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

How would Horatio Alger have handled this situation?

Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas (1998) (SPOILERS) Gilliam’s last great movie – The Zero Theorem (2013) is definitely underrated, but I don’t think it’s that underrated – Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas could easily have been too much. At times it is, but in such instances, intentionally so. The combination of a visual stylist and Hunter S Thompson’s embellished, propulsive turn of phrase turns out, for the most part, to be a cosmically aligned affair, embracing the anarchic abandon of Raoul Duke and Doctor Gonzo’s Las Vegas debauch while contriving to pull back at crucial junctures in order to engender a perspective on all this hedonism. Would Alex Cox, who exited stage left, making way for the Python, have produced something interesting? I suspect, ironically, he would have diluted Thompson in favour of whatever commentary preoccupied him at the time (indeed, Johnny Depp said as much: “ Cox had this great material to work with and he took it and he added his own stuff to it ”). Plus

He’s so persistent! He always gets his man.

Speed (1994) (SPOILERS) It must have been a couple of decades since I last viewed Speed all the way through, so it’s pleasing to confirm that it holds up. Sure, Jan de Bont’s debut as a director can’t compete with the work of John McTiernan, for whom he acted as cinematographer and who recommended de Bont when he passed on the picture, but he nevertheless does a more than competent work. Which makes his later turkeys all the more tragic. And Keanu and Sandra Bullock display the kind of effortless chemistry you can’t put a price tag on. And then there’s Dennis Hopper, having a great old sober-but-still-looning time.

To survive a war, you gotta become war.

Rambo: First Blood Part II (1985) (SPOILERS?) I’d like to say it’s mystifying that a film so bereft of merit as Rambo: First Blood Part II could have finished up the second biggest hit of 1985. It wouldn’t be as bad if it was, at minimum, a solid action movie, rather than an interminable bore. But the movie struck a chord somewhere, somehow. As much as the most successful picture of that year, Back to the Future , could be seen to suggest moviegoers do actually have really good taste, Rambo rather sends a message about how extensively regressive themes were embedding themselves in Reaganite, conservative ‘80s cinema (to be fair, this is something one can also read into Back to the Future ), be those ones of ill-conceived nostalgia or simple-minded jingoism, notional superiority and might. The difference between Stallone and Arnie movies starts right here; self-awareness. Audiences may have watched R ambo in the same way they would a Schwarzenegger picture, but I’m

But everything is wonderful. We are in Paris.

Cold War (2018) (SPOILERS) Pawel Pawlikowski’s elliptical tale – you can’t discuss Cold War without saying “elliptical” at least once – of frustrated love charts a course that almost seems to be a caricature of a certain brand of self-congratulatorily tragic European cinema. It was, it seems “ loosely inspired ” by his parents (I suspect I see where the looseness comes in), but there’s a sense of calculation to the progression of this love story against an inescapable political backdrop that rather diminishes it.

You were a few blocks away? What’d you see it with, a telescope?

The Eyes of Laura Mars (1978) (SPOILERS) John Carpenter’s first serial-killer screenplay to get made, The Eyes of Laura Mars came out nearly three months before Halloween. You know, the movie that made the director’s name. And then some. He wasn’t best pleased with the results of The Eyes of Laura Mars, which ended up co-credited to David Zelag Goodman ( Straw Dogs , Logan’s Run ) as part of an attempt by producer Jon Peters to manufacture a star vehicle for then-belle Barbra Streisand: “ The original script was very good, I thought. But it got shat upon ”. Which isn’t sour grapes on Carpenter’s part. The finished movie bears ready evidence of such tampering, not least in the reveal of the killer (different in Carpenter’s conception). Its best features are the so-uncleanly-you-can-taste-it 70s New York milieu and the guest cast, but even as an early example of the sub-genre, it’s burdened by all the failings inherit with this kind of fare.

No matter how innocent you are, or how hard you try, they’ll find you guilty.

The Wrong Man (1956) (SPOILERS) I hate to say it, but old Truffaut called it right on this one. More often than not showing obeisance to the might of Hitchcock during his career-spanning interview, the French critic turned director was surprisingly blunt when it came to The Wrong Man . He told Hitch “ your style, which has found its perfection in the fiction area, happens to be in total conflict with the aesthetics of the documentary and that contradiction is apparent throughout the picture ”. There’s also another, connected issue with this, one Hitch acknowledged: too much fidelity to the true story upon which the film is based.

The game is rigged, and it does not reward people who play by the rules.

Hustlers (2019) (SPOILERS) Sold as a female Goodfellas – to the extent that the producers had Scorsese in mind – this strippers-and-crime tale is actually a big, glossy puff piece, closer to Todd Phillips as fashioned by Lorene Scarfia. There are some attractive performances in Hustlers, notably from Constance Wu, but for all its “progressive” women work male objectification to their advantage posturing, it’s incredibly traditional and conservative deep down.

What do they do, sing madrigals?

The Singing Detective (2003) Icon’s remake of the 1986 BBC serial, from a screenplay by Dennis Potter himself. The Singing Detective fares less well than Icon’s later adaptation of Edge of Darkness , even though it’s probably more faithful to Potter’s original. Perhaps the fault lies in the compression of six episodes into a feature running a quarter of that time, but the noir fantasy and childhood flashbacks fail to engage, and if the hospital reality scans better, it too suffers eventually.

I don't like the way Teddy Roosevelt is looking at me.

North by Northwest (1959) (SPOILERS) North by Northwest gets a lot of attention as a progenitor of the Bond formula, but that’s giving it far too little credit. Really, it’s the first modern blockbuster, paving the way for hundreds of slipshod, loosely plotted action movies built around set pieces rather than expertly devised narratives. That it delivers, and delivers so effortlessly, is a testament to Hitchcock, to writer Ernest Lehmann, and to a cast who make the entire implausible exercise such a delight.

You don’t know anything about this man, and he knows everything about you.

The Man Who Knew Too Much (1956) (SPOILERS) Hitchcock’s two-decades-later remake of his British original. It’s undoubtedly the better-known version, but as I noted in my review of the 1934 film, it is very far from the “ far superior ” production Truffaut tried to sell the director on during their interviews. Hitchcock would only be drawn – in typically quotable style – that “ the first version is the work of a talented amateur and the second was made by a professional ”. For which, read a young, creatively fired director versus one clinically going through the motions, occasionally inspired by a shot or sequence but mostly lacking the will or drive that made the first The Man Who Knew Too Much such a pleasure from beginning to end.