now utterly hopeless.
If that's not a loss, I'm not sure what is.
I do love the film, because even though Chazelle says that's how he made it, an optimistic ending is entirely plausible to read into just because of how the final scene plays out. It's so good.
I don't think it's a matter of different readings by the viewer so much as it is a matter of different values of the viewer. Some viewers will see the pursuit of greatness at all costs as laudable while others will find it deplorable. The movie does a good job of laying out both perspectives without saying one is right and the other is wrong.
You say, "If that's not a loss, I'm not sure what is," but if those sacrifices lead to Andrew achieving true greatness, there are some who think that it will have been well worth it.
Well said!
I agree wholeheartedly. I don't necessarily agree with pursuing greatness at all cost, but if I put myself in Andrew's position, I can agree with what he does.
I think whether or not you think the ending is triumphant or not comes down to whether you believe that "greatness" in art is worth all these losses.
Personally, I'm split. If an artist like Kafka hadn't suffered all his life, we wouldn't have some of the greatest pieces of writing ever made. But, on the other hand, there might have been one more happy person on earth.
Is Andrew becoming an absolute Jazz legend worth destroying his personal life? To some people, maybe, yeah .
To those who want to be great, yeah, it's worth it. It takes failure to succeed. It's essential, and suffering to become great is part of it. Some people become great without suffering. But others become great because of suffering. So it's a mixed bag. Some will break, some will triumph, overall shit happens for a reason.
I don't agree that losing your relationship with your family is worth it to become great, but other things? Possibly. And Chazelle explores some of those other avenues in 'La La Land' with the mutual decision between Seb and Mia at the end of it all. Seb sacrifices his love for Mia so that she can achieve her dreams. That there is a sacrifice I would probably make if it meant that my significant other could reach their dreams. Because they deserve to and I would hate myself if I was the reason they never did. Much like Seb. Anyways, that's for a different thread.
That really depends, doesn't it. Sure he's lost everything, but he's a badass drummer now.
I guarantee he gets contracts from that performance alone, no matter what Fletcher says or does. Andrew's headed for greatness.
If that's not a win, I'm not sure what is.
That's how I feel! He lost in other aspects but won what he was pursuing.
Yeah, Andrew at heart is a loser. But he isn't a loser when it comes to jazz and being the greatest drummer. After all, that's what he really cares about. You could argue that when he gets removed from school and he quits drumming that he had lost, and then you add the fact that he is embarrassed by Fletcher, yeah, he lost. At that very moment when his father hugs him, he lost. But the reason I say he didn't lose, that he redeems himself, is the fact that he turns around and gives the performance of his life. He only cares about one thing, being the greatest jazz drummer. His final performance, to me, is a win in that regard.
He may lose in every other aspect, but he wins when it comes to jazz drumming.
But yeah, what a great movie with a masterful ending.
You disagree with the director on the intent of his own film?
I mean, I think he would know what he meant.
Well yeah, I do disagree because he gives the film a very ambiguous ending. He can state how the story is but he can't control my interpretation of the film. If he wanted people to see it as what he said, he wouldn't have left such an ambiguous ending. So yes, I do respectfully disagree with Chazelle. I watched the film, I made an analysis, and I interpreted it the way I felt was right, and that's okay. It doesn't mean that my interpretation of the film is correct, but it's mine and I think I argued it well.
Yeah I think that it’s fair to respectfully disagree with a director. I like how you said that it doesn’t mean your interpretation is correct. At the end of the day, you stated your interpretation and backed it up nicely. I think Chazelle would be delighted to know that you put so much thought into his movie. It may even make him consider a new way to view his film.
It was argued well, it’s just That Chazelle doesn’t seem to think that his ending is that ambiguous
the great part about art, though, is that once the artist releases their work to the world they no longer control it.
Art is supposed to be open to interpretation.
