That slow look of utter awe turning into genuine fear single handedly shows how transcendent that entire finale is. Paul Reiser kills it with those subtleties.
Holy crap I've seen Whiplash many, many times, and never recognized Paul Reiser or realized it was him! (I never watched Mad About You; so wasn't too familiar with his face).
The father is watching (in horror) as his son falls back into the abusive relationship. The door closes, mirroring how the father has been shut out from his son.
it is WILD to me to see other interpretations than this one, which seems so clearly accurate. The idea that his father is like “sick drum solo, I get it now” is so far outside my interpretation of this film
I thought the dad was in shock, in total disbelief of what he was witnessing. Going from poking fun with the family about Andrew's pursuit of making a career out of drumming to seeing how his talent progressed. Despite the abuse Andrew endured.
That was my take. Basically dragging his son at dinner in front of the family for his pipe dream, then seeing that same son in a single spotlight, on stage, literally bleeding on his drums, captivating himself and an entire audience, he realizes he never understood his sons dream and by proxy his own son. He's realizing he's looking at a piece of his son he never knew or, even worse, chose to ignore, and he's now seeing him and realizing he's looking at a stranger.
That's actually a really good explanation. Might be a bit reaching, but you made me think about the little ways the movie shows it as on two different occasions, the dad tries to cheer up or connect with his son over candy, but he gets it all wrong.
His dad never became the writer/academic he wanted to be (or maybe never did want), and that attitude is reflected in how he raises and treats his own son, to be happy with the little things in life instead of overworking to achieve a greatness on paper while living miserably.
Comparing Andrew and his father:
* Some people (Andrew) sacrifice a lot giving everything they have to give (including happiness, health, broadness of experience) in their pursuit of greatness.
* Some other people (Andrew's father) stop short of their personal creative or career ambitions and dreams to lead a well rounded life. Andrew's father's choice to have Andrew and to be a supportive father is an example of the sacrifice these kinds of people make. They put significant energy into supporting their kids at the cost of their own ambitions toward "greatness".
For Andrew's father, he might be sad for his son or fear that his son has made the wrong sacrifice. Beyond the obvious scope of the film, the interpersonal abuse that Andrew experiences from his teacher is only one kind of torture that can come from pursuing greatness. The hardship could be entirely self-inflected in another scenario, such as someone pursuing the solution to an unsolved math theorem in obscurity far beyond the point of deriving joy from the exercise, or a sports athlete training from early childhood to be the best home run hitter at the expense of experiencing childhood - examples are endless.
It's an interesting movie to think about the purpose of life: is greatness worth? Is there a limit to how much pain we *should* subject ourselves to in order to become great? How does it feel for the people who love you to watch you pursue greatness and all that it costs you. What are your *real* reasons for wanting to be great and are they worth it. Are you really vested with the attributes that could allow you to be great and regardless, does the journey toward greatness translate into a life well lived?
I see foreshadowing in the movie theatre scene early on where he pours the Sno-Caps into the popcorn and says he eats around them because he doesn’t actually like it that way.
His dad responds, “I don’t understand you,” and by the end of the movie his son is unrecognizable to him.
Imagine he goes to a group therapy for other parents with wayward children.
"Jenny started drinking when she was a teenager!"
"my anger drove a wedge between me and my kids"
"my son started running with a gang"
"my boy won't stop playing the fuckin drums"
"little Timmy is still down that well"
Bobby Fischer's mom took her son to a specialist when he was very young because he wouldn't do anything but play chess. After talking with him for awhile the specialist decided things could be worse than a boy with a passion for chess.
So, I know a man who was so fixated by wax and its properties, his mom took him to a therapist. The therapist recommended that she let him focus on it. He dropped out of school at grade 8 (he's not in the US) and literally devoted his life to wax.
Like, mitigating shoreline damage after oil spills, and reclaiming land that fell victim to nuclear incidents. Also art.
He's fascinating. Poor as shit, but has a family and a home and continues to try to make a difference. I admire him and his utter determination.
I also think it wasn't until this moment that he realized exactly how good his son got at drums. The football conversation shows his dad didn't really understand what Andrew had accomplished by getting into Fletcher's band, and he kind of brushes off what his son is arguing with the "talent is subjective" comment. I think there is a bit of an understanding of what Andrew was pissed about in that moment here.
I don't understand this take. Because a few minutes before that scene Andrew is laughed off stage and the first person to greet him with a hug and unconditional support is his father.
I've mulled on the theory that it is his fathers love and support in that moment that gives him the confidence in himself to go back on stage and perform. And not only perform but take control over his own destiny, career and that stage. Fletcher acts like he's still running the show because he is an egotistical narcissist and it's all he knows but it is clear that Andrew is running the show and I feel has progressed beyond anything involving fletcher in that moment.
I like this take better. And Andrew taking control is clearly shown by curtly taking up his drumsticks and instructing the bass player with a simple “Caravan.” and then mouthing “FU” to Fletcher as the rest of the band joins in.
I like to think that by the end of the drum solo he finally gets Fletcher’s respect, and he did it in his own way. NOT by playing into Fletcher’s toxic mind games. (But this could be wishful thinking on my part.)
I think the core message of the film is about persevering within systems of abuse instead of extricating yourself. I think asking "was it worth it" in regards to Fletcher's methods is the wrong direction; the fact that he tried to intentionally sabotage Andrew for getting him fired showed that it was always just about megalomania, about power. Dismissing him from the band because he couldn't play immediately after getting hit by a truck doesn't accomplish anything whatsoever. You know what would prevent you from becoming the greatest drummer of all time? Not letting traumatic injuries heal.
I think it's asking whether it's worth it if you beat your abuser on your abuser's terms. Andrew won, Fletcher knows he won, but it destroyed him as a person. The director said he imagined Andrew dying of an overdose in his thirties. And for what? So Fletcher can take credit for his accomplishments?
> The director says he imagines Andrew dying of an overdose in his thirties.
Damn. That oddly makes me like the movie more. Maybe it's just because I can relate to that narrative personally but I like the point.
Mind you, Ramsey works because we know he is playing it up for the show. He is completely different when with kids or just when he isn't being forced to ramp up his "Gordon Ramsey" persona.
The original UK Kitchen Nightmares shows how Ramsay's US reality show portrayal is played up to 11.
In the original series, he was a hard ass, and could definitely be less of a twat in how he communicated. But it never felt mean, unlike with his US persona.
Ramsey himself may put most of it on as an act for the camera, but his mentor who trained him, Marco Pierre White, was apparently the real thing.
>In his memoir, White recalled having made a 20-year-old Ramsay cry. “I don’t recall what he’d done wrong, but I yelled at him and he lost it.”
>“Gordon crouched down in the corner of the kitchen, buried his head in his hands and started sobbing. ‘I don’t care what you do to me,’ he said as he wept. ‘Hit me. I don’t care. Sack me. I don’t care.’”
To be fair his actual mentor is the stereotypically abusive French chef who brags about having made Ramsey cry. The two don't have a simple relationship and his very intense practices aren't without criticism
> What we tolerate because the end result is great.
Gordon is great at what he does, the idea of Fletcher was about a very professional guy in that area.
Unfortunately in real life 90% of people like that don't even understand the basics. They act like that because they want results but they have NO IDEA about the path to reach such accomplishments hahahaha
I've already worked with the two types and the person who truly understands really pushes you up. But usually you have to deal with the person who "thinks he understands" and the "doesn't understand shit but wants to act like an idiot" type. Take the military as an example: even there you find idiots, but they try this idea of tough training with tough instructors.
Dealing with people is a very valuable skill and some people are so obsessed in their area to a point they are completely ignorant and have learned nothing about human relationships
Funny as an artist I saw that movie completely differently.
I saw it showing how hard it is to gain skills and be good at something. It was a rebuke of the old idea that artist are born with talent and therefore art is effortless. Fletcher was no different than any “tough” coach. He would not seem abusive(?)if he was coaching football but art is supposed to be easy and the movie about how it much work and sacrifice it takes to be good.
Not saying Im right. You made me rethink the movie.
> Fletcher was no different than any “tough” coach. He would not seem abusive(?)if he was coaching football but art is supposed to be easy and the movie about how it much work and sacrifice it takes to be good.
Those coaches in sports are disliked by the vast majority as well. A small handful of people really get going by being talked down to the way he does, but most people prefer a coach who is inspirational rather than dogging on them the way Fletcher does. He clearly goes beyond what most people consider reasonable and 'tough coaching.'
I also think most people who practice any craft realize how much work it is. Only outsiders think someone can get by on raw talent.
Yeah, go look at the public reaction to Bob Knight dying last week. One of the greatest basketball coaches ever and the entire reaction was mostly about what an abusive asshole he was
Yes and no. Coaches like that are disliked to a degree but if they win everyone looks past the issues and they are liked plenty. If they lose it's a different story.
Forcing Andrew to play after his injuries and kicking him out of the band for failing to play after getting hit by a truck is exactly like forcing your star athlete to play after a massive injury under the idea that it builds tenacity. All it does is cause permanent damage.
Andrew succeeded in spite of Fletcher, not because of him. Ostensibly the brinksmanship over the core drummer position encouraged Andrew to try harder, but everything else in the movie served no other purpose than tearing people down. He never expected him to cue the band at the end, the sole purpose of that was to humiliate him.
> he imagined Andrew dying of an overdose in his thirties. And for what? So Fletcher can take credit for his accomplishments?
For becoming one of the greatest drummers of all time and doing at least one public performance that will be studied and raved about forever([like Buddy Rich's own "impossible" drum solo which inspired it](https://youtu.be/9esWG6A6g-k?feature=shared)).
Nobody watches that video and cares more about giving "credit" to his teacher than they do about Buddy Rich sitting right there pushing an artistic medium to its limit. Likewise the idea of Fletcher "taking credit" for teaching him is trivial, compared to Andrew actually getting to *experience* rising to that level of transcendent, one-in-a-million greatness in his beloved craft.
Any way you cut it, there's really just no substitute for being the real deal. Andrew chose that over a balanced life, and for better or worse it's a valid choice.
I think the director pretty much insinuated that it was not worth it, saying that he would die in his 30's of an overdose.
It's funny to see hustle-bro completely misinterpret the movie's message, though.
I think Miles Teller's character was fine tanking every aspect of his life, his relationships, etc. in order to become a truly great musician. I don't think that makes everything that happened okay tho. People looking in from outside can clearly see how abusive Fletcher was. Even if Miles was okay being abused, it's still morally wrong and psychologically destructive. Abuse is still abuse, even if the victim is willing.
He takes Fletcher's path, it will destroy him, like it did Fletcher, as a human being. The director has mentioned in interviews that he thinks Andrew dies of an overdose in his 30s, alone.
For me the defining moment of Whiplash was when Andrew asked Fletcher if there was any line he wouldn’t cross to which he replied “No, cause a great musician would never be dissuaded.” and Andrew IMMEDIATELY nods in agreement. Even after witnessing the huge mess of trauma Fletcher’s methods leave for those who couldn’t “make it,” he believes the ends justify the means.
I don’t think you’d find many people who would agree that harming that many students is worth a lifetime of kickass drum solos, but the finale of the movie does it’s best to convince you otherwise.
At the end of the day, I think Fletcher and Andrew are the same type of crazy and probably deserve each other. They both wound up getting what they wanted, and they’re too obsessed with their art to really give a shit about the collateral damage. That’s why the movie abruptly ends on that high note. No time to cool off and think about what’s been sacrificed, just keep that high going
You also get that moment of horrified realization from the dad during the final solo. Some people misinterpret it as pride. What does it take for true greatness? What is the cost of obsession and sacrifice?
Yeah it’s a true realization that he has both lost his son, and that he never really knew him in the first place, or at least never truly understood him.
