Miles Teller described the look his father gives him at the end of the movie as not one of finally understanding his son's passion but instead one of horror at witnessing the extent of his son's obsession.
@@dylanguion6731 right? i'm surprised that wasn't mentioned at all. that was by far the main indicator that this ending was not supposed to be seen as "happy" but "tragic"
From the Screenplay: AT THE LOBBY DOORS Jim watches Andrew -- crazed, exhausted, looks like he’s pushing himself past what is safe -- and knows there is no longer anything he can do about it. He has lost. And then -- one of the USHERS steps forward from the edge of the stage. He looks at Jim -- and closes the doors, blocking Jim’s view. We linger on Jim for a moment -- behind the closed door, in silence. Conclusion: When you read the script, you realize that Jim “Lost” his son to his desire to no longer impress him but to impress Fletcher who has become a stand in for Jim since Fletcher’s way of thinking has corrupted Andrew. It’s a tale of abuse but Andrew does make the choice to go out there and even if this ending is a symbol for the type of brutal life style he’d have to live to stay successful which is the argument the film poses with the Charlie Parker story and how he ends up dead at 34 of an overdose, Andrew would rather have it that way anyway if it means never being forgotten.
I love how when Fletcher’s student dies (which we later learn was pretty much Fletcher’s fault), he does cry- not because a human being was lost… but because a musician was lost. Instead of remembering him as a person, he plays his music for the class and never talks about the guy himself. It really gives insight on how he views people
I disagree that it was Fletcher’s fault. A single teacher, years ago, made you kill yourself? It was because he was a good musician but never amounted to anything.
I just realised how Fletcher's past student cause of death was a car accident which foreshadows the near death experience Nieman goes through rushing to make it in time to the performance after forgetting his drum sticks. He was that close to becoming another casualty under Fletcher's guise.
I see the hug Andrew gives to his father at the end as a goodbye hug. It’s Andrews last moment as a normal player and person. After he walks back onto the stage, he transforms into what Fletcher always wanted, knowing his life will never being the same. His dad watches him change his entire person and life and he knows his son is gone and forever tied to Fletcher.
Why are you so nihilistic? Like chill Andrew is like 17 life can change every day forever? You serious? Wtf is wrong with these people with their such narrow small view on life lol
Agreed except I don't think he's necessarily tied to Fletcher specifically but rather he's now tied to what Fletcher embodies; the relentless, engulfing pursuit of perfection to the exclusion of everything else.
Could be that on one level a person has to sacrifice relationships to other people to achieve the highest excellence. That is part of the bargain. Not saying it's laudable, but I imagine Picasso was likely an asshole, but that was part of his character that enabled him to be a genius at what he did.
These moments of "happiness" are part of and necessary to the cycle of abuse. If they weren't there it would be much easier for people to leave these dysfunctional relationships. The abuse is seen as justified for these brief moments of relief.
i dont think this is the relationship abuse or parenting abuse type. Nieman isn't abused by Fletcher as much as he is abuser of himself in this movie. That smile at the end between Fletcher and Neiman is kinda "i know what you doing" thing between them, or "same rules apply" from Filth, cus they are kinda of the same type of person. I like how in my language movies title is "Obsession" or more accurate is "Posession" and not a "Whiplash".
One of the most noticeably absent things from the ending was any applause, or external validation at all. Any other movie of this type would end with a standing ovation - not only to underline how great the performance was but to give the movie audience that sense of payoff as well. So why is there no applause at the end? A key motif of the movie is the intense focus required to play at this level and how most people don't care about jazz at all. Removing the audience reaction from the ending highlights how narrowly these two characters are focused on excellence, even excluding their own audience. If art is a way to communicate, they have decided to only communicate with one another, cutting out everything else (Andrew's girlfriend, the door closing on his dad at the end, etc.) Even the close camera cuts of only their eyes in the final moment shows how hyper-focused they have become. Even the rest of the band no longer matters - like the Bobby Knight comparison, their goals are purely athletic and selfish and have nothing to do with the music or the audience.
I think it's obvious there would be a standing applause from such a performance, whether the movie shows it or not it clearly happened. A bunch of high society types don't assemble to see the best jazz musicians in the world give the best performance a human can give and not give a rousing applause. And he's not just a jazz machine, he's clearly a generational talent and, much like the guy who got ran over by a car, would go on to become a household name in jazz circles. In the real world generational jazz talents like Miles Davis and Louis Armstrong endured far worse abuse than Andrew does in this film and turned out to be even greater musicians. Great musicians don't really exist anymore and it makes you wonder, is it because everyone is coddled more? The film asks the question, does it take extreme adversity and abuse to produce true greatness? It's a really fair question to ask, and there are countless examples where the answer is yes.
I think the ending is rather tragic. I bounced between thinking “Oh, he’s finally getting away from Fletcher, and it looks like he’s becoming his own person again!” to “Fletcher still has his abusive… control over Neiman.” The very end is the latter, which I find really sad.
@@shadowboy2818which is his ideal and his prerogative. Y’all are misunderstanding this so much. It’s a story about individualism and the amazing feats we can sacrifice for as people.
But were those "sacrifices" worth it in the film is the big question in this film which it implies...For example, Andrew almost died in a car accident on his way to perform and still kept going to perform anyway without even getting medical attention. Also, the way he broke up with his girlfriend and how he's been getting more aggressive and rude comes off as horrific. Slowly throughout the film we see Andrew losing himself to this obsession of greatness. The story seems like a cautionary tale about how obsession and ambition can transform people for the worst.@@fredrickkenley674
I never thought it was a happy ending at all, so I'm surprised to see so many people say it was. Yes, Miles emerges "victorious" in the end, but it's pretty much at the cost of his own sanity. He's no longer a hopeful jazz student, but a withered, broken jazz machine. And that's before even diving into the implications surrounding his abusive relationship with Fletcher.
Not to mention the fact that there are plenty of similarly talented musicians who got there without their instructors having to resort to such...impractical tactics. It will never not bother me how the antagonist was depicted as some kind of aspirational character.
@@wisemage0 except he's clearly portrayed as a villain and abusive figure, having positive traits doesn't mean the person is being depicted as aspirational
- that was kind of necessary for the point of the movie though. it has to be seen through nieman’s eyes. to him, his music career is the only metric of his life’s success, and fletcher is the judge of that metric. nieman thinks that the only way for his life to be worthwhile, for any life to be worthwhile, is to be great and fletcher can make him great, therefore fletcher becomes the only relevant source of approval in his life. you cant have that godlike figure appear irredeemably bad or else nieman just looks like a dumbass. instead you show the audience what nieman sees in him, then you show the truth of how awful and abusive fletcher is, then you show how nieman continues to revere him, no matter what fletcher does.
This movie came out at a time in my life where I would study 14 hours a day and was experiencing success in college. My ego was so high and I truly believed I was better than other people. I went for a PHD and when other life events happened I snapped and had a mental breakdown. It took a year to recover. I survived and have a family and a home today. I’m successful on the outside but internally I still feel like a failure for something that happened 8 years ago. I always feel like I never lived up to my potential and it haunts me to this very day. To make things more complicated my best friend did achieve his dreams with a PHD in his field of computer science only for him to commit suicide a year later. This has me reflect on how that could have been me and what I perceived my mental breakdown to be a sign of weakness was me saