Skip to main content

Are you one of those single-tear people?

Whiplash
(2014)

(SPOILERS) Damien Chazelle’s awards season darling (in particular for its best supporting actor Oscar shoe-in) arrives laden with expectations beyond its own modest means. That it’s unable to meet them shouldn’t necessarily mark this out as typical of darlings of such ceremonies, where voters are seduced by surface detail, or an idea rather than actual quality. Whiplash wears its love and understanding of music on its sleeve, whereas, for example, science whizz flicks The Theory of Everything and The Intimidation Game are left looking tone deaf in respect of their own specialised subjects. Where the film flounders is redirecting a tale that unfolds, in the first part, in a loose but compelling fashion into one that is overly schematic.


Like the eccentric Frank, Whiplash is a film about the gulf between aspiration and success. But where Frank considers the elusiveness of the creative urge, and the responses it kindles in those without it, Whiplash posits, through its tutor-Nazi, that talent is only truly actualised through hard, harsh, painful, graft; blood, sweat, tears and most probably vomit and entrails to boot.


Chazelle’s picture has an autobiographical element; as a member of the Princeton High School jazz band, he experienced both an overbearing instructor and a deleteriously competitive atmosphere. He has (understandably) amped up the sheer venom and animosity of Shaffer Conservatory music school teacher Terence Fletcher (J K Simmons). He becomes a malevolent monster, raining down blows both verbal and physical upon his students. It’s more dramatic that way, and there are more fireworks. It’s difficult to believe, however, that someone partial to such wanton abuse would have gone unchecked for very long in the current system.


Simmons is a mesmerising presence; chrome-domed, dressed in black, his eyes and neck veins bulging with each new splenetic character assassination. He’s Fame’s Mr Shorofsky caught in a teleportation machine with R Lee Ermy’s Full Metal Jacket drill instructor. The challenge Chazelle sets himself is take the audience from mystification at why anybody would willingly undergo such vile treatment (probably not so difficult to process if you’ve seen Ramsay’s Kitchen Nightmares) to understanding the students’ perspective (namely Mile Teller’s dedicated drummer Andrew Neiman), whereby they really buy into the bullshit philosophy Fletcher spouts (“There are no two words in the English language more harmful than, ‘Good job’”).


Indeed, Chazelle appears torn by the sheer charisma of his creation. In some respects, the movie should have finished when Andrew, having fully lapped up Fletcher’s (terribly obvious and low-brow) psychological manipulation, crashes his rental car en route to a performance. Bloodied and concussed, he reaches the venue but is unable to deliver in his broken state. Fletcher tells him he’s through, and in an uncontrollable rage Andrew attacks him, giving the bully the beating he deserves (at least, in cathartic terms). Andrew has surrendered everything to become one of Fletcher’s sheep. He takes the tutor’s abusive references to his absent mother and complacent but well-meaning father (Paul Reiser) on the chin. He breaks off with the cute girl from the cinema popcorn counter (Melissa Benoist), as she will be a distraction from his work.


Andrew dedicates himself to breaking point, his fingers bleeding, barely able to hold his drumsticks, his body contorted into the unbecoming expression of one stroking out, or in the grip of a monumentally difficult bowel movement. We wonder throughout, is this worth it? And yet, when there are slivers of recognition, we are with him in his achievement. So much so that we rebuke him for allowing that smile of triumph, or the arrogance of his supposed superiority over his peers, not only because such pride comes before a fall, but also because it will unleash the next cruel test from Fletcher.


Chazelle shoots this close-quarter combat with an eye on maximum tension, and the practice sessions are gripping experiences. There’s nothing flashy about his technique, but he has the rhythmic savvy to know how to best manipulate a scene to deliver the intended message, even when (or especially when) there’s no actual talking involved.  Occasionally, he falls into repetition a little too much, with the close-ups of battle scars and bloody plasters and ice buckets, but even that serves the manner in which he’s marrying the musical form with the visual.


It’s all good, basically, until the third act shift, post Andrew’s meltdown and expulsion. At the instigation of his father and a lawyer, who cites an earlier incident in which an ex-student committed suicide, his mental health issues brought on by Fletcher’s methods, Andrew agrees to sign a complaint against Fletcher. Fletcher loses his job, while Andrew gives up drumming. Then, one day, Andrew sees Fletcher when the latter is performing in a club. Fletcher offers him a spot in his band for a festival concert. We can see where this is going, even if Andrew is oblivious.