Huh. This is sooo good to read. (All of this actually). The film had been on my list for a long time. I watched it with a ‘friend’ who at the end insisted that the film “sucked”. I was very confused.. he said it was a ‘bad movie’ because of that ending scene. He argued that the “entire premise of the movie” was for Andrew to overcome what fletcher is doing to him. We see his life get thrown away for the sake of fletcher. And we want him to succeed.... well, sort of. Anyways. So when you look at the ending scene, he argued it as a failure because if the two ARE IN AGREEMENT (the 2 being Andrew and Fletcher), then the movie failed and Andrew did not overcome. By the same token, he argued, “why would fletcher be happy—this doesn’t get him back anything. He hates Andrew. So why would he go from trying to ‘trap him’ and ruin his jazz career to pushing him towards greatness”. He said that the smile on fletchers face at the end ruined the whole movie. So therefore, by these statements, “the movie was bad because the entire point was either fletcher to succeed or Andrew to succeed, the fact that they work together in the end ruins everything and shows bad direction in the directing. There shouldn’t be ambiguity like that at the end. Why would fletcher smile.. he shouldn’t smile”
Anyways.. it frustrated me a lot but I couldn’t quite put my thoughts into words. Any response to the above is welcome—I’m loving all of the different break downs and angles that people are taking on this.. Also, sorry for any errors or anything because I’m doing this on mobile. :)
Oh wow! So he dislikes this film for the reasons I really like it, crazy! By no means is this a bad film so your friend has quite an interesting reason for disliking it but we all have opinions though, so I respect his but dang, how could you dislike this movie!
I know, right?? Haha. Personally, I need to rewatch it and formulate my own thoughts.
Either way i see that as producing something greater than a human and worth it.
The dinner scene where his dad is talking about him winding up a dead at 30 from addiction is mirrored by his dad finally realizing in the end he has lost his son. There was actually a line in the script that the dad was supposed to say that summarizes the point but the director thought it was too obvious. That's why his dad looks so sad at the end. The director has said it's supposed to be a tragic ending and in his mind miles tellers character dies of a drug overdose in his late 20's.
The thing is, the director can say one thing and have it be fact, but they can’t control the way someone interprets the film. I don’t see that at all in the end. And I respectfully disagree with Chazelle. But that’s because I’m an optimist and as much as Andrew is kind of a shitty person, I want him to succeed. I think his father’s look is a lot more endearing than it is of hopelessness. But that’s my take and that also doesn’t mean that I am right. Because why leave the ending up for interpretation? If what Chazelle says about the ending is fact, then why did he leave it up for interpretation? I think the movie is far better with its ambiguous ending.
Visually, narratively, the director does a really good job of showing that Andrew gives into mania and self-destruction and it's really Fletcher that gets the glory. The way Fletcher is framed by the camera, Andrew letting Fletcher dictate the tempo, waiting for Fletcher to give him permission to finish playing, Fletcher bathed in glowing light, the camera switching to Fletcher's point of view while Fletcher remains completely in focus... this is Fletcher coming to power.
Yeah, you can definitely interpret it that way! I agree that perhaps Fletcher does get the glory, and he might even win. However, I see it as the two being on the same level, and Andrew is waiting for Fletcher's signal because he wants to work with him, not against him. So he waits for the cue and lets Fletcher help him with the solo because he respects Fletcher and he understands that Fletcher knows what he's doing. He's proven to him that he can do it, so at that moment he just wants to properly complete what he started. At least, that's how I see it. Like I've been saying, I could be wrong, but it's my interpretation so I think it's an okay assessment.
I know I'm late, but I interpreted that as him helping Andrew? He sees his commitment, that he didn't get discouraged and gives him the minimal "help" by CONDUCTING, which is his job, isn't it? Would love to be proven wrong if you see this, though!
I agree with your take and I feel that all these other “correct” interpretations being based off of camera angles and lighting absolutely telling us what to feel is unfair to the less media-literate people. I didn’t see his dad as hopelessly losing his son, I saw him watching his son do an incredible job and taking him seriously maybe for the first time. But I don’t know what I’m talking about because only half of the dad’s face was visible with the shadows in the foreground shot up close with a wide angle lens to evoke a sad feeling or something.
The classic poetry analysis: "no, it's just a blue curtain!"
I wonder how good Miles Teller is at drumming. Obviously, he looked tremendous in the film, but i know fuck all about drumming.
You think he had to learn how to drum? That must've taken forever.
I remember hearing that he learnt how to drum. Probably not as good as in the film, but enough to make it look good?
I found this article HERE. The guy who plays Carl is a real jazz drummer named, Nate Long, and was hired by Chazelle to both play Teller's rival and teach Teller how to play.
However, supposedly Teller had some musical experience having played Saxophone as a kid and then being a drummer in a rock band. But in the article, it says he had to learn from scratch because jazz drumming is much different than drumming in a rock band. He says they spent four or so hours a day for two months training.