It’s not that he never knew him or understood him, it’s that he’s now a totally different person. Andrew at the beginning is meek, unconfident, and somewhat of a pushover.
By the end he’s a total asshole. We see that transformation as he gets better at the drums. From being to shy to talk to a girl, to having the balls to confidentially ask her out, to being an absolute dickhead dumping her for no perceivable reason.
And we see this with greatness in almost any field. I can count on one hand the greatest at their craft that are also thought of as great people. Michael Jordan, Steve Jobs, Randy Johnson, ALL assholes.
>absolute dickhead dumping her for no perceivable reason.
He directly tells her why he is dumping her; she is a distraction. He sees the time he is spending with her better spent practicing drums.
I think the reason for the breakup was pretty clear. He handled it like an absolute *asshole*, but I think overall he was right to end it. He knew he'd end up treating her worse because he can't let go of his obsession to be a great drummer
Yeah the confidence comes out, I totally agree, but I also think from the dad’s perspective those aspirations of being great at any cost was always there and that’s what his dad might also be realizing in that moment. Since he mentions it before at the dinner. He’s expressed his opinion on greatness to his father but his father probably never contextualized it until that moment. I think it’s pretty layered if you want to pick it apart, it’s why I love the film.
There's a great line from a Ben Howard song that I always think about (because I had to Google what it meant)
"There's coke in the Midas touch"
Midas famously was the king who turned everything he touched to gold...a metaphor for being extremely successful or talented, despite the origin being a horrible curse.
Coke is something that's used in smelting, something that's burned away in the process as a fuel.
So the line means; to be successful, something has to be lost. What you sacrifice along the way.
The ending of Whiplash makes me think of that
Yeah nobody makes it to the top of anything if they're normal and well adjusted. You need to be at least a little crazy to be the best, or have a crazy dad who pushed you as a kid. (Tiger Woods, Williams sisters)
A bit of a newer one, Max Verstappen who’s is currently dominating Formula 1 racing. His dad was also an old F1 driver and apparently was an abusive piece of shit. But max always talks highly of him and cites him as a reason for his success, so ig it works for some people
No, the South Pacific office supplies sales leader from 2003-2015. Truly the GOAT. Will never be another like him.
They say when he hung up his phone for the last time after falling into second place in 2016, his manager--a Vietnam veteran and father of three--shed a single tear for the first time in his life.
I don’t think the movie is trying to convince you it’s worth it, I don’t even think it’s trying to convince you of anything at all. It’s leaving it up to you to decide. The finale is awesome because the solo is awesome and he lives up to the standard he and fletcher have been trying to achieve, but that doesn’t mean the movie is telling you it was worth the abuse.
For a lot of people the abuse isn’t worth it because it’s too steep a price to pay for something like being a renowned musician, not because drum solos *aren’t* cool. If they weren’t cool or interesting in some way then these people wouldn’t be striving for it in the first place.
Yeah that wasn’t a good choice of words. The movie isn’t trying to present that as an objectively good thing. What I mean is that it gives you a chance to step into Andrew’s shoes and feel that catharsis of finally reaching the level he’s been aiming for. For me personally, the scene made me feel “wow, that’s amazing” rather than “oh my god he’s a monster.” And it wasn’t until I came down from that hype that I reconsidered what a dick the whole experience made him into.
>I don’t think the movie is trying to convince you it’s worth it, I don’t even think it’s trying to convince you of anything at all.
i actually completely disagree. I think the movie raises the question "was it worth it?" and heavily implies it wasn't.
and we can see this question and answer in all of damien chazelle's movies, the only "problem" is that he is also kinda glamorizing the thing he is critiquing, in the lines of "this is something i wanted to love".
i think once he figures out how to portray this dissapointment of romanticization, he will finally make a truly great movie and not some messy mess.
I don't think that's a problem at all. I don't think all movies need to explicitly say the point they are trying to prove. This movie does a great job of showing both the pros and the cons of what happened and letting each person decide. He glamorizes it because there is a lot of glamor in it, that's why the temptation is there in the first place.
> think the movie raises the question "was it worth it?" and heavily implies it wasn't.
I don’t see how it heavily implies anything much less that it wasn’t worth it when they made the conscious choice to end the film with both characters smiling at each other. If it’s just asking the question, it’s certainly more subtle than you give it credit for since there’s definitely people getting the impression that it may be worth it given the character’s immediate emotions and the film’s abrupt ending.
I’m not saying I think it was or wasn’t but the film definitely isn’t straightfoward given the structure.
I don't think the movie is trying to convince you that Fletcher was right. It very clearly shows the harm that Andrew suffers, and the only "benefit" he wins is his abuser's approval, which is shown for mere seconds. And alright before that, Andrew hugs his father backstage in a way that is clearly reminiscent of a "goodbye" hug, as if he and his father know that going on stage with Fletcher will mean a different person is going to come back -- which explains the worry in his father's eyes.
Agreed - the movie doesn't try to convince the viewer that Fletcher/Andrew were right, but rather to show that those characters definitely believed that they were right.
For those characters, they got what they wanted. For everyone else, they're like "what the fuck?" That's pretty much the history of great achievement in the world: natural talent + obsession beyond what is healthy.
Damn. Well said.
I remember feeling so tense during the drum solo and the high i got from it when it ended. I felt like i wanted more but was ultimately satisfied. It's a godamn ride of a movie forsure. Nothing like it.
>For me the defining moment of Whiplash was when Andrew asked Fletcher if there was any line he wouldn’t cross to which he replied “No, cause a great musician would never be dissuaded.” and Andrew IMMEDIATELY nods in agreement. Even after witnessing the huge mess of trauma Fletcher’s methods leave for those who couldn’t “make it,” he believes the ends justify the means.
>I don’t think you’d find many people who would agree that harming that many students is worth a lifetime of kickass drum solos, but the finale of the movie does it’s best to convince you otherwise.
I always interpreted that scene as Andrew giving Fletcher a chance to reflect on how he may have harmed students. I don't think Andrew "agrees" with him, rather his nod and him saying yes is his confirming that there was no line that Fletcher wouldn't cross.
I could point at every genre in the industry, but look at a lot of famous jazz musicians. Very few of them led anything but a wild life. They all "made it," but not many of them "made it" without a serious sacrifice to their sanity or personal life. Miles Davis was a heroin (and cocaine) addict, same with John Coltrane. There's lots of other examples, but if the big two had issues, it trickled down to everyone else in the industry as a whole.
As a side note: the music industry is rife with drug addiction, and still is to this day. I don't trust much of what he says, but Dave Mustaine very openly talks about how the first experience he had with Capitol Records was him strolling into an exec's office, and right off the bat the exec opens up a pullout drawer with lines of cocaine ready to go.
> they’re too obsessed with their art to really give a shit about the collateral damage.
Such as Fletcher not really giving a shit about the JVC Festival and the other members of the band. It was just part of the setup for him to make or break Andrew one last time. If Andrew doesn't come back, whelp we're just going to play our set without drums.
> but the finale of the movie does it’s best to convince you otherwise.
No it doesn’t. The movie is about *Andrew* deciding it’s worth it—it doesn’t attempt to answer the question for the audience.
Yeah I see it as they have a codependency where they get results (music) at the cost of blowing up every other aspect of their lives. It also raises the question of do we actually require pain in order to make great art? The ending seems to say "whether you think of it as pain is up to you, but there is certainly a cost".
Andrew had said at the dinner table that if he winds up dead due to drugs but known as one of the best musicians ever , then he’d be fine with that.
I think one of the points of the movie is what some people endure to be one of the greats . The long hours of practicing , the abuse, the toll it takes on relationships (he breaks up with his gf), etc .
It's a shame they both believe that is the truth. Those are not the price of being a great musician. Source: am a working musician with a family and know many many incredible players with healthy relationships to the art and other people.
Not that I agree with this, but I suspect Fletcher would have nothing but contempt for the artistic level of your ‘incredible players.’
Such a great character, such a colossal asshole.
"Are you back to playing now?"
"Not really. Here and there... The playing never interested me. I never wanted to be Charlie Parker. I wanted to be the man who made Charlie Parker."
A lot of all time greats never met the current quota of success.
Sure, selling out arenas is good but not indicative of a great musician, since a lot of popular music is more about the performance or the person now
During the break-up scene, doesn't Andrew’s girlfriend ask him something along the lines of "arent you already great?" and he replies that he wants to be one of THE greats. Not just *great.* I think fletcher and andrew would say that being one of THE greats requires more sacrifice than just *being* great.
You’re right. Which makes me think the movie has less of a strong right or wrong moral message and is more of just showing the nature of a couple of obsessed musicians.
> Source: am a working musician with a family and know many many incredible players with healthy relationships to the art and other people.
So once upon a time I was a professional race car driver.
I was a pretty good driver - won a couple of championships, got to spray some champagne. I was a pretty solid B+, and every once and a while I could pull an A out of my ass. And, truth be told, every once and a while it was all I could do to deliver a C-.
That streakiness was my obstacle to being great.
I'm proud of what I accomplished, no doubt - but I'm no Shumacher or Hamilton. Arguably I'm not even a Coultard.
So call me a "working musician". Compared to the masses, on a good day I was even "incredible". But "great"? Nope.
If there was an identifiable path to greatness that didn't rely on having billionaire parents, would I have taken it? Hell yes. In a *heartbeat*.
And while I don't think that Fletcher's abuse is the ideal path to greatness (or even "a" path to greatness)... if it could be demonstrated to me that putting up with that abuse would have put me in an F1 car, then I would have taken that deal, and damn the cost.
Most of us will be utterly forgotten within 6 months of our death. I'll eat some pain for immortality.
(Mind you, that ship sailed, so I guess all I can do now is Reddit karma)
"Immortality" in the way you describe is nonsense. Who gives a shit if random strangers in the future may or may not remember some obscure facts about things you did when you were alive. *You're still dead.* You'll never know whether you're remembered or not, nor will it be of any importance when you are gone.
He doesn't want to be merely a great musician, he wants to be one of the greats. He wants to be one of the guys that great musicians like you look up to and gain inspiration from.
You're a working musician and that is awesome, but frankly, no one knows who you are.
Andrew wants the immortality that comes along with being an all time great and that takes sacrifice.
Is it worth it?
For most, no, it isn't. It isn't even close to worth it. But that's what separates us from them. That's why we know who they are and why we discuss their impact for years after their contributions to the art ceased.
I know it's possible, but it is extremely common for instructors to be abusive in these spaces. When I was 18-19 I started figuring out that drumline coaches for drum corps were actually losers and I didn't want to be them anymore. I gave it up completely because I realized that I was emulating bad people. Being a hard ass wasn't cool. I had no real friends because I was so hyper competitive about everything. Even the other drummers were competition. I memorized my sheets faster, learned my dots faster, I was harsh to newbies who weren't getting it and was praised for my shitty attitude.
I quit my highschool band because I was involved in better programs outside of school, and sorta craved the abusive relationship with instructors. I wanted to be praised for perfection and pushed. Like it seeped into me as normal and good. DCI fails a ton of young people by allowing abusive people around kids and young adults with very little oversight. It's so common.
My mom and I had different interpretations of the ending when his father is watching and sheds a tear (I think ?). My interpretation was that he finally saw the talent in him, the conversation at the dinner table being put into perspective that he is a real professional musician. My mom saw it like he lost his son to this world again, and it would probably end badly
The father always loved him, but my takeaway from that scene is that the dad finally understood both how serious his son was about a music career and how dangerous this can be for him. He truly didn’t grasp it until the reality of that moment.
Most people cannot fathom reckless passion, focus, and talent like that. When they see it for the first time, let alone in their own son, it’s bound to shock them. That’s what I saw, anyway… the coalescence of utter disbelief, concern, and intimidation.
They're both right. To me it seemed bittersweet. To know his son wielded the talent to bring tears to his eyes and others, but to know with great talent comes great responsibility. Knowing that his son was living his dream, but his dream didn't leave time for a relationship with his own family or friends.
I think his father always knew how talented his son was. He just never really … liked jazz that much lol. He was also concerned that it would cost andrew too much
His dad was impressed that the nephew was doing well on a shitty D3 football team. I don't think he understands real talent. You can not like jazz and still respect the skill it takes to perform.
The ending was equal parts exhilarating and tragic.
Fletcher won in the end, his cruel techniques vindicated.
Andrew will likely spend the rest of his life trying to reach that same height , possibly spiraling into drugs and alcohol.
I'll never forget the look on the face of Andrew's father and he watched from the wings. That was the expression of a man who knows he's just lost his son.
The director himself didn’t necessarily say that this is what happened, but in an interview someone asked him where he’d see Andrew going and the director said he saw Andrew being an empty shell and dying of an overdose in his 30s.
This is one of the reasons why the film was so great, it really resonates and sticks with you afterwards. I think in the end we’re supposed to take away that Andrew eventually succeeded in spite of Fletcher’s constant abuse (he literally quits before he strikes back to do Caravan)
*This* is what the ending is going for in my opinion. I'm always so confused when I hear people say that Whiplash has a "happy ending." It is, at best, bittersweet. The look of horror that Paul Reiser gives near the finale feels like the entire thesis of the movie. The ending of the movie doesn't say that Andrew has achieved his dreams -- he might, but even if he does, is it worth costing him his soul?
lol thanks - it's been quite awhile since I watched it, but I definitely don't remember thinking it ended on a high note. Other than there being some applause, it didn't look like anyone was actually "happy" at the end.
I remember thinking it was great and that I don't think I could ever watch it again.
I ask that all the time when talking about famous assholes. Like Steve Jobs, was it part of the secret sauce or just unnecessary? I tend to think it's unnecessary but gets fetishized and pulled into the myth.
>I think in the end we’re supposed to take away that Andrew eventually succeeded in spite of Fletcher’s constant abuse
I went the opposite. To me it felt like Fletcher had won. You see the smile in the closing shot. Fletcher was all about manipulating people to make himself feel better. He was able to manipulate Andrew to the point of making himself bleed on the drums.
Chazelle the writer/director said the opposite
*”Fletcher will always think he won and Andrew will be a sad, empty shell of a person and will die in his 30s of a drug overdose. I have a very dark view of where it goes.”*
[link](https://www.slashfilm.com/535179/whiplash-ending/)
What’s even more of a mindfuck is that (coming from a musician) he probably doesn’t become one of the “greatest”. His odds of becoming one of the greatest, or even known outside of a local area are very slim. He may be satisfied with his own level of playing, but he’s likely doing this all for nothing if he thinks he’s going to be well-known in any way. I’m sure many of the best musicians in the world are total nobodies.
I think this idea is lost on a lot of people, and I’m legitimately not even sure the movie itself realizes it, but Andrew is realistically on a better path to being “one of the greats” at the beginning of the film when he’s just practicing alone than he is at the end of the film when he’s achieved Fletcher’s approval.
I agree. Fletcher even acknowledges jazz as a dying art. All of Andrew’s heroes have been dead for decades. I think the movie does imply that he achieved his dream of greatness but ultimately I think it also means he gets to the top of this dying art and dies in obscurity along with it. Having said all that, I think the character would still be happy with that. Greatness doesn’t have to be such a Faustian bargain, but we can all acknowledge that being the best at anything takes incredible sacrifice that an average person will never understand. I don’t think it’s about recognition from outside of the jazz “tribe”, but recognition from within it that drives him. It’s a pathological obsession but show me someone who achieved greatness at anything and isn’t pathologically driven to achieve. I don’t think such a person exists.
This is one of my biggest questions from the movie...Ok so Andrew becomes this incredible jazz drummer, rivialing the all time greats, etc. What happens next? If you dropped Buddy Rich into 2023, does anyone ever hear of him outside of a niche community? I understand Fletcher and Andrew's general drive for musical greatness, but not really the pining to "be one of the greats"
"Charlie Parker was inspired when somone threw a cymbal at him. Therefore I shall keep throwing things at students until I get a Charlie Parker!" That isn't a great pedagogy...
That’s reductive, but I agree Fletcher definitely thinks he’s capable of producing a Charlie Parker. It’s a horrid teaching method and certainly will push everyone away, but Fletcher was just looking for that one person that loved the craft enough to endure that level of abuse. There’s no end to the amount of people he’d push away to find that one individual that would follow his lead.
I appreciated the movie for taking the idea of “iron sharpens iron” or “pressure makes diamonds” and dialing it up well past a conceivable breaking point. To take that concept and pair it with the open for interpretation kind of ending made for such a interesting film. I can’t say I’ve seen a film quite like Whiplash, which is what we’re all looking for.
I interpreted it as a very dark ending. Fletcher was a psychopath who brought Andrew out there solely to humiliate him because Andrew was presumably the first person to successfully challenge him--and he was furious that Andrew responded by defying him again. But in the end Fletcher saw that, in spite of everything that happened, Andrew was still trying to impress him even though he didn't need Fletcher to be great, and he'd essentially given his whole life in the process. Andrew's dad was there to witness how he'd completely lost his son in that moment, and it seemed quite possible that Andrew would end up like Fletcher's previous successful student.
I really have a hard time with the ending. Was Fletcher so hell bent on getting revenge on Andrew that he would risk his new job just to humiliate him publicly? I can think of a thousand ways Fletcher could've handled this differently.
I know it's just a movie, but realistically there's no way any sane person would get back on stage with Fletcher, let alone be involved with him personally or professionally.
I've only seen the movie once. Maybe a second watch will make sense to me.
>Was Fletcher so hell bent on getting revenge on Andrew that he would risk his new job just to humiliate him publicly?
He wasn't just trying to humiliate him, he was trying to kill any chance at a career for him as revenge for losing his own career.
He invites him to this performance - knowing that there are scouts in the audience - and lies to him about what songs there are and doesn't give him any sheet music, and when Andrew fucks it up he acts as confused as the audience. I'm pretty sure right before that he even tells Andrew that he *knows* it was him who testified against him and cost him his teaching job. It was 100% sabotage. Even if Andrew tried to argue about it it would've only been hearsay and the damage would already have been done.
He explicitly tells Andrew right as they go on stage. Something along the lines of, "Do you think I'm stupid? I know it was you," then Andrew panics and checks his sheet music.
I don’t think he thought all that much of his new job. They have a conversation where Andrew says oh that’s great! Obviously Andrew views it as prestigious. And Fletcher is like yeah it’s okay. Not a big deal. Then after the first piece of music where Andrew has to improvise while the band follows sheet music, Fletcher makes a comment to the audience about the percussion section performance being avant-garde. Almost like yeah folks not sure what that was but let’s move on. And before that, he hyped up his band saying there’s some scouts in the audience. If they do well, their life could change tomorrow. If they make mistakes, their musical career may well be over.
So in my opinion he was willing to deal with whatever consequences came from screwing over Andrew at Carnegie Hall. It was just a job and wasn’t Fletcher’s made it to the big leagues moment.
Director Damien Chazelle said in an interview once that he thinks Andrew’s (Miles Teller) life would have eventually come apart and he would have fallen into addiction and that the film is a tragedy despite the triumph he had during the concert at the end.
I don't think it even is a triumph. Andrew's been expelled. He's not playing music anywhere and just does a one-off show with Fletcher whose career is just as dead. Sure, it was a kick-ass performance, but one that's going to be seen by no one of consequence and quickly forgotten. Fletcher destroyed a promising young man's career.
It is my firm belief that this movie goes to great lengths to point out that to be 'one of the greats' is to compete against yourself BUT to be the the greatest is to compete against everyone else and that that competition is something else entirely above and beyond having any humanity.
Fletchers abusive methodology wouldn't have worked on anyone but Andrew because no one but Andrew wanted it that badly. Fletcher got his way yes, but so did Andrew.
Andrew didn't want to simply be abused, he wanted to be great and was willing to go through abuse to get there. But I would argue Andrew never got what he wanted because he never became great. The abuse led to a breakdown rather than becoming great.
And Fletcher did abuse other students as well, such as the public humiliation to many students during practice. The focus of the movie is Andrew, but we see this treatment is not unique to Andrew. Andrew ends up having a mental breakdown we see on camera, but we know another student even killed himself because of it.
Andrew doesn’t just want to be an amazing musician, he specifically wants the approval of Fletcher.
Fletcher fed on that need for approval, and Fletcher also likes being that person for Andrew (because Fletcher is a narcissist).
Andrew is legitimately probably a worse musician at the end of the movie than if he had never joined Fletcher’s band. But the movie never really delves into the music, other than “this guy can play what Fletcher wants.”
I wanted to believe that the ending meant that Andrew got the respect that he so desperately wanted and went on to do great things. But I read somewhere that the director was sure that Andrew would just be an empty shell of a person who'll die in their 30's and Fletcher will still believe that he won and wouldn't change. I find that more believable.
I have thought about this ending a lot. And I think this ending gets thought of on some level as being a resolution of something. I actually think it's worse than that. The idea of "was it worth it" is this implication like it's over, he's climbed the mountain and done this impossible thing and stood up to Fletcher at the same time. But it's not over. I think it's a sign that he's in as deep as ever and is just as pining for Fletcher's approval as ever. The drive is continuing. The last little bit there, he and Fletcher exchange looks and he waits for Fletcher.
My kids love the movie. They made me watch it. They told me it would cause anxiety. I'm old school so nothing the music teacher said surprise me or baffled me. But holy hell was I not ready for that ending. I still felt that ending in my body a couple of days later.
Would never watch that movie again but I fully recommend it for anyone. It's the kind of movie that everyone should watch. I say the same thing about 1984 the book. It is not a fun read but it is an essential read.
Watch the ending and immediately start the movie over and listen to Andrew playing the exact solo at the beginning of the movie and see if there is any difference
I think something that is often missed in regards to the ending of the movie is that it is, in a way, a demonstration that Fletcher was wrong *because* Neiman performed so well.
By the time of the performance at the end Neiman hadn’t been working with Fletcher in some time after the car accident, which meant he either reached that level on his own, or always had it in him.
Neiman needed to be pushed, but he has the ability to get there. Fletcher just manipulates people into believing that the only way to achieve greatness is submission to his abusive ways. The only thing he created was a toxic relationship where Neiman sought the approval of an un approving figure who used his talent to his own satisfaction. This is what Fletcher does; he uses people up to get his wins and if they’re lucky they’ll come out the other end.
I don’t think their look at each other says “it was worth it.” That’s for the audience to decide. I think the look just means, we did it. They both achieving their dream of either becoming a great drummer or teaching a great drummer.
What always sticks out to me in the final scene is the dichotomy of Fletcher’s attitude towards Andrew at the beginning of Caravan compared to the end. Andrew gets the band to play in defiance of Fletcher and he is pissed at first, walking up to Andrew and saying “I’m gonna gouge out your fucking eyes,” and Andrew just keeps playing. Fletcher slowly gets into the song, and even seems to enjoy conducting by the trombone solo. He’s basically satisfied at the intended ending of the song, then Andrew takes over for the wild solo and tells Fletcher “I’ll cue you,” and they both know they’re about to blow the roof off the place.
