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.





Popular posts from this blog

Your Mickey Mouse is one big stupid dope!

Enemy Mine (1985) (SPOILERS) The essential dynamic of Enemy Mine – sworn enemies overcome their differences to become firm friends – was a well-ploughed one when it was made, such that it led to TV Tropes assuming, since edited, that it took its title from an existing phrase (Barry Longyear, author of the 1979 novella, made it up, inspired by the 1961 David Niven film The Best of Enemies ). The Film Yearbook Volume 5 opined that that Wolfgang Petersen’s picture “ lacks the gritty sauciness of Hell in the Pacific”; John Boorman’s WWII film stranded Lee Marvin and Toshiro Mifune on a desert island and had them first duking it out before becoming reluctant bedfellows. Perhaps germanely, both movies were box office flops.

If I do nothing else, I will convince them that Herbert Stempel knows what won the goddam Academy Award for Best goddam Picture of 1955. That’s what I’m going to accomplish.

Quiz Show (1994) (SPOILERS) Quiz Show perfectly encapsulates a certain brand of Best Picture nominee: the staid, respectable, diligent historical episode, a morality tale in response to which the Academy can nod their heads approvingly and discerningly, feeding as it does their own vainglorious self-image about how times and attitudes have changed, in part thanks to their own virtuousness. Robert Redford’s film about the 1950s Twenty-One quiz show scandals is immaculately made, boasts a notable cast and is guided by a strong screenplay from Paul Attanasio (who, on television, had just created the seminal Homicide: Life on the Streets ), but it lacks that something extra that pushes it into truly memorable territory.

No one can be told what the Matrix is. You have to see it for yourself.

The Matrix  (1999) (SPOILERS) Twenty years on, and the articles are on the defining nature of The Matrix are piling up, most of them touching on how its world has become a reality, or maybe always was one. At the time, its premise was engaging enough, but it was the sum total of the package that cast a spell – the bullet time, the fashions, the soundtrack, the comic book-as-live-action framing and styling – not to mention it being probably the first movie to embrace and reflect the burgeoning Internet ( Hackers doesn’t really count), and subsequently to really ride the crest of the DVD boom wave. And now? Now it’s still really, really good.

Say hello to the Scream Extractor.

Monsters, Inc. (2001) (SPOILERS) I was never the greatest fan of Monsters, Inc. , even before charges began to be levelled regarding its “true” subtext. I didn’t much care for the characters, and I particularly didn’t like the way Pixar’s directors injected their own parenting/ childhood nostalgia into their plots. Something that just seems to go on with their fare ad infinitum. Which means the Pixars I preferred tended to be the Brad Bird ones. You know, the alleged objectivist. Now, though, we learn Pixar has always been about the adrenochrome, so there’s no going back…

Piece by piece, the camel enters the couscous.

The Forgiven (2021) (SPOILERS) By this point, the differences between filmmaker John Michael McDonagh and his younger brother, filmmaker and playwright Martin McDonagh, are fairly clearly established. Both wear badges of irreverence and provocation in their writing, and a willingness to tackle – or take pot-shots – at bigger issues, ones that may find them dangling their toes in hot water. But Martin receives the lion’s share of the critical attention, while John is generally recognised as the slightly lesser light. Sure, some might mistake Seven Psychopaths for a John movie, and Calvary for a Martin one, but there’s a more flagrant sense of attention seeking in John’s work, and concomitantly less substance. The Forgiven is clearly aiming more in the expressly substantial vein of John’s earlier Calvary, but it ultimately bears the same kind of issues in delivery.

In a few moments, you will have an experience that will seem completely real. It will be the result of your subconscious fears transformed into your conscious awareness.

Brainstorm (1983) (SPOILERS) Might Brainstorm have been the next big thing – a ground-breaking, game-changing cinematic spectacle that had as far reaching consequences as Star Wars (special effects) or Avatar (3D) – if only Douglas Trumbull had been allowed to persevere with his patented “Showscan” process (70mm film photographed and projected at 60 frames per second)? I suspect not; one only has to look at the not-so-far-removed experiment of Ang Lee with Billy Lynn’s Long Halftime Walk , and how that went down like a bag of cold sick, to doubt that any innovation will necessarily catch on (although Trumbull at least had a narrative hinge on which to turn his “more real than real” imagery, whereas Lee’s pretty much boiled down to “because it was there”). Brainstorm ’s story is, though, like its title, possibly too cerebral, too much concerned with the consciousness and touting too little of the cloyingly affirmative that Bruce Rubin inevitably brings to his screenplays. T

Haven’t you ever heard of the healing power of laughter?

Batman (1989) (SPOILERS) There’s Jaws , there’s Star Wars , and then there’s Batman in terms of defining the modern blockbuster. Jaws ’ success was so profound, it changed the way movies were made and marketed. Batman’s marketing was so profound, it changed the way tentpoles would be perceived: as cash cows. Disney tried to reproduce the effect the following year with Dick Tracy , to markedly less enthusiastic response. None of this places Batman in the company of Jaws as a classic movie sold well, far from it. It just so happened to hit the spot. As Tim Burton put it, it was “ more of a cultural phenomenon than a great movie ”. It’s difficult to disagree with his verdict that the finished product (for that is what it is) is “ mainly boring ”. Now, of course, the Burton bat has been usurped by the Nolan incarnation (and soon the Snyder). They have some things in common. Both take the character seriously and favour a sombre tone, which was much more of shock to the

You ever heard the saying, “Don’t rob the bank across from the diner that has the best donuts in three counties”?

2 Guns (2013) (SPOILERS) Denzel Washington is such a reliable performer, that it can get a bit boring. You end up knowing every gesture or inflection in advance, whether he’s playing a good guy or a bad guy. And his films are generally at least half decent, so you end up seeing them. Even in Flight (or perhaps especially in Flight ; just watch him chugging down that vodka) where he’s giving it his Oscar-nominatable best, he seems too familiar. I think it may be because he’s an actor who is more effective the less he does. In 2 Guns he’s not doing less, but sometimes it seems like it. That’s because the last person I’d ever expect blows him off the screen; Mark Wahlberg.

Twenty dwarves took turns doing handstands on the carpet.

Bugsy (1991) (SPOILERS) Bugsy is very much a Warren Beatty vanity project (aren’t they all, even the ones that don’t seem that way on the surface?), to the extent of his playing a title character a decade and a half younger than him. As such, it makes sense that producer Warren’s choice of director wouldn’t be inclined to overshadow star Warren, but the effect is to end up with a movie that, for all its considerable merits (including a script from James Toback chock full of incident), never really feels quite focussed, that it’s destined to lead anywhere, even if we know where it’s going.

Do you know that the leading cause of death for beavers is falling trees?

The Interpreter (2005) Sydney Pollack’s final film returns to the conspiracy genre that served him well in both the 1970s ( Three Days of the Condor ) and the 1990s ( The Firm ). It also marks a return to Africa, but in a decidedly less romantic fashion than his 1985 Oscar winner. Unfortunately the result is a tepid, clichéd affair in which only the technical flourishes of its director have any merit. The film’s main claim to fame is that Universal received permission to film inside the United Nations headquarters. Accordingly, Pollack is predictably unquestioning in its admiration and respect for the organisation. It is no doubt also the reason that liberal crusader Sean Penn attached himself to what is otherwise a highly generic and non-Penn type of role. When it comes down to it, the argument rehearsed here of diplomacy over violent resolution is as banal as they come. That the UN is infallible moral arbiter of this process is never in any doubt. The cynicism