Chazelle himself was a jazz drummer in his primary school days but gave it up because he knew he wouldn't make it so he focused on film instead. Supposedly Whiplash is based on his time in his high school studio band where he had a very intense instructor, so I think that's also why the film is so effective.
Actually, Miles had some experience as a rock drummer, but he was given lessons so that he could pull off being a jazz drummer.
Yep! As the article says and like I reiterated in my comment. He played rock but rock is vastly different from jazz. So he had to learn all over again!
Oh, my bad. Somehow I didn't read that bit in your comment.
I believe that they used a double for most of the drumming that didn't feature his face. He did learn drumming, but still there were difficult areas that a professional had to play.
Check my above comment, supposedly they used him for most!
Wow! I'd completely misunderstood the fact they hired someone to train him to mean something that it didn't. That's very impressive stuff.
Yeah, Chazelle doesn't play around! He wants to be as authentic as possible, and I seriously respect that about him.
Outstanding film, outstanding analysis. I watched this one just recently myself. One of my top films. Your analysis feels spot on. Over the course of the film, you find your sympathy for these characters see-sawing back and forth repeatedly. Neeman's likability stemming from motivation is definitely a thing and cratered after he quit drumming. But what surprised me was Fletcher's turnaround at the end of the film during the drum solo. After all the terrible things this character had done, I hadn't figured I would be able to redevelop my respect for him.
What I particularly like is when Fletcher fixes Andrew's snare after it falls during the solo. He stands there and watches him, his head nodding. At one point he puts his hand on his mouth and wipes it. He then helps Andrew bring the solo down and then build it back up. Another moment is when Andrew breaks for the final drumroll, the two look at each other and Fletcher nods and smiles at Andrew, and Andrew smiles back. Afterwards, Fletcher signals to finish and Andrew rolls that drum and hits those snares and we cut to black. Super powerful.
It's insane considering, in perspective, how low the stakes were for this movie that it managed to build up such dramatic tension and have me on the edge of my seat, and the moment Fletcher reacted when he realised he'd created his Buddy Rich.
If I recall correctly, didn't it fade to black the second Fletcher cued 'Whiplash'?
It really is incredible. That's why I love this movie so much, it's a story about a kid who wants to be a jazz drummer. At the root of it, it's very simple, but the characters are complex, the story is exciting, and the action is very real. All of that together makes a great story.
I just rewatched the clip so it goes: Andrew is drumming then he breaks, he and Fletcher lock eyes, Fletcher nods, Andrew smiles, Fletcher then cues the band, Andrew drums for 5 seconds and he hits both snares, it then cuts to black.
Whiplash is also one of my favorite movies, and I personally think it makes its themes and its "message" (if you can call it that) fairly clear. I'm not sure where OP and I agree and disagree, but I do feel like I at least seem to disagree with u/HoboWithABoner's take.
Whiplash is a movie about greatness and what it costs. There are no villains, there is no hero.
The central conflict in this movie is between the audience's perception of the value of good drumming and the main character's perception of the value of good drumming.
Neiman (who Fletcher incorrectly calls Neeman throughout the whole movie) wants to be a truly great drummer, and the movie is an examination of what something like that costs. Parallels are drawn throughout the film between Andrew's experiences and the stories of Charlie Parker, Jo Jones, and Buddy Rich. We're told this is what these people had to go through to be great, and yet we can't help but reel back and feel awful. We think that everything that Andrew's going through isn't worth it. We see Fletcher as a villain.
Andrew doesn't see Fletcher as a villain for the majority of the movie. After Andrew's horrific first day in studio band, after Fletcher physically assaults him and verbally harasses him, Andrew leaves with us being horrified by the monster that Fletcher is but Andrew defending him Fletcher to his father.
There are only two parts of the movie in which Andrew treats Fletcher as a bad guy. When he agrees to sign the statement against him, and after he's humiliated at the JVC and walks off. Both of these are Andrew's lowest moments in the film.
The reason I think the movie is brilliant is because the audience creates in their minds a different dramatic arc for the movie than the character is actually experiencing, and the reason the ending is so electrifying and leaves such an impact is because it's the finale that confronts the audience with this.
In the mind of most of the audience, the story goes something like this:
Andrew is a nice guy who likes to play the drums. He wants to be a great drummer and is willing to work hard for it. Before we can even get a real sense of how dedicated he is to drumming, we meet his dad, who loves him and provides for him and wants the best for him. We meet a girl, and they're cute together, and we want them to be happy with each other. We meet Fletcher, who abuses him. We see Andrew's relationships start to deteriorate. He breaks up with Nicole, who thinks (as most of us do) that Andrew's acting like an asshole. We see Andrew start shit at his family dinner.
His dad says, "Dying broke and drunk and full of heroin at the age of 34 is not exactly my idea of success." We understand this. We see the dark path of self abuse Andrew is going down.
Andrew says, "I'd rather die drunk, broke at 34 and have people at a dinner table talk about me than live to be rich and sober at 90 and nobody remembered who I was." This doesn't quite resonate the same way for most of us. When his uncle basically says "What about friends?" Andrew's response makes it sound like he just doesn't understand the true value of friendship and family.
When Fletcher comes back into Andrew's life, we feel a sense of dread.
When Andrew walks off the stage, humiliated, and his father comforts him, the movie could easily go to another ending. I think most audiences would be satisfied to see Andrew leave Fletcher behind. To learn to appreciate his dad more. Maybe he can still get back together with Nicole or find another and learn to find happiness and satisfaction with an ordinary life.
Most of the supporting cast in the movie, especially Andrew's father and Nicole, are in the movie to support this narrative. They see Andrew the way the audience sees him. Meek. Someone to help. They don't believe, as we don't believe, that Andrew is the next Buddy Rich or Charlie Parker.
The only characters in the movie that truly believe that Andrew has what it takes to be one of the greatest drummers of all time are Andrew and Fletcher. And we spend the whole movie thinking they're insane for it.
But they're not insane. They're right. The screenplay makes it especially explicit that in that drum solo finale, Andrew is playing drums as well as any human being has ever played. Beyond what should be possible. He is the new Buddy Rich. He is the new Charlie Parker.
His father is stunned, but not just because of a sense of having lost the battle against his son's dedication to drumming, but also because he never genuinely believed that his son was capable of something of that magnitude. He spends the entire film trying to soften the blow for what he sees as Andrew's inevitable failure and shortcoming -- never really imagining that his son could succeed in becoming the greatest drummer ever.
The message of the movie is this: This is what true greatness costs. It then leaves it up to you to determine whether that cost is worth it for you or not. For most of us it's not. But for someone like Andrew, it is, and the finale is a spectacular demonstration of why something like that could be truly worth it for the right person.
Fletcher isn't a villain. The script even raises the question when Andrew's drum solo kicks to its true heights:
Seeing the movie for a second time, knowing Andrew will become one of the greats by the end of the movie, the story is a very different narrative. It's about Andrew and Fletcher, who both want Andrew to be great and know what it'll take, both trying to do what is necessary but being plagued by doubt along along the way.
What the movie does so well is to show us a perspective outside of our own and legitimize it while also making its costs and detriments clear.
Bravo! Thank you so much for this write-up, and I agree with everything that you have said, especially the part about his father witnessing Andrew's greatness in the end. He may have lost his son, but now he fully understands what Andrew has been trying to do. That's what I was trying to say when I brought that up, you laid it out a lot clearer though.
I haven't read the script but seeing that piece of action you quoted is interesting and gives it a bit of a different angle. Maybe it's what Fletcher intended, but the action is clear, it's not for sure whether he did or didn't intend for Andrew to do what he did, but it's possible. That is why I don't agree that there is only one way of looking at this film, the way Chazelle has so brazenly stated. The film's ending is ambiguous and to me, it is left up to the viewer's interpretation depending on their values. Some take the father's side, some take Andrew's side. Some may even take Fletcher's side. But one thing is for certain, as a viewer, you don't know what happens in Andrew's life after the screen cuts to black and the credits roll. You can make up your own ending. Why else would the ending be so ambiguous if not to leave the viewer make up their own interpretation?
I never said my opinion was right, I just said that this was my analysis and I wanted some thoughts on it, so thank you for your response! I don't disagree with u/HoboWithABoner's assessment of the film, I disagree that they think it's the only assessment. Or at least, from how I interpreted their comments, it seems as though they believe this to be the only interpretation.
I just more closely associate my interpretation with Chazelle's. All good art should certainly be open to different interpretations, regardless of the creator's opinion.
And I agree with you! I just wasn't fond of the way you laid it out is all. But I agree, the creator had an opinion on the film and obviously when you watched it you came up with that interpretation as well, and then it was basically approved when you learnt that Chazelle felt the same way. And that is fine, I just believe it to be one of many possible interpretations!
Well to be clear, I wouldn't ever want to imply that I think there's only one way to interpret art and that I am the one who knows which way is correct. Even if Chazelle had made the ending less ambiguous, I would still say that movies are always up for interpretation.
Sort of off topic, but if you're at all interested in reading screenplays, I would definitely read this one. It's the most exciting, engrossing screenplay I've ever read. I had already seen the movie the movie when I read the script and my heart rate was still really shot up during that last scene.
From what I remember of interviews from around the time the movie came out, most of the cast themselves have said that they take the father's side, so to speak. It's a movie about what true greatness costs, but I think most of the people making it agreed that the cost wasn't worth it for them. Still, it's important to recognize it and not kid yourself into thinking you can become Buddy Rich without paying the price.
I agree with you here, and I also think that it's important to examine movies by their finished products. But just for the sake of showing what Chazelle's intent probably was, here's a bit from the script from during the drum solo:
I think it's strongly implied that Andrew will have a successful career in front of him. Whether he ends up dying from a heroin overdose at 34 remains to be seen.
My take on it is that the movie thinks there's nothing more that needs to be said on the topic. It's not about what Andrew's future will look like. Andrew doesn't care about that and neither does the movie. It's about what Andrew does care about: that the level of transcendence that Andrew reaches in the finale is possible, and it's incredible. It's valuable in itself. Valuable enough to make the context in which it had to happen irrelevant (for some).
That bit about "one" interpretation was directed at the other guy, not you friendo :) However, I am glad to know that you agree with that sentiment!
I definitely need to read the script, I am surprised that I haven't already.
That's interesting that people take the father's side. I honestly don't know what side I would take but if I had to it would be a split between Andrew and his Father because I agree that to become great takes great sacrifice, but I also agree that, that sacrifice might not be worth it.
Interesting. I'm glad he didn't include that in the film. I already got the sense that he would become a successful musician with the ending of the film.
And I totally agree with your last point. The film builds up to that finale and the finale in itself is more powerful than the rest of the film; however, the finale is enhanced because of the 80 minutes prior to the ending.
Typing "story is a very different narrative" is the same as saying "story is a very different story" or "narrative is a very different narrative".
A very nice 10 minute podcast discussing Whiplash by Steven Benedict:
http://www.stevenbenedict.ie/2015/01/whiplash/
Here’s an excerpt:
Good scripts are plausible. Great scripts incorporate metaphor at the same time. What Chazelle has done here is present Fletcher as real while at the same time allowing him to represent Andrew’s own inner being. In that respect, Fletcher is Andrew’s neurotic voice of self-doubt that plagues all performers whether they be tennis players, boxers, actors, or musicians. And it is that never-ending anxiety that propels the artist to push themselves farther, to practice harder, and keep their talents sharp.
Totally agree with that excerpt! Thank you so much for providing me with this link, I will listen to it and let you know what I think!
...Whiplash gets far more credit than it deserves imho.
The characterization is forced and the representation of jazz is weak, at best.
First of all, the story of Charlie Parker having the cymbal lauched at his head is apocryphal. It did not happen. Parker was "gonged" when he overextended himself at rehearsal. The drummer leaned on his cymbals and just buried him with noise. "Cutting" is the term that applies to a player who doesn't have the chops. They are left behind through the playing - not through agression. Jazz is an art that takes too much skill and intelligence to suffer fools as acharacterized by Fletcher.
The famous tempo scene is a joke.
No jazz musician would take that shit. At least none that would have reached that level. Jazz players are sophisticated, and anyone constantly shutting down a piece for being on top of the beat, or dragging, would be called out. "Get the fuck out of here." Instructor or not. Of course, the point is not the tempo, but the breaking of the individual. Again, very much not representative of the jazz world imho. The setting would be much better if it were Wall Street, lol.
I could go on and on about the flaws i see in Whiplash.
The finale is ridiculous. Conducting a drum solo! The finger puppet has been arranged to suit the master. Laughable. The boy has not reached greatness. He has learned anger, and has been disabled artistically.
Practicing till you blister/bleeds. yeh, great - (physically)can't play for the next week till that heals. Forgot a chart! Can't play. Silly. Any drummer worth his tuning key would be able to comp and cover the piece without a hitch to the listener. Forgets his sticks! wow. All the competitors are known to each other in those circles. You can easily borrow the gear. All the key plot hinges are weak, weak, weak.