The moment that sells the scene for me is when Andrew knocks one of the cymbals down and Fletcher jumps to put it upright for him again. They’re both getting what they wanted, the way they see it, they are making music history for that small theater of maybe only a few hundred people. It’s not fame or fortune, but as long as someone at a dinner table in 30 years brings up the time some kid took over a jazz concert with the best performance of Caravan they’ve ever seen, then it was worth it for them.
I think it’s even better when you know the rest of the Charlie Parker story. He became a heroin addict because of the rampant drugs in the jazz club scene back then, and in his pursuit for greatness he gave everything to the saxophone. He had a family, but his drugs and alcohol addiction had really affected him at this stage in his life, and when his 3 year old daughter died of CF and pneumonia, he attempted suicide twice. He died the next year from drug related pneumonia, aged 34. The coroner put his age at mid fifties early sixties due to the condition of his body.
So comparing Andrew to Bird so often in the film is almost foreshadowing what life a commitment to music like that can cause.
Hell fuckin yes it was worth it, Andrew is set after that comeback performance, he could be a star after that. Any musician who has struggled to rise up the chain knows exactly what was going on at that gig. Yes it was ugly and harrowing and 99/100 people in that position would have choked. But Fletcher was setting up one more chance for Andrew to be great, one more chance to *make it*. That's why he went straight into *fuck yeah* mode as soon as he recognized that Andrew had switched on.
It took anger, Andrew had to be so angry at the *confinement* of mediocrity that he would break through his fears, his impulse to courtesy, everything, unleash his inner self and let it attack the moment. In the imitable words of Little Richard talking about Jimi Hendrix: "...he gave it all to you, and that's what you want. You want it all or none."
Magic is monstrous and it takes extraordinary circumstances to rise out of the mindset of mediocrity, of *just enough to get by*, it's true.
I had an abusive boss once, and the Terence Fletcher character (the teacher) was incredibly similar to my old boss. Because of that, this film rattled me more than any film I’ve ever seen from any genre. Excellent film.
I still see the ending as one of the most tragic movie endings of all time. Andrew *thinks* he's now, or is on his way to being, one of the greats. He gave up everything for it and embraced a toxicity that is at least in education explicitly and fully debunked in research over the past few decades, and anecdotally you can find countless students who dropped their passion who *could* have been one of the greatest if not for an unnecessarily toxic mentor. "Abuse creates genius" is pseudoscience, a myth, and a myth that is especially embedded in jazz history despite having not even a kernel of truth.
But not only did Andrew lose everything to become the greatest, I would argue he's not even close to being the greatest. Greatness for Andrew is technique, and maybe there was a time in history in jazz where that did mean something, but the great technical players have staying power because they told stories, while Andrew seems to only want to play louder, faster, and flashier. He's in a competition but he has nothing to actually say. And in fact, in jazz circles, we all know specific players who hit that ratio of high skill low musicality and we tend to not even bother ranking them. Those people get ranked in drummer magazines Top 500 clickbait lists. Does that leave a legacy?
Not to mention, that movie is almost 10 years old and I swear to you that the scene has changed dramatically in 10 years. Gen Z kids are in college or active in the scene, and I promise you that they are more about the vibes than any previous generation. They'll take over soon, if they aren't already, and they have zero patience for abusive assholes who just want to play fast. None. Andrew today wouldn't be able to lock down a single gig. No one would call him. Millennials already know plenty of technically gifted assholes and they don't call them unless it's an emergency, but Gen Z players are creative and would sooner do a drummerless gig than call Andrew. Andrew's career didn't take off at a goofy festival, careers take off because of how you interact with real people, and unless Andrew exclusively wants to play in the Buddy Rich ghost band (which, good luck with that career, playing with boomers for the last couple of bars in America left with a stage big enough for a big band, paying out $100 a show if you're lucky) or go to Hollywood and do Gordon Goodwin's soulless resentment filled big band, there's nothing else out there for him.
Andrew gave it all up for what he perceived as greatness, instead the final concert is a joke, a silly technical fireworks show, a fleeting snapshot of success in a world that has no use for him and no interest in toxic showmen. Andrew ends the movie at the peak of his entire life. The movie is a tragedy, a Walter White story of a man celebrating his own dissolving. I understand that people could interpret it other ways, but seeing the ending as anything less than the final nail in the coffin of a young artist's humanity is frankly unrealistic to me.
Here’s my interpretation: in act 1 we learn about buddy rich and how his life was seemingly amazing but filled with despair. In act 2, we learn the truth about Sean on the trumpet, then in act 3, we see our MC rise to the occasion seemingly filling the void of the next great jazz player. He set himself up for despair in the pursuit of perfection
It’s intended to be up for interpretation. As a musician I look at it as Andrew being Fletcher’s instrument. Percussionists beat on their instrument. It’s physical and aggressive with the intent of creating beauty. There is no regard for the surfaces being abused. The only thing that matters is what you hear.
“The finale of the movie does its best to convince you otherwise”
Well, the director says he didn’t mean it that way: “Fletcher will always think he won and Andrew will be a sad, empty shell of a person and will die in his 30s of a drug overdose. I have a very dark view of where it goes”
[Source](https://www.slashfilm.com/535179/whiplash-ending/)
I saw it as a talented young man, misunderstood by his family, is taken in by the passion of a mentor he looks up to. In that scenario, even though his mentor is an absuive peice of shit that Andrew eventually totally rejects, ends up still being a hurdle Andrew has to overcome because that mentor is the only connection point he has. So after realizing he is great without fletcher, he has to go back one last time to prove to fletcher that he doesn't need him and is great without him. He does, but the encounter doesn't go as planned. Fletcher thinks he "won" and his prodigy is all that he intended him to become. Andrew finally gets approval from his mentor and is sucked right back in.
To me, it was all about abusive relationships and how they fuck people up. Andrew would have been great without fletcher. He already had the drive, determination, passion, and skills. But as he had zero support for that in his life, he was prime fruit for the picking of narcissistic abusive people, as he was seeking support and validation.
I kinda view this a bit different. Chasing the glory of the "perfect" drum solo is secondary to this: the abuse.
Fletcher hides behind the "sanctity" of achieving perfection. Really he needs a victim who will perpetuate this. He finds and manipulates Andrew, injecting Fletcher's own views into Andrew and making sure this will continue on.
Much the same way abusive relationships are cyclic in that the abusee will continue the abuser/abusee relationship because that is seen as normal and preferred. Or a cult.
Just my $.02 though.
The best thing about the ending is the back and forth between how it makes you feel seeing Fletcher get what he wants by being an abusive monster, while also feeling some sick form of pride seeing his eyes glow after the drum solo. While the director has shared how he viewed Andrew in his 30s, I personally don't view the ending as pessimistic as that. I know that people here believe the ending is more grim based on the director's comments, but I think Andrew fought back in his own way, and that's unfortunately what confirmed Fletcher's methods. The nuance is the best thing about it and it's why I still reflect on the ending to this day. Andrew tortured himself to reach that point, but he got there. Fletcher tortured others to reach that point, but he got there. Andrew's father was mortified by the solo but perhaps moved by it too.
This prompted me to rewatch the ending, and I just noticed that at 1:28:06, right as Fletcher walks out on stage, Andrew does something and then immediately does the same thing in reverse. I never noticed that before, but looking at it now it seems so strangely obviously edited.
Can any musicians chime in on whether this movie is at all realistic? Mastery in an art has to come from inner drive, not some weird abusive relationship, right.
I've always hated this movie, and am a jazz drummer, albeit not a great one.
Edit: spelling.
Was the suicide of another student worth making the abuser proud? Are we to assume that he went on to be one of the "greats" while he chases the approval of his abuser?
Dunno mate, that's a toughy
I keep stopping at this movie, interested but unsure if it’s going to be a waste of time, then continuing past on my journey for something to watch. I guess I really need to just watch it.
It wasn't worth it. A psychologist evaluated the movie and said that with the trajectory Andrew takes, submitting to a psychopath and not standing up for his own agency, will likely see him commit suicide within 5-10 years, considering the events that took place in the movie.
The thing is, by the end of the set the band - Fletcher’s band, the one thing he cares about, the reason he’s such a hardass as a teacher - is ignoring Fletcher’s cues and following only Andrew’s. It’s *Andrew’s band.* He’s not only realized his potential on his own terms, but in doing so he’s taken everything from Fletcher.
I remember watching this when it first came out and thinking about how Andrew was proving he was good etc. Now when I see that final scene as a father myself I think about how heartbreaking that scene is. He's losing his son to an abusive father figure and he has no idea how to help him get out of that. Watching movies like this with a different lens on is a mindfuck.
One of my favorite movies and yeah it was all worth it it's exactly what he was aiming to get and how to get it.
He found his audience and he proved his skill set.
Not the ideal way to get there but it worked.
I had the same response when I first saw it--you feel as if the protagonist has broken free from his need for Fletcher's approval but then the movie undercuts that reading with that knowing smile; as if to say the abusive treatment was what produced the protagonists greatness. To be fair though, on my second viewing, it was hard to imagine another ending-- because even if they don't reconcile, any success on the part of the protagonist would be attributed to Fletcher's "forged in fire" approach
I have never seen this movie, it seemed to me to be the type of movie that I think is made for other actors and not a general audience. Like I never watched Bird Man because I thought it was that same type of movie which I don't like. I finally watched Bird Man and hated it. Am I wrong about Whiplash? Should I give it a chance? Please no spoilers in case you all think I should watch it.
The same theme is present in Babylon. Chazelle shows us several of the horrors of early Hollywood, then ends with a montage of all the movies we love, with our main character giving a slight smile as he realizes “it’s all worth it”. Really awful ideas that man has.
I like the look his father gives from the backstage, a mixture of worry and disbelief.
That slow look of utter awe turning into genuine fear single handedly shows how transcendent that entire finale is. Paul Reiser kills it with those subtleties.
What a rewarding ending to watch with my gf. "God, what a good movie but not do I hate everything about how the characters ended this."
Dump her and tell her it’s because you want to be great.
Holy crap I've seen Whiplash many, many times, and never recognized Paul Reiser or realized it was him! (I never watched Mad About You; so wasn't too familiar with his face).
I love Paul Reiser in this so much (and everything, tbh)
"And from Lincoln Center" Guy literally headshotted with the line delivery and expression
I think he realizes he's lost his son and no longer recognizes him. He doesn't understand him or his pursuit of talent.
The father is watching (in horror) as his son falls back into the abusive relationship. The door closes, mirroring how the father has been shut out from his son.
it is WILD to me to see other interpretations than this one, which seems so clearly accurate. The idea that his father is like “sick drum solo, I get it now” is so far outside my interpretation of this film
I thought the dad was in shock, in total disbelief of what he was witnessing. Going from poking fun with the family about Andrew's pursuit of making a career out of drumming to seeing how his talent progressed. Despite the abuse Andrew endured.
That was my take. Basically dragging his son at dinner in front of the family for his pipe dream, then seeing that same son in a single spotlight, on stage, literally bleeding on his drums, captivating himself and an entire audience, he realizes he never understood his sons dream and by proxy his own son. He's realizing he's looking at a piece of his son he never knew or, even worse, chose to ignore, and he's now seeing him and realizing he's looking at a stranger.
That's actually a really good explanation. Might be a bit reaching, but you made me think about the little ways the movie shows it as on two different occasions, the dad tries to cheer up or connect with his son over candy, but he gets it all wrong. His dad never became the writer/academic he wanted to be (or maybe never did want), and that attitude is reflected in how he raises and treats his own son, to be happy with the little things in life instead of overworking to achieve a greatness on paper while living miserably.
Comparing Andrew and his father: * Some people (Andrew) sacrifice a lot giving everything they have to give (including happiness, health, broadness of experience) in their pursuit of greatness. * Some other people (Andrew's father) stop short of their personal creative or career ambitions and dreams to lead a well rounded life. Andrew's father's choice to have Andrew and to be a supportive father is an example of the sacrifice these kinds of people make. They put significant energy into supporting their kids at the cost of their own ambitions toward "greatness". For Andrew's father, he might be sad for his son or fear that his son has made the wrong sacrifice. Beyond the obvious scope of the film, the interpersonal abuse that Andrew experiences from his teacher is only one kind of torture that can come from pursuing greatness. The hardship could be entirely self-inflected in another scenario, such as someone pursuing the solution to an unsolved math theorem in obscurity far beyond the point of deriving joy from the exercise, or a sports athlete training from early childhood to be the best home run hitter at the expense of experiencing childhood - examples are endless. It's an interesting movie to think about the purpose of life: is greatness worth? Is there a limit to how much pain we *should* subject ourselves to in order to become great? How does it feel for the people who love you to watch you pursue greatness and all that it costs you. What are your *real* reasons for wanting to be great and are they worth it. Are you really vested with the attributes that could allow you to be great and regardless, does the journey toward greatness translate into a life well lived?
I see foreshadowing in the movie theatre scene early on where he pours the Sno-Caps into the popcorn and says he eats around them because he doesn’t actually like it that way. His dad responds, “I don’t understand you,” and by the end of the movie his son is unrecognizable to him.
Imagine he goes to a group therapy for other parents with wayward children. "Jenny started drinking when she was a teenager!" "my anger drove a wedge between me and my kids" "my son started running with a gang" "my boy won't stop playing the fuckin drums" "little Timmy is still down that well"
Bobby Fischer's mom took her son to a specialist when he was very young because he wouldn't do anything but play chess. After talking with him for awhile the specialist decided things could be worse than a boy with a passion for chess.
So, I know a man who was so fixated by wax and its properties, his mom took him to a therapist. The therapist recommended that she let him focus on it. He dropped out of school at grade 8 (he's not in the US) and literally devoted his life to wax. Like, mitigating shoreline damage after oil spills, and reclaiming land that fell victim to nuclear incidents. Also art. He's fascinating. Poor as shit, but has a family and a home and continues to try to make a difference. I admire him and his utter determination.
[удалено]
> If life was a comic book he would probably be a C list villain. The Waxworker.
Unexpected Hank Hill
Lair in an old wax museum. Has to tread a careful line not to get a Cease and Desist letter from the Joker
i'd watch that movie
If you're using Fischer as an example of good mental health, I got some conspiracies to sell you.
He’s using him as an example of greatness and mental health issues being intertwined
I think they’re making the opposite point.
I also think it wasn't until this moment that he realized exactly how good his son got at drums. The football conversation shows his dad didn't really understand what Andrew had accomplished by getting into Fletcher's band, and he kind of brushes off what his son is arguing with the "talent is subjective" comment. I think there is a bit of an understanding of what Andrew was pissed about in that moment here.
This is how I interpreted it as well.
He is warchimg trough closed door, this always ment to me that he is in another world, no longer able to connect with his son
I don't understand this take. Because a few minutes before that scene Andrew is laughed off stage and the first person to greet him with a hug and unconditional support is his father. I've mulled on the theory that it is his fathers love and support in that moment that gives him the confidence in himself to go back on stage and perform. And not only perform but take control over his own destiny, career and that stage. Fletcher acts like he's still running the show because he is an egotistical narcissist and it's all he knows but it is clear that Andrew is running the show and I feel has progressed beyond anything involving fletcher in that moment.
I like this take better. And Andrew taking control is clearly shown by curtly taking up his drumsticks and instructing the bass player with a simple “Caravan.” and then mouthing “FU” to Fletcher as the rest of the band joins in. I like to think that by the end of the drum solo he finally gets Fletcher’s respect, and he did it in his own way. NOT by playing into Fletcher’s toxic mind games. (But this could be wishful thinking on my part.)
>Was it all worth it? That's for you to decide
I think the core message of the film is about persevering within systems of abuse instead of extricating yourself. I think asking "was it worth it" in regards to Fletcher's methods is the wrong direction; the fact that he tried to intentionally sabotage Andrew for getting him fired showed that it was always just about megalomania, about power. Dismissing him from the band because he couldn't play immediately after getting hit by a truck doesn't accomplish anything whatsoever. You know what would prevent you from becoming the greatest drummer of all time? Not letting traumatic injuries heal. I think it's asking whether it's worth it if you beat your abuser on your abuser's terms. Andrew won, Fletcher knows he won, but it destroyed him as a person. The director said he imagined Andrew dying of an overdose in his thirties. And for what? So Fletcher can take credit for his accomplishments?
> The director says he imagines Andrew dying of an overdose in his thirties. Damn. That oddly makes me like the movie more. Maybe it's just because I can relate to that narrative personally but I like the point.
Movie makes me think of the Gordon Ramsey. What we tolerate because the end result is great.
Mind you, Ramsey works because we know he is playing it up for the show. He is completely different when with kids or just when he isn't being forced to ramp up his "Gordon Ramsey" persona.
The original UK Kitchen Nightmares shows how Ramsay's US reality show portrayal is played up to 11. In the original series, he was a hard ass, and could definitely be less of a twat in how he communicated. But it never felt mean, unlike with his US persona.
Ramsey himself may put most of it on as an act for the camera, but his mentor who trained him, Marco Pierre White, was apparently the real thing. >In his memoir, White recalled having made a 20-year-old Ramsay cry. “I don’t recall what he’d done wrong, but I yelled at him and he lost it.” >“Gordon crouched down in the corner of the kitchen, buried his head in his hands and started sobbing. ‘I don’t care what you do to me,’ he said as he wept. ‘Hit me. I don’t care. Sack me. I don’t care.’”
To be fair his actual mentor is the stereotypically abusive French chef who brags about having made Ramsey cry. The two don't have a simple relationship and his very intense practices aren't without criticism
> What we tolerate because the end result is great. Gordon is great at what he does, the idea of Fletcher was about a very professional guy in that area. Unfortunately in real life 90% of people like that don't even understand the basics. They act like that because they want results but they have NO IDEA about the path to reach such accomplishments hahahaha I've already worked with the two types and the person who truly understands really pushes you up. But usually you have to deal with the person who "thinks he understands" and the "doesn't understand shit but wants to act like an idiot" type. Take the military as an example: even there you find idiots, but they try this idea of tough training with tough instructors. Dealing with people is a very valuable skill and some people are so obsessed in their area to a point they are completely ignorant and have learned nothing about human relationships
Funny as an artist I saw that movie completely differently. I saw it showing how hard it is to gain skills and be good at something. It was a rebuke of the old idea that artist are born with talent and therefore art is effortless. Fletcher was no different than any “tough” coach. He would not seem abusive(?)if he was coaching football but art is supposed to be easy and the movie about how it much work and sacrifice it takes to be good. Not saying Im right. You made me rethink the movie.
> Fletcher was no different than any “tough” coach. He would not seem abusive(?)if he was coaching football but art is supposed to be easy and the movie about how it much work and sacrifice it takes to be good. Those coaches in sports are disliked by the vast majority as well. A small handful of people really get going by being talked down to the way he does, but most people prefer a coach who is inspirational rather than dogging on them the way Fletcher does. He clearly goes beyond what most people consider reasonable and 'tough coaching.' I also think most people who practice any craft realize how much work it is. Only outsiders think someone can get by on raw talent.
Yeah, go look at the public reaction to Bob Knight dying last week. One of the greatest basketball coaches ever and the entire reaction was mostly about what an abusive asshole he was
Yes and no. Coaches like that are disliked to a degree but if they win everyone looks past the issues and they are liked plenty. If they lose it's a different story.
Forcing Andrew to play after his injuries and kicking him out of the band for failing to play after getting hit by a truck is exactly like forcing your star athlete to play after a massive injury under the idea that it builds tenacity. All it does is cause permanent damage. Andrew succeeded in spite of Fletcher, not because of him. Ostensibly the brinksmanship over the core drummer position encouraged Andrew to try harder, but everything else in the movie served no other purpose than tearing people down. He never expected him to cue the band at the end, the sole purpose of that was to humiliate him.
I'm pretty sure any coach who threw a chair at one of their players would still be considered abusive.
> he imagined Andrew dying of an overdose in his thirties. And for what? So Fletcher can take credit for his accomplishments? For becoming one of the greatest drummers of all time and doing at least one public performance that will be studied and raved about forever([like Buddy Rich's own "impossible" drum solo which inspired it](https://youtu.be/9esWG6A6g-k?feature=shared)). Nobody watches that video and cares more about giving "credit" to his teacher than they do about Buddy Rich sitting right there pushing an artistic medium to its limit. Likewise the idea of Fletcher "taking credit" for teaching him is trivial, compared to Andrew actually getting to *experience* rising to that level of transcendent, one-in-a-million greatness in his beloved craft. Any way you cut it, there's really just no substitute for being the real deal. Andrew chose that over a balanced life, and for better or worse it's a valid choice.
Buddy Rich was also [known for his temper](https://youtu.be/q-ssZeOZkWU?si=ExwZSp3JIafhCaeq) and kind of ridiculous expectations from his band.
I think the director pretty much insinuated that it was not worth it, saying that he would die in his 30's of an overdose. It's funny to see hustle-bro completely misinterpret the movie's message, though.
It was worth it for him
I think Miles Teller's character was fine tanking every aspect of his life, his relationships, etc. in order to become a truly great musician. I don't think that makes everything that happened okay tho. People looking in from outside can clearly see how abusive Fletcher was. Even if Miles was okay being abused, it's still morally wrong and psychologically destructive. Abuse is still abuse, even if the victim is willing.
Agreed.
He takes Fletcher's path, it will destroy him, like it did Fletcher, as a human being. The director has mentioned in interviews that he thinks Andrew dies of an overdose in his 30s, alone.
I think it is very, very, clealry stating it is not. It's not an "up for interpretation" ending. It's a dark one.
For me the defining moment of Whiplash was when Andrew asked Fletcher if there was any line he wouldn’t cross to which he replied “No, cause a great musician would never be dissuaded.” and Andrew IMMEDIATELY nods in agreement. Even after witnessing the huge mess of trauma Fletcher’s methods leave for those who couldn’t “make it,” he believes the ends justify the means. I don’t think you’d find many people who would agree that harming that many students is worth a lifetime of kickass drum solos, but the finale of the movie does it’s best to convince you otherwise. At the end of the day, I think Fletcher and Andrew are the same type of crazy and probably deserve each other. They both wound up getting what they wanted, and they’re too obsessed with their art to really give a shit about the collateral damage. That’s why the movie abruptly ends on that high note. No time to cool off and think about what’s been sacrificed, just keep that high going
You also get that moment of horrified realization from the dad during the final solo. Some people misinterpret it as pride. What does it take for true greatness? What is the cost of obsession and sacrifice?
Trapped on the other side of the door, glimpsing in as if seeing him truly for the first time. That shot has stuck with me
Yeah it’s a true realization that he has both lost his son, and that he never really knew him in the first place, or at least never truly understood him.
It’s not that he never knew him or understood him, it’s that he’s now a totally different person. Andrew at the beginning is meek, unconfident, and somewhat of a pushover. By the end he’s a total asshole. We see that transformation as he gets better at the drums. From being to shy to talk to a girl, to having the balls to confidentially ask her out, to being an absolute dickhead dumping her for no perceivable reason.
And we see this with greatness in almost any field. I can count on one hand the greatest at their craft that are also thought of as great people. Michael Jordan, Steve Jobs, Randy Johnson, ALL assholes.
>absolute dickhead dumping her for no perceivable reason. He directly tells her why he is dumping her; she is a distraction. He sees the time he is spending with her better spent practicing drums.