What it becomes, as Andrew is inevitably humiliated but then rallies, returning to the stage and taking control with an improvised jazz drum solo, to the initial fury and then the thrill of Fletcher, is a vindication of teacher’s techniques. The picture veers into heightened wish fulfilment fantasy, losing its hitherto slender threat of believability. In an earlier conversation, Fletcher admits that his wrathful method, inspired by a cymbal thrown at Charlie Parker (the experience inspired him to become the great he was) never did produce someone of such musical stature. This appears to be the waited-for vilification of Fletcher’s merciless-to-become-a-master approach. Yet the finale retreats, less certain, wrapping his modus operandi in a bow and suggesting maybe there’s something to it after all; Andrew has broken on through to the other side and become a crazy cool hepcat.


It’s a disappointingly neat and even-handed resolution. The hard-pressed student will go on, in his dotage, to pronounce Fletcher the greatest Yoda he ever had, while Fletcher can take comfort in the certitude that someone made his unrefined madness worthwhile. Is it justified, treating others like dirt if it makes them better artists? In the finality, Chazelle appears to offer a tentative yes. Even daddy Reiser gets to see his son pass into the realm of wondrous performance. Can it be argued that such sadism has its place? As is pointed out during a heated dinner table conversation, the example held up for the musical fraternity, Parker, was dead at 34. Perhaps then, if one’s goal is to live fast, die young, and make an impression. Maybe Chazelle intended to leave his audience with more of an open debate than he does. If so, he will surely have a surer grip on theme when his sophomore effort comes around.


Whiplash is one of those Best Picture contenders that has failed to catch on, regardless of the acclaim. The reason is probably that it’s a difficult sell, despite elements that would usually be seen to engage (the against-the-odds battle for success, beloved of the sports movie).  I’ve heard viewers post-the-fact voice the doubt that they would have liked it, and the raves appear to have been unpersuasive in that regard. Chazelle has gone from Black List to Sundance short to full-fledged feature, and has been paid off with five Oscar nominations. Does the film deserve them? Well, both Simmons and new Fantastic Four-er Teller are outstanding. Chazelle’s direction is invigorating. It’s only in the area of his nominated Adapted Screenplay that he flounders (although, he ends up near the top of the quintet there; he would be near the bottom if he had qualified for the Original Screenplay roll as most agree he should).  Should it have been nominated for Best Picture? No, but Chazelle’s feature is in good company in that respect this year. Whiplash is mostly an immersive, driven piece of work, but the final act, the stuff of Oscar-pleasing gestures, ultimately detracts from its many strengths.





Comments

Popular posts from this blog

If you never do anything, you never become anyone.

An Education (2009)
Carey Mulligan deserves all the attention she received for her central performance, and the depiction of the ‘60s is commendably subdued. I worried there was going to be a full-blown music montage sequence at the climax that undid all the good work, but thankfully it was fairly low key. 

Alfred Molina and Olivia Williams are especially strong in the supporting roles, and it's fortunate for credibility’s sake that that Orlando Bloom had to drop out and Dominic Cooper replaced him.
***1/2

She writes Twilight fan fiction.

Vampire Academy (2014)
My willingness to give writer Daniel Waters some slack on the grounds of early glories sometimes pays off (Sex and Death 101) and sometimes, as with this messy and indistinct Young Adult adaptation, it doesn’t. If Vampire Academy plods along as a less than innovative smart-mouthed Buffy rip-off that might be because, if you added vampires to Heathers, you would probably get something not so far from the world of Joss Whedon. Unfortunately inspiration is a low ebb throughout, not helped any by tepid direction from Daniel’s sometimes-reliable brother Mark and a couple of hopelessly plankish leads who do their best to dampen down any wit that occasionally attempts to surface.

I can only presume there’s a never-ending pile of Young Adult fiction poised for big screen failure, all of it comprising multi-novel storylines just begging for a moment in the Sun. Every time an adaptation crashes and burns (and the odds are that they will) another one rises, hydra-like, hoping…

Can you close off your feelings so you don’t get crippled by the moral ambiguity of your violent actions?

Spider-Man Worst to Best

I should have mailed it to the Marx Brothers.

Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade (1989)
When your hero(es) ride off into the sunset at the end of a film, it’s usually a pretty clear indication that a line is being drawn under their adventures. Sure, rumours surfaced during the ‘90s of various prospective screenplays for a fourth outing for the whip-cracking archeologist. But I’m dubious anyone really expected it to happen. There seemed to be a natural finality to Last Crusade that made the announcement of his 2007 return nostalgically welcome but otherwise unwarranted. That it turned out so tepid merely seemed like confirmation of what we already knew; Indy’s time was past.