I will have to watch it again sometime, i guess.
Inception is another film that has never hooked me. Three times i have tried - not my cup of tea. Whiplash will be the same, i imagine. And the tracking shots of the horns and such were pretty good. No different than the standard TV broadcasts of Ellington et.al. back in the day. Average film-making that is exploitative and forced.
These opinions are merely opinions.
Take what you need and leave the rest.
Anyway, i saw La La Land finally. Not bad at all. Multiple oscars good? nah. But i enjoyed it thanks to the two leads. And i liked the ending very much.
In the end Whiplash isn't a movie about Jazz. The musical aspect is merely a crutch to tell a story about whether or how much sacrifice is acceptable to reach greatness in any particular field. It could just as well have been about a student focusing on football or mathematics to tell that story. In the end, the director probably chose the field of Jazz because it was the most pleasing to him aesthetically or it conjured up some memory from his childhood.
Frankly, I think this kind of criticism misses the point somewhat. It's like nitpicking science fiction movies for being scientific nonsense - even high budget films that present themselves as hard(ish) sci fi like The Martian and Interstellar consistently get the physics laughably wrong and make compromises for the sake of storytelling.
On the other hand, as a physics student I think I can definitely understand how frustrating it must be to have something you're invested in be misrepresented to the eye of the general public. And I imagine this feeling is magnified by Whiplash practically being the only popular movie to deal with contemporary Jazz and getting it wrong.
Whiplash is certainly contrived in many ways, as most movies are, but does or should that matter to the general audience and even critics? Setting, plot, realism, those are all merely vehicles to convey certain themes and emotions to the viewer. I feel like plot contrivances are excusable if the film succeeds in that department. For me Whiplash does succeed, and that's why it deserves all the credit it has gotten in my opinion.
...a film must strive to create a world that allows its story to be appropiately told. This is not "The Princess Bride", rather an attempt at realism. Details matter. The world construction hinges on real people (Charlie Parker, Buddy Rich) and the intent is to convey jazz accurately.
It fails to do so on numerous levels.
The characters are flawed in the design. Thematically, the flaws of a character enable insight and catharsis in the viewer. These characters are paper thin in the writing. I am well aware of its great reputation, but the film flops in my viewing.
Nolan's "Inception" is another where i am at odds with the mainstream. All good.
A great drama must present its world authentically. Whiplash fails imho.
The themes can only be explored if accuracy is established. For example, the focus in speed in the playing is ludicrous. And the "not my tempo" scene is laughable. Practicing till you bleed is downright ludicrous.
You may well find these details irrelevent to the story.
But if a rocket scientist doesn't pay attention to a fuel load, the construct begins falling apart.
Whiplash is manipulative, shallow construction.
Its rep will lessen over time, i think.
Just words and opinion. Thanks for your reply.
Wdym disabled artistically? I don't know anything about music or jazz for that matter, so I can't comment on the inaccuracies you're pointing out. I am also a firm believer that details are cool, but for me, it gets the point across... I know nothing about jazz, though, it surprises me that there are inaccuracies, but maybe they felt like it was appropriate or enough for the story to be told?
This is a great article focusing on the ending of Whiplash
https://thefilmera.com/2018/08/17/film-frame-friday-the-coda-of-whiplash/
The end scene of Whiplash is more than just a series of callbacks. The pure adrenaline Andrew displays, and the ferocity of the drumming, is enough to make your hands clammy. Acting is more than just conveying words; body language is just as important and the performance between these two actors is award-worthy. The editing and camera work focusing on the physical aspects of their performances, and closeups of their sweaty faces, are perfect for this scene.
Totally agreed! Thanks for the link, I’ll check it out in the morning.
He lost a girlfriend in college so what? People lose relationships all time time for reasons less than greatness such as cheating, neglecting, not appreciating them etc. This is a tremendous personal achievement for Andrew. Let’s look at the alternative. What if he never went back on stage? What if he is left with that embarrassment? Then wouldn’t Fletcher really have won the last battle? Who knows what could or would happen to Andrew then. That alone could be enough to drive him to drink himself to death. He faced his fears and proved to himself and a man he admires that he can do it and has what it takes. He is fulfilling his dreams and finally pushes his insecurities and fear to the side and gains confidence and courage.