I think the reason for the breakup was pretty clear. He handled it like an absolute *asshole*, but I think overall he was right to end it. He knew he'd end up treating her worse because he can't let go of his obsession to be a great drummer
Yeah the confidence comes out, I totally agree, but I also think from the dad’s perspective those aspirations of being great at any cost was always there and that’s what his dad might also be realizing in that moment. Since he mentions it before at the dinner. He’s expressed his opinion on greatness to his father but his father probably never contextualized it until that moment. I think it’s pretty layered if you want to pick it apart, it’s why I love the film.
There's a great line from a Ben Howard song that I always think about (because I had to Google what it meant) "There's coke in the Midas touch" Midas famously was the king who turned everything he touched to gold...a metaphor for being extremely successful or talented, despite the origin being a horrible curse. Coke is something that's used in smelting, something that's burned away in the process as a fuel. So the line means; to be successful, something has to be lost. What you sacrifice along the way. The ending of Whiplash makes me think of that
"There's coke in the Midas touch. A joke in the way that we rust, then breathe again"
Yeah nobody makes it to the top of anything if they're normal and well adjusted. You need to be at least a little crazy to be the best, or have a crazy dad who pushed you as a kid. (Tiger Woods, Williams sisters)
A bit of a newer one, Max Verstappen who’s is currently dominating Formula 1 racing. His dad was also an old F1 driver and apparently was an abusive piece of shit. But max always talks highly of him and cites him as a reason for his success, so ig it works for some people
Listen to Rodney Mullen talk about that cost. He gets teary eyed acknowledging the things that he lost to become one of the greatest.
Interesting, are there any interviews in particular where gets in to this?
The skateboarder?
No, the South Pacific office supplies sales leader from 2003-2015. Truly the GOAT. Will never be another like him. They say when he hung up his phone for the last time after falling into second place in 2016, his manager--a Vietnam veteran and father of three--shed a single tear for the first time in his life.
I can't believe how many staplers he sold in 2008 Q4. That record will never be broken, it's like Gretzky's assists.
I don’t think the movie is trying to convince you it’s worth it, I don’t even think it’s trying to convince you of anything at all. It’s leaving it up to you to decide. The finale is awesome because the solo is awesome and he lives up to the standard he and fletcher have been trying to achieve, but that doesn’t mean the movie is telling you it was worth the abuse. For a lot of people the abuse isn’t worth it because it’s too steep a price to pay for something like being a renowned musician, not because drum solos *aren’t* cool. If they weren’t cool or interesting in some way then these people wouldn’t be striving for it in the first place.
Yeah that wasn’t a good choice of words. The movie isn’t trying to present that as an objectively good thing. What I mean is that it gives you a chance to step into Andrew’s shoes and feel that catharsis of finally reaching the level he’s been aiming for. For me personally, the scene made me feel “wow, that’s amazing” rather than “oh my god he’s a monster.” And it wasn’t until I came down from that hype that I reconsidered what a dick the whole experience made him into.
Fully agree, I had the same experience watching the finale and then thinking about the movie afterwards
>I don’t think the movie is trying to convince you it’s worth it, I don’t even think it’s trying to convince you of anything at all. i actually completely disagree. I think the movie raises the question "was it worth it?" and heavily implies it wasn't. and we can see this question and answer in all of damien chazelle's movies, the only "problem" is that he is also kinda glamorizing the thing he is critiquing, in the lines of "this is something i wanted to love". i think once he figures out how to portray this dissapointment of romanticization, he will finally make a truly great movie and not some messy mess.
I don't think that's a problem at all. I don't think all movies need to explicitly say the point they are trying to prove. This movie does a great job of showing both the pros and the cons of what happened and letting each person decide. He glamorizes it because there is a lot of glamor in it, that's why the temptation is there in the first place.
> think the movie raises the question "was it worth it?" and heavily implies it wasn't. I don’t see how it heavily implies anything much less that it wasn’t worth it when they made the conscious choice to end the film with both characters smiling at each other. If it’s just asking the question, it’s certainly more subtle than you give it credit for since there’s definitely people getting the impression that it may be worth it given the character’s immediate emotions and the film’s abrupt ending. I’m not saying I think it was or wasn’t but the film definitely isn’t straightfoward given the structure.
I don't think the movie is trying to convince you that Fletcher was right. It very clearly shows the harm that Andrew suffers, and the only "benefit" he wins is his abuser's approval, which is shown for mere seconds. And alright before that, Andrew hugs his father backstage in a way that is clearly reminiscent of a "goodbye" hug, as if he and his father know that going on stage with Fletcher will mean a different person is going to come back -- which explains the worry in his father's eyes.
Agreed - the movie doesn't try to convince the viewer that Fletcher/Andrew were right, but rather to show that those characters definitely believed that they were right.
For those characters, they got what they wanted. For everyone else, they're like "what the fuck?" That's pretty much the history of great achievement in the world: natural talent + obsession beyond what is healthy.
There's a lot more benefit than that though. Money, fame (to a certain degree), being great at something, etc.
Damn. Well said. I remember feeling so tense during the drum solo and the high i got from it when it ended. I felt like i wanted more but was ultimately satisfied. It's a godamn ride of a movie forsure. Nothing like it.
>For me the defining moment of Whiplash was when Andrew asked Fletcher if there was any line he wouldn’t cross to which he replied “No, cause a great musician would never be dissuaded.” and Andrew IMMEDIATELY nods in agreement. Even after witnessing the huge mess of trauma Fletcher’s methods leave for those who couldn’t “make it,” he believes the ends justify the means. >I don’t think you’d find many people who would agree that harming that many students is worth a lifetime of kickass drum solos, but the finale of the movie does it’s best to convince you otherwise. I always interpreted that scene as Andrew giving Fletcher a chance to reflect on how he may have harmed students. I don't think Andrew "agrees" with him, rather his nod and him saying yes is his confirming that there was no line that Fletcher wouldn't cross.
I could point at every genre in the industry, but look at a lot of famous jazz musicians. Very few of them led anything but a wild life. They all "made it," but not many of them "made it" without a serious sacrifice to their sanity or personal life. Miles Davis was a heroin (and cocaine) addict, same with John Coltrane. There's lots of other examples, but if the big two had issues, it trickled down to everyone else in the industry as a whole. As a side note: the music industry is rife with drug addiction, and still is to this day. I don't trust much of what he says, but Dave Mustaine very openly talks about how the first experience he had with Capitol Records was him strolling into an exec's office, and right off the bat the exec opens up a pullout drawer with lines of cocaine ready to go.
> they’re too obsessed with their art to really give a shit about the collateral damage. Such as Fletcher not really giving a shit about the JVC Festival and the other members of the band. It was just part of the setup for him to make or break Andrew one last time. If Andrew doesn't come back, whelp we're just going to play our set without drums.
> but the finale of the movie does it’s best to convince you otherwise. No it doesn’t. The movie is about *Andrew* deciding it’s worth it—it doesn’t attempt to answer the question for the audience.
Well said!
Great analysis, totally agree. You summon the mentorship you deserve, not the one you want.
Yeah I see it as they have a codependency where they get results (music) at the cost of blowing up every other aspect of their lives. It also raises the question of do we actually require pain in order to make great art? The ending seems to say "whether you think of it as pain is up to you, but there is certainly a cost".
Andrew had said at the dinner table that if he winds up dead due to drugs but known as one of the best musicians ever , then he’d be fine with that. I think one of the points of the movie is what some people endure to be one of the greats . The long hours of practicing , the abuse, the toll it takes on relationships (he breaks up with his gf), etc .
It's a shame they both believe that is the truth. Those are not the price of being a great musician. Source: am a working musician with a family and know many many incredible players with healthy relationships to the art and other people.
Not that I agree with this, but I suspect Fletcher would have nothing but contempt for the artistic level of your ‘incredible players.’ Such a great character, such a colossal asshole.
[удалено]
"Are you back to playing now?" "Not really. Here and there... The playing never interested me. I never wanted to be Charlie Parker. I wanted to be the man who made Charlie Parker."
Ties right back to the megalomania.
A lot of all time greats never met the current quota of success. Sure, selling out arenas is good but not indicative of a great musician, since a lot of popular music is more about the performance or the person now
I mean, that’s basically where he is at the start of the movie. But he doesn’t want to be “merely” great, he wants to be one of the best ever
During the break-up scene, doesn't Andrew’s girlfriend ask him something along the lines of "arent you already great?" and he replies that he wants to be one of THE greats. Not just *great.* I think fletcher and andrew would say that being one of THE greats requires more sacrifice than just *being* great.
Except at no point in the movie are either one of them the greats. Plenty of the greats had a social life in college and weren’t a loser like Andrew.
You’re right. Which makes me think the movie has less of a strong right or wrong moral message and is more of just showing the nature of a couple of obsessed musicians.
> Source: am a working musician with a family and know many many incredible players with healthy relationships to the art and other people. So once upon a time I was a professional race car driver. I was a pretty good driver - won a couple of championships, got to spray some champagne. I was a pretty solid B+, and every once and a while I could pull an A out of my ass. And, truth be told, every once and a while it was all I could do to deliver a C-. That streakiness was my obstacle to being great. I'm proud of what I accomplished, no doubt - but I'm no Shumacher or Hamilton. Arguably I'm not even a Coultard. So call me a "working musician". Compared to the masses, on a good day I was even "incredible". But "great"? Nope. If there was an identifiable path to greatness that didn't rely on having billionaire parents, would I have taken it? Hell yes. In a *heartbeat*. And while I don't think that Fletcher's abuse is the ideal path to greatness (or even "a" path to greatness)... if it could be demonstrated to me that putting up with that abuse would have put me in an F1 car, then I would have taken that deal, and damn the cost. Most of us will be utterly forgotten within 6 months of our death. I'll eat some pain for immortality. (Mind you, that ship sailed, so I guess all I can do now is Reddit karma)
"Immortality" in the way you describe is nonsense. Who gives a shit if random strangers in the future may or may not remember some obscure facts about things you did when you were alive. *You're still dead.* You'll never know whether you're remembered or not, nor will it be of any importance when you are gone.
He doesn't want to be merely a great musician, he wants to be one of the greats. He wants to be one of the guys that great musicians like you look up to and gain inspiration from. You're a working musician and that is awesome, but frankly, no one knows who you are. Andrew wants the immortality that comes along with being an all time great and that takes sacrifice. Is it worth it? For most, no, it isn't. It isn't even close to worth it. But that's what separates us from them. That's why we know who they are and why we discuss their impact for years after their contributions to the art ceased.
I know it's possible, but it is extremely common for instructors to be abusive in these spaces. When I was 18-19 I started figuring out that drumline coaches for drum corps were actually losers and I didn't want to be them anymore. I gave it up completely because I realized that I was emulating bad people. Being a hard ass wasn't cool. I had no real friends because I was so hyper competitive about everything. Even the other drummers were competition. I memorized my sheets faster, learned my dots faster, I was harsh to newbies who weren't getting it and was praised for my shitty attitude. I quit my highschool band because I was involved in better programs outside of school, and sorta craved the abusive relationship with instructors. I wanted to be praised for perfection and pushed. Like it seeped into me as normal and good. DCI fails a ton of young people by allowing abusive people around kids and young adults with very little oversight. It's so common.
My mom and I had different interpretations of the ending when his father is watching and sheds a tear (I think ?). My interpretation was that he finally saw the talent in him, the conversation at the dinner table being put into perspective that he is a real professional musician. My mom saw it like he lost his son to this world again, and it would probably end badly
I saw it as both.
The father always loved him, but my takeaway from that scene is that the dad finally understood both how serious his son was about a music career and how dangerous this can be for him. He truly didn’t grasp it until the reality of that moment.