Do you read Sutter Cane?

In the Mouth of Madness (1994)
(SPOILERS) The concluding chapter of John Carpenter’s unofficial Apocalypse Trilogy (preceded by The Thing and Prince of Darkness) is also, sadly, his last great movie. Indeed, it stands apart in the qualitative wilderness that beset him during the ‘90s (not for want of output). Michael De Luca’s screenplay had been doing the rounds since the ‘80s, even turned down by Carpenter at one point, and it proves ideal fodder for the director, bringing out the best in him. Even cinematographer Gary K Kibbe seems inspired enough to rise to the occasion. It could do without the chugging rawk soundtrack, perhaps, but then, that was increasingly where Carpenter’s interests resided (as opposed to making decent movies).

Everyone who had a talent for it lived happily ever after.

Empire 30:  Favourite Films of the Last 30 Years
Empire’s readers’ poll to celebrate its thirtieth birthday – a request for the ultimate thirty films of the last thirty years, one per year from 1989 – required a bit of thought, particularly since they weren’t just limiting it to your annual favourite (“These can be the films that impressed you the most, the ones that stuck with you, that brought you joy, or came to you at just the right time”). Also – since the question was asked on Twitter, although I don’t know how rigorous they’re being; does it apply to general release, or does it include first film festival showings? – they’re talking UK release dates, rather than US, calling for that extra modicum of mulling. To provide more variety, I opted to limit myself to just one film per director; otherwise, my thirty would have been top heavy with, at very least, Coen Brothers movies. So here’s they are, with runners-up and reasoning:

You're always sorry, Charles, and there's always a speech, but nobody cares anymore.

X-Men: Dark Phoenix (2019)
(SPOILERS) To credit its Rotten Tomatoes score (22%), you’d think X-Men: Dark Phoenix was a travesty that besmirched the name of all good and decent (read: MCU proper) superhero movies, or even last week’s underwhelming creature feature (Godzilla: King of Monsters has somehow reached 40%, despite being a lesser beast in every respect). Is the movie’s fate a self-fulfilling prophecy, what with delayed release dates and extensively reported reshoots? Were critics castigating a fait accompli turkey without giving it a chance? That would be presupposing they’re all sheep, though, and in fairness, other supposed write-offs havecome back from such a brink in the past (World War Z). Whatever the feelings of the majority, Dark Phoenix is actually a mostly okay (twelfth) instalment in the X-franchise – it’s exactly what you’d expect from an X-Men movie at this point, one without any real mojo left and a variable cast struggling to pull its weight. The third act is a bi…

What, you're going to walk in there like it's the commie Disneyland or something?

Stranger Things 3 (2019)
(SPOILERS) It’s very clear by this point that Stranger Things isn’t going to serve up any surprises. It’s operating according to a strict formula, one requiring the opening of the portal to the Upside Down every season and an attendant demagorgon derivative threat to leak through, only to be stymied at the last moment by our valorous team. It’s an ‘80s sequel cycle through and through, and if you’re happy with it functioning exclusively on that level, complete with a sometimes overpowering (over)dose of nostalgia references, this latest season will likely strike you as just the ticket.

You want to investigate me, roll the dice and take your chances.

A Few Good Men (1992)
(SPOILERS) Aaron Sorkin has penned a few good manuscripts in his time, but A Few Good Men, despite being inspired by an actual incident (one related to him by his sister, an army lawyer on a case at the time), falls squarely into the realm of watchable but formulaic. I’m not sure I’d revisited the entire movie since seeing it at the cinema, but my reaction is largely the same: that it’s about as impressively mounted and star-studded as Hollywood gets, but it’s ultimately a rather empty courtroom drama.

Why would I turn into a filing cabinet?

Captain Marvel (2019)
(SPOILERS) All superhero movies are formulaic to a greater or lesser degree. Mostly greater. The key to an actually great one – or just a pretty good one – is making that a virtue, rather than something you’re conscious of limiting the whole exercise. The irony of the last two stand-alone MCU pictures is that, while attempting to bring somewhat down-the-line progressive cachet to the series, they’ve delivered rather pedestrian results. Of course, that didn’t dim Black Panther’s cultural cachet (and what do I know, swathes of people also profess to loving it), and Captain Marvel has hit half a billion in its first few days – it seems that, unless you’re poor unloved Ant-Man, an easy $1bn is the new $700m for the MCU – but neither’s protagonist really made that all-important iconic impact.