Whiplash says some pretty strange things about achieving greatness, like the importance of giving yourself to the dark side and sacrificing everything, and how everyone on the path is a jerk. It all adds up to an extremely bleak portrayal of artistic achievement. But where does this all come from, and what can we learn from it? What does Whiplash actually tell us about greatness, and more interestingly, what does it tell us about the filmmaker who achieved greatness by making it?
Movies Under The Surface is a series of video essays that explores what makes great films great. The videos are about understanding movies at a deeper level, beneath plot and story, at their heart.
For educational purposes only.
Footage from:
Whiplash (2014), Dir. Damien Chazelle
Fight Club (1999), Dir. David Fincher
Boogie Nights (1996), Dir. Paul Thomas Anderson
The Simpsons (1989- ), Cre. Matt Groening
Music from:
Whiplash Soundtrack - Justin Hurwitz and Tim Simonec
Whiplash - Hank Levy
Caravan - Jual Tizol and Duke Ellington
You can also follow us on Facebook:
https://www.facebook.com/moviesunderthesurface
Full Transcript:
FLETCHER: Now we’re gonna slow it down a little bit. I’m guessing most of you folks have heard-
Hi, my name is Gabe and in this video I’ll be looking into Whiplash.
Whiplash blew me away when I first saw it, the film has so much passion and energy, so much that it can barely contain it. The film actually reminds me of the early works of some other great filmmakers; it bursting with talent and genius, barely holding itself together with its own energy.
EDDIE: Don't fucking tell me that I'm not-
EDDIE'S MOM: You can't do anything!
EDDIE: Let go of me! And don't you talk to me!
Because of this, it can be hard to discern everything going on in this film:
FLETCHER: Not my fucking tempo!
there’s a lot here and it isn’t all working together, but it is very interesting.
Before I go any further, you should know that there’ll be spoilers ahead.
Alright, let’s get into it. To begin, let’s look at one of the most striking aspects of the film: its devil motif. Specifically, Fletcher is the devil, or at least he represents him. And it’s not just that he is scary and intimidating,
FLETCHER: ANSWER!
or abusive and manipulating, or that he lies and never takes responsibility.
FLETCHER: Shawn… died yesterday… in a car accident.
RACHEL: Does the name Shawn Casey mean anything to you? Do you know of his death? Last month he hanged himself in his apartment.
He also wears all black, his room is lit fire-y orange and yellow, and look at how he is depicted: lean, muscular, bald, oversized facial features; these are all classic devil characteristics.
Fletcher representing the devil actually leads straight into what this film is about: selling your soul to achieve greatness. Sacrificing everything and giving yourself to the dark side to achieve your dream.
Pretty much all of Whiplash supports this. The only other teacher in the film, this guy,
MR. KRAMER: Good morning everybody.
MR. KRAMER’S STUDENTS: Good morning.
seems really nice; his room is also much brighter and his students don’t fear him, and yet every student wants to be in Fletcher’s class instead. Andrew and his fellow musicians are all assholes,
ANDREW: Fuck off Johnny Utah! Turn my pages, bitch!
chauvinists,
SAXOPHONIST: She coulda did porn but she chose not to.
SAXOPHONIST 2: Does that make it better?
hotheads,
CARL: Find the fucking folder! A fucking janitor! You’re a dumb fuck!
and jerks:
SAXOPHONIST 2: Milk the cunt!
people who already have the devil inside them, and wouldn’t hesitate use it to be great. Actually, there are two exceptions: this guy, who is driven out of the film immediately after being introduced,
FLETCHER: THEN WHY THE FUCK DIDN'T YOU SAY SO?
and this guy,
RYAN: Hey, don’t worry about Greg. He’s a dick.
who the whole film it is implied he doesn’t belong.
RYAN: Am I late?
FLETCHER: Perfect timing.
As for the non-musician characters, Nicole is super-sweet, supportive of Andrew and actually connecting with him, something no one else but Fletcher does. But unlike Fletcher, Andrew has no problem kicking Nicole to the curb.
NICOLE: And when I did see you you’d treat me like shit because I’m just some girl who doesn’t know what she wants and you have a path, and you’re going to be great, and I’m going to be forgotten and therefore you won’t be able to give me the time of day because you have bigger things to pursue.
ANDREW: That’s exactly my point.
Andrew’s dad is also nice and caring, and even if he doesn’t understand his son, he still shows up to support him. But even so, it is implied that Andrew leaves him too,
JIM: What’re you doing?
becoming one with the devil and finding a new father-figure in him.
This message: that to succeed one must sacrifice everything and give yourself to the devil, is a strange one, and one that is disproved by many successful people who didn’t ruin their lives to achieve greatness. The message is particularly strange because Chazelle doesn’t even believe it; he has actually stated that this film takes things to an extreme he doesn’t condone. Add to this that the film is so raw and personal, Chazelle putting himself into it seemingly with every fiber of his being, and the message becomes even stranger still.
But despite this, every time the film could have gone a different direction it didn’t: Fletcher could have tried to help Andrew in the end, or at least not sabotage him. Nicole could have come back, or they could have never broken up in the first place. Andrew’s dad could’ve been more supportive when Andrew was being dismissed and condescended towards,
UNCLE FRANK: Well I’m so glad you figured it out, it’s a nasty business I am sure.
and also when he was confronting giving up on his dream. And it’s actually simpler than all this: Andrew could have changed the direction himself, by simply not going inside the bar where Fletcher was playing.
Why would a film do this: deliver a message that the writer/director doesn’t believe?
FLETCHER: You're done.
Sure, part of it is for entertainment’s sake, but this film is too personal for that to be the only reason. Something else is going on here.
But honestly, even though I know something is there, it’s hard to tell what it is. This is where the film starts to break down, where the dynamics are all over the place and the film gets messy. I can think of several reasons why a filmmaker might want to make a personal film about something he doesn’t believe, but I can’t tell why it was done in this film specifically.
Maybe, despite not condoning what is depicted, maybe Chazelle did something similar and the film is a catharsis for him? After all, he made it as a filmmaker; is this how he did it? Is this film his explanation, or perhaps an apology? The film doesn’t indicate whether this is the case or it isn’t.
Maybe the film is Chazelle’s explanation of why he didn’t make it as a musician? He obviously has an intense passion for music, the whole film being about his feelings for it. This is what allows the film to get away with so much ridiculousness:
ANDREW: I’m coming you motherfucker!
the moments may be ridiculous, but the feelings behind them are honest and deep. But maybe, despite these feelings, maybe Chazelle wasn’t willing or able to go the places he needed to make it as a musician. Maybe he made this film to explain that, to help out the next person who goes on that journey. Or maybe he made it to reassure himself that he made the right decision pursuing filmmaking instead. Again, if this is the case, the film doesn’t say it.
There are many other possible explanations, but none have any evidence in the actual filmmaking. Because of this, I suspect what’s really going on is something else entirely. My guess is that Chazelle wasn’t concerned about making the dynamics fit, I think he simply focused on telling the most exciting story he could, and pouring himself into it was an uncontrolled result of how he did that. This level is a mess because the film isn’t really operating on it; it reaches it, but not in a controlled and deliberate manner.
It wouldn’t be the first time a great filmmaker did this, feeling their way through a film, making something powerful without knowing exactly what they’re making. Reaching this layer at all is impressive, reaching it in a controlled, deliberate, and powerful fashion: that’s how masterpieces are made.
Because of this, I don’t think Whiplash is a masterpiece, its deepest levels being too uncontrolled and messy. But even so, I still think this film is amazing. To even reach the level Whiplash does, giving us a glimpse into Chazelle soul (whatever that is) with so much rawness and honesty, him putting himself out there for all of us to see, this is really hard to do. And even though it’s not all there, I still think Chazelle still did it phenomenally. You can feel it, and that alone is an impressive feat. And if he can continue to do this while also locking in the dynamics, ensuring everything works together in a deliberate and controlled way, like the filmmakers at the beginning of this video went on to do, then Chazelle has masterpieces in his future. I think he can do it, and I can’t wait to see them.
Comments