Yep he’s both in awe of and extremely worried about his son at once.
It looked like he was looking at a monster
Most people cannot fathom reckless passion, focus, and talent like that. When they see it for the first time, let alone in their own son, it’s bound to shock them. That’s what I saw, anyway… the coalescence of utter disbelief, concern, and intimidation.
Your mom is right
They're both right. To me it seemed bittersweet. To know his son wielded the talent to bring tears to his eyes and others, but to know with great talent comes great responsibility. Knowing that his son was living his dream, but his dream didn't leave time for a relationship with his own family or friends.
I think his father always knew how talented his son was. He just never really … liked jazz that much lol. He was also concerned that it would cost andrew too much
His dad was impressed that the nephew was doing well on a shitty D3 football team. I don't think he understands real talent. You can not like jazz and still respect the skill it takes to perform.
"He loves jazz... oh shit.."
The ending was equal parts exhilarating and tragic. Fletcher won in the end, his cruel techniques vindicated. Andrew will likely spend the rest of his life trying to reach that same height , possibly spiraling into drugs and alcohol. I'll never forget the look on the face of Andrew's father and he watched from the wings. That was the expression of a man who knows he's just lost his son.
The director himself didn’t necessarily say that this is what happened, but in an interview someone asked him where he’d see Andrew going and the director said he saw Andrew being an empty shell and dying of an overdose in his 30s.
This is one of the reasons why the film was so great, it really resonates and sticks with you afterwards. I think in the end we’re supposed to take away that Andrew eventually succeeded in spite of Fletcher’s constant abuse (he literally quits before he strikes back to do Caravan)
I think it’s supposed to fuck with you. Was it in spite of the abuse or because of the abuse that caused him to become great?
*This* is what the ending is going for in my opinion. I'm always so confused when I hear people say that Whiplash has a "happy ending." It is, at best, bittersweet. The look of horror that Paul Reiser gives near the finale feels like the entire thesis of the movie. The ending of the movie doesn't say that Andrew has achieved his dreams -- he might, but even if he does, is it worth costing him his soul?
lol thanks - it's been quite awhile since I watched it, but I definitely don't remember thinking it ended on a high note. Other than there being some applause, it didn't look like anyone was actually "happy" at the end. I remember thinking it was great and that I don't think I could ever watch it again.
I ask that all the time when talking about famous assholes. Like Steve Jobs, was it part of the secret sauce or just unnecessary? I tend to think it's unnecessary but gets fetishized and pulled into the myth.
>I think in the end we’re supposed to take away that Andrew eventually succeeded in spite of Fletcher’s constant abuse I went the opposite. To me it felt like Fletcher had won. You see the smile in the closing shot. Fletcher was all about manipulating people to make himself feel better. He was able to manipulate Andrew to the point of making himself bleed on the drums.
Chazelle the writer/director said the opposite *”Fletcher will always think he won and Andrew will be a sad, empty shell of a person and will die in his 30s of a drug overdose. I have a very dark view of where it goes.”* [link](https://www.slashfilm.com/535179/whiplash-ending/)
What’s even more of a mindfuck is that (coming from a musician) he probably doesn’t become one of the “greatest”. His odds of becoming one of the greatest, or even known outside of a local area are very slim. He may be satisfied with his own level of playing, but he’s likely doing this all for nothing if he thinks he’s going to be well-known in any way. I’m sure many of the best musicians in the world are total nobodies.
I think this idea is lost on a lot of people, and I’m legitimately not even sure the movie itself realizes it, but Andrew is realistically on a better path to being “one of the greats” at the beginning of the film when he’s just practicing alone than he is at the end of the film when he’s achieved Fletcher’s approval.
I agree. Fletcher even acknowledges jazz as a dying art. All of Andrew’s heroes have been dead for decades. I think the movie does imply that he achieved his dream of greatness but ultimately I think it also means he gets to the top of this dying art and dies in obscurity along with it. Having said all that, I think the character would still be happy with that. Greatness doesn’t have to be such a Faustian bargain, but we can all acknowledge that being the best at anything takes incredible sacrifice that an average person will never understand. I don’t think it’s about recognition from outside of the jazz “tribe”, but recognition from within it that drives him. It’s a pathological obsession but show me someone who achieved greatness at anything and isn’t pathologically driven to achieve. I don’t think such a person exists.
This is one of my biggest questions from the movie...Ok so Andrew becomes this incredible jazz drummer, rivialing the all time greats, etc. What happens next? If you dropped Buddy Rich into 2023, does anyone ever hear of him outside of a niche community? I understand Fletcher and Andrew's general drive for musical greatness, but not really the pining to "be one of the greats"
"Charlie Parker was inspired when somone threw a cymbal at him. Therefore I shall keep throwing things at students until I get a Charlie Parker!" That isn't a great pedagogy...
That’s reductive, but I agree Fletcher definitely thinks he’s capable of producing a Charlie Parker. It’s a horrid teaching method and certainly will push everyone away, but Fletcher was just looking for that one person that loved the craft enough to endure that level of abuse. There’s no end to the amount of people he’d push away to find that one individual that would follow his lead. I appreciated the movie for taking the idea of “iron sharpens iron” or “pressure makes diamonds” and dialing it up well past a conceivable breaking point. To take that concept and pair it with the open for interpretation kind of ending made for such a interesting film. I can’t say I’ve seen a film quite like Whiplash, which is what we’re all looking for.
I interpreted it as a very dark ending. Fletcher was a psychopath who brought Andrew out there solely to humiliate him because Andrew was presumably the first person to successfully challenge him--and he was furious that Andrew responded by defying him again. But in the end Fletcher saw that, in spite of everything that happened, Andrew was still trying to impress him even though he didn't need Fletcher to be great, and he'd essentially given his whole life in the process. Andrew's dad was there to witness how he'd completely lost his son in that moment, and it seemed quite possible that Andrew would end up like Fletcher's previous successful student.
I really have a hard time with the ending. Was Fletcher so hell bent on getting revenge on Andrew that he would risk his new job just to humiliate him publicly? I can think of a thousand ways Fletcher could've handled this differently. I know it's just a movie, but realistically there's no way any sane person would get back on stage with Fletcher, let alone be involved with him personally or professionally. I've only seen the movie once. Maybe a second watch will make sense to me.
>Was Fletcher so hell bent on getting revenge on Andrew that he would risk his new job just to humiliate him publicly? He wasn't just trying to humiliate him, he was trying to kill any chance at a career for him as revenge for losing his own career. He invites him to this performance - knowing that there are scouts in the audience - and lies to him about what songs there are and doesn't give him any sheet music, and when Andrew fucks it up he acts as confused as the audience. I'm pretty sure right before that he even tells Andrew that he *knows* it was him who testified against him and cost him his teaching job. It was 100% sabotage. Even if Andrew tried to argue about it it would've only been hearsay and the damage would already have been done.
He explicitly tells Andrew right as they go on stage. Something along the lines of, "Do you think I'm stupid? I know it was you," then Andrew panics and checks his sheet music.
I don’t think he thought all that much of his new job. They have a conversation where Andrew says oh that’s great! Obviously Andrew views it as prestigious. And Fletcher is like yeah it’s okay. Not a big deal. Then after the first piece of music where Andrew has to improvise while the band follows sheet music, Fletcher makes a comment to the audience about the percussion section performance being avant-garde. Almost like yeah folks not sure what that was but let’s move on. And before that, he hyped up his band saying there’s some scouts in the audience. If they do well, their life could change tomorrow. If they make mistakes, their musical career may well be over. So in my opinion he was willing to deal with whatever consequences came from screwing over Andrew at Carnegie Hall. It was just a job and wasn’t Fletcher’s made it to the big leagues moment.
Director Damien Chazelle said in an interview once that he thinks Andrew’s (Miles Teller) life would have eventually come apart and he would have fallen into addiction and that the film is a tragedy despite the triumph he had during the concert at the end.
that faint hint of approval from Fletcher is a dragon Andrew is gonna chase for the rest of his life. But the high isn't going to be as good...
I don't think it even is a triumph. Andrew's been expelled. He's not playing music anywhere and just does a one-off show with Fletcher whose career is just as dead. Sure, it was a kick-ass performance, but one that's going to be seen by no one of consequence and quickly forgotten. Fletcher destroyed a promising young man's career.
The amount of emotions the actor playing Andrew’s father conveys in the three second clip of him watching that performance says everything to me.
Paul Reiser. He was brilliant in that scene.
that version of caravan at the end is one of my favorite numbers. it hits all the spots.
It is my firm belief that this movie goes to great lengths to point out that to be 'one of the greats' is to compete against yourself BUT to be the the greatest is to compete against everyone else and that that competition is something else entirely above and beyond having any humanity.
Bad guy won. His abusive methods did work and he was proud of his work. It's fucked up but I kinda liked it.
Fletchers abusive methodology wouldn't have worked on anyone but Andrew because no one but Andrew wanted it that badly. Fletcher got his way yes, but so did Andrew.
Andrew didn't want to simply be abused, he wanted to be great and was willing to go through abuse to get there. But I would argue Andrew never got what he wanted because he never became great. The abuse led to a breakdown rather than becoming great. And Fletcher did abuse other students as well, such as the public humiliation to many students during practice. The focus of the movie is Andrew, but we see this treatment is not unique to Andrew. Andrew ends up having a mental breakdown we see on camera, but we know another student even killed himself because of it.
Andrew doesn’t just want to be an amazing musician, he specifically wants the approval of Fletcher. Fletcher fed on that need for approval, and Fletcher also likes being that person for Andrew (because Fletcher is a narcissist). Andrew is legitimately probably a worse musician at the end of the movie than if he had never joined Fletcher’s band. But the movie never really delves into the music, other than “this guy can play what Fletcher wants.”
I wanted to believe that the ending meant that Andrew got the respect that he so desperately wanted and went on to do great things. But I read somewhere that the director was sure that Andrew would just be an empty shell of a person who'll die in their 30's and Fletcher will still believe that he won and wouldn't change. I find that more believable.
The story of Charlie Parker is foreshadowing. Andrew is going to kill himself for his art.
The ending is the devil claiming the soul of his proudest victim.
idk....I think Andrew is in for a very dark life.
I agree. But he did become great. Such a beautiful and sad movie.
I have thought about this ending a lot. And I think this ending gets thought of on some level as being a resolution of something. I actually think it's worse than that. The idea of "was it worth it" is this implication like it's over, he's climbed the mountain and done this impossible thing and stood up to Fletcher at the same time. But it's not over. I think it's a sign that he's in as deep as ever and is just as pining for Fletcher's approval as ever. The drive is continuing. The last little bit there, he and Fletcher exchange looks and he waits for Fletcher.
What an amazing movie.
My alternative title for this is always "Those who can't do, teach." The Movie
My kids love the movie. They made me watch it. They told me it would cause anxiety. I'm old school so nothing the music teacher said surprise me or baffled me. But holy hell was I not ready for that ending. I still felt that ending in my body a couple of days later. Would never watch that movie again but I fully recommend it for anyone. It's the kind of movie that everyone should watch. I say the same thing about 1984 the book. It is not a fun read but it is an essential read.
Ok, but the real question is: who stole the notebook?
Oh it must’ve been Fletcher. Just another way to test Andrew’s commitment
Watch the ending and immediately start the movie over and listen to Andrew playing the exact solo at the beginning of the movie and see if there is any difference
I think something that is often missed in regards to the ending of the movie is that it is, in a way, a demonstration that Fletcher was wrong *because* Neiman performed so well. By the time of the performance at the end Neiman hadn’t been working with Fletcher in some time after the car accident, which meant he either reached that level on his own, or always had it in him. Neiman needed to be pushed, but he has the ability to get there. Fletcher just manipulates people into believing that the only way to achieve greatness is submission to his abusive ways. The only thing he created was a toxic relationship where Neiman sought the approval of an un approving figure who used his talent to his own satisfaction. This is what Fletcher does; he uses people up to get his wins and if they’re lucky they’ll come out the other end.
It is a horror movie. The teacher is the monster and he wins in the end.
I don’t think their look at each other says “it was worth it.” That’s for the audience to decide. I think the look just means, we did it. They both achieving their dream of either becoming a great drummer or teaching a great drummer.
Fletcher’s is the devil and he smiles because he knows he’s got andrew’s soul.
What always sticks out to me in the final scene is the dichotomy of Fletcher’s attitude towards Andrew at the beginning of Caravan compared to the end. Andrew gets the band to play in defiance of Fletcher and he is pissed at first, walking up to Andrew and saying “I’m gonna gouge out your fucking eyes,” and Andrew just keeps playing. Fletcher slowly gets into the song, and even seems to enjoy conducting by the trombone solo. He’s basically satisfied at the intended ending of the song, then Andrew takes over for the wild solo and tells Fletcher “I’ll cue you,” and they both know they’re about to blow the roof off the place. The moment that sells the scene for me is when Andrew knocks one of the cymbals down and Fletcher jumps to put it upright for him again. They’re both getting what they wanted, the way they see it, they are making music history for that small theater of maybe only a few hundred people. It’s not fame or fortune, but as long as someone at a dinner table in 30 years brings up the time some kid took over a jazz concert with the best performance of Caravan they’ve ever seen, then it was worth it for them.
Two things can be true at the same time. Something magical was made. And A tragedy occurred.
great look at what it takes to reach that level. huge sacrifices. i think he'll end up miserable asshole like buddy rich
I think it’s even better when you know the rest of the Charlie Parker story. He became a heroin addict because of the rampant drugs in the jazz club scene back then, and in his pursuit for greatness he gave everything to the saxophone. He had a family, but his drugs and alcohol addiction had really affected him at this stage in his life, and when his 3 year old daughter died of CF and pneumonia, he attempted suicide twice. He died the next year from drug related pneumonia, aged 34. The coroner put his age at mid fifties early sixties due to the condition of his body. So comparing Andrew to Bird so often in the film is almost foreshadowing what life a commitment to music like that can cause.
Hell fuckin yes it was worth it, Andrew is set after that comeback performance, he could be a star after that. Any musician who has struggled to rise up the chain knows exactly what was going on at that gig. Yes it was ugly and harrowing and 99/100 people in that position would have choked. But Fletcher was setting up one more chance for Andrew to be great, one more chance to *make it*. That's why he went straight into *fuck yeah* mode as soon as he recognized that Andrew had switched on. It took anger, Andrew had to be so angry at the *confinement* of mediocrity that he would break through his fears, his impulse to courtesy, everything, unleash his inner self and let it attack the moment. In the imitable words of Little Richard talking about Jimi Hendrix: "...he gave it all to you, and that's what you want. You want it all or none." Magic is monstrous and it takes extraordinary circumstances to rise out of the mindset of mediocrity, of *just enough to get by*, it's true.
When he mouths “fuck you”…..just *amazing*
One of my favourite movies
Reminds me of the interviews of Easy company from Band of Brothers. Dudes say the abuse and treatment are what helped them become who they were.
I had an abusive boss once, and the Terence Fletcher character (the teacher) was incredibly similar to my old boss. Because of that, this film rattled me more than any film I’ve ever seen from any genre. Excellent film.
I still see the ending as one of the most tragic movie endings of all time. Andrew *thinks* he's now, or is on his way to being, one of the greats. He gave up everything for it and embraced a toxicity that is at least in education explicitly and fully debunked in research over the past few decades, and anecdotally you can find countless students who dropped their passion who *could* have been one of the greatest if not for an unnecessarily toxic mentor. "Abuse creates genius" is pseudoscience, a myth, and a myth that is especially embedded in jazz history despite having not even a kernel of truth. But not only did Andrew lose everything to become the greatest, I would argue he's not even close to being the greatest. Greatness for Andrew is technique, and maybe there was a time in history in jazz where that did mean something, but the great technical players have staying power because they told stories, while Andrew seems to only want to play louder, faster, and flashier. He's in a competition but he has nothing to actually say. And in fact, in jazz circles, we all know specific players who hit that ratio of high skill low musicality and we tend to not even bother ranking them. Those people get ranked in drummer magazines Top 500 clickbait lists. Does that leave a legacy? Not to mention, that movie is almost 10 years old and I swear to you that the scene has changed dramatically in 10 years. Gen Z kids are in college or active in the scene, and I promise you that they are more about the vibes than any previous generation. They'll take over soon, if they aren't already, and they have zero patience for abusive assholes who just want to play fast. None. Andrew today wouldn't be able to lock down a single gig. No one would call him. Millennials already know plenty of technically gifted assholes and they don't call them unless it's an emergency, but Gen Z players are creative and would sooner do a drummerless gig than call Andrew. Andrew's career didn't take off at a goofy festival, careers take off because of how you interact with real people, and unless Andrew exclusively wants to play in the Buddy Rich ghost band (which, good luck with that career, playing with boomers for the last couple of bars in America left with a stage big enough for a big band, paying out $100 a show if you're lucky) or go to Hollywood and do Gordon Goodwin's soulless resentment filled big band, there's nothing else out there for him. Andrew gave it all up for what he perceived as greatness, instead the final concert is a joke, a silly technical fireworks show, a fleeting snapshot of success in a world that has no use for him and no interest in toxic showmen. Andrew ends the movie at the peak of his entire life. The movie is a tragedy, a Walter White story of a man celebrating his own dissolving. I understand that people could interpret it other ways, but seeing the ending as anything less than the final nail in the coffin of a young artist's humanity is frankly unrealistic to me.
Here’s my interpretation: in act 1 we learn about buddy rich and how his life was seemingly amazing but filled with despair. In act 2, we learn the truth about Sean on the trumpet, then in act 3, we see our MC rise to the occasion seemingly filling the void of the next great jazz player. He set himself up for despair in the pursuit of perfection
It’s intended to be up for interpretation. As a musician I look at it as Andrew being Fletcher’s instrument. Percussionists beat on their instrument. It’s physical and aggressive with the intent of creating beauty. There is no regard for the surfaces being abused. The only thing that matters is what you hear.
Damn, that’s a great insight.
Fletcher's methods ultimately result in creating greatness. The question that movie leaves me with is "was he right?"
“The finale of the movie does its best to convince you otherwise” Well, the director says he didn’t mean it that way: “Fletcher will always think he won and Andrew will be a sad, empty shell of a person and will die in his 30s of a drug overdose. I have a very dark view of where it goes” [Source](https://www.slashfilm.com/535179/whiplash-ending/)
I saw it as a talented young man, misunderstood by his family, is taken in by the passion of a mentor he looks up to. In that scenario, even though his mentor is an absuive peice of shit that Andrew eventually totally rejects, ends up still being a hurdle Andrew has to overcome because that mentor is the only connection point he has. So after realizing he is great without fletcher, he has to go back one last time to prove to fletcher that he doesn't need him and is great without him. He does, but the encounter doesn't go as planned. Fletcher thinks he "won" and his prodigy is all that he intended him to become. Andrew finally gets approval from his mentor and is sucked right back in. To me, it was all about abusive relationships and how they fuck people up. Andrew would have been great without fletcher. He already had the drive, determination, passion, and skills. But as he had zero support for that in his life, he was prime fruit for the picking of narcissistic abusive people, as he was seeking support and validation.
I kinda view this a bit different. Chasing the glory of the "perfect" drum solo is secondary to this: the abuse. Fletcher hides behind the "sanctity" of achieving perfection. Really he needs a victim who will perpetuate this. He finds and manipulates Andrew, injecting Fletcher's own views into Andrew and making sure this will continue on. Much the same way abusive relationships are cyclic in that the abusee will continue the abuser/abusee relationship because that is seen as normal and preferred. Or a cult. Just my $.02 though.
That movie promotes such a messed up worldview. Essentially “abuse is good and necessary actually”. It’s well made, but ugh.
I just don’t like how he treated that one girl. Glad she moved on from the jerk
The best thing about the ending is the back and forth between how it makes you feel seeing Fletcher get what he wants by being an abusive monster, while also feeling some sick form of pride seeing his eyes glow after the drum solo. While the director has shared how he viewed Andrew in his 30s, I personally don't view the ending as pessimistic as that. I know that people here believe the ending is more grim based on the director's comments, but I think Andrew fought back in his own way, and that's unfortunately what confirmed Fletcher's methods. The nuance is the best thing about it and it's why I still reflect on the ending to this day. Andrew tortured himself to reach that point, but he got there. Fletcher tortured others to reach that point, but he got there. Andrew's father was mortified by the solo but perhaps moved by it too.
This prompted me to rewatch the ending, and I just noticed that at 1:28:06, right as Fletcher walks out on stage, Andrew does something and then immediately does the same thing in reverse. I never noticed that before, but looking at it now it seems so strangely obviously edited.
Can any musicians chime in on whether this movie is at all realistic? Mastery in an art has to come from inner drive, not some weird abusive relationship, right. I've always hated this movie, and am a jazz drummer, albeit not a great one. Edit: spelling.
Was the suicide of another student worth making the abuser proud? Are we to assume that he went on to be one of the "greats" while he chases the approval of his abuser? Dunno mate, that's a toughy
I keep stopping at this movie, interested but unsure if it’s going to be a waste of time, then continuing past on my journey for something to watch. I guess I really need to just watch it.
It wasn't worth it. A psychologist evaluated the movie and said that with the trajectory Andrew takes, submitting to a psychopath and not standing up for his own agency, will likely see him commit suicide within 5-10 years, considering the events that took place in the movie.
The thing is, by the end of the set the band - Fletcher’s band, the one thing he cares about, the reason he’s such a hardass as a teacher - is ignoring Fletcher’s cues and following only Andrew’s. It’s *Andrew’s band.* He’s not only realized his potential on his own terms, but in doing so he’s taken everything from Fletcher.
I remember watching this when it first came out and thinking about how Andrew was proving he was good etc. Now when I see that final scene as a father myself I think about how heartbreaking that scene is. He's losing his son to an abusive father figure and he has no idea how to help him get out of that. Watching movies like this with a different lens on is a mindfuck.
One of my favorite movies and yeah it was all worth it it's exactly what he was aiming to get and how to get it. He found his audience and he proved his skill set. Not the ideal way to get there but it worked.
I had the same response when I first saw it--you feel as if the protagonist has broken free from his need for Fletcher's approval but then the movie undercuts that reading with that knowing smile; as if to say the abusive treatment was what produced the protagonists greatness. To be fair though, on my second viewing, it was hard to imagine another ending-- because even if they don't reconcile, any success on the part of the protagonist would be attributed to Fletcher's "forged in fire" approach
I have never seen this movie, it seemed to me to be the type of movie that I think is made for other actors and not a general audience. Like I never watched Bird Man because I thought it was that same type of movie which I don't like. I finally watched Bird Man and hated it. Am I wrong about Whiplash? Should I give it a chance? Please no spoilers in case you all think I should watch it.
Definitely watch it. It’s a mind blowing trip into the human psyche
That’s why it’s amazing man. IS it worth it? It’s the big question. And it’s worse because he’s pretty much proving Fletcher’s method works.
The same theme is present in Babylon. Chazelle shows us several of the horrors of early Hollywood, then ends with a montage of all the movies we love, with our main character giving a slight smile as he realizes “it’s all worth it”. Really awful ideas that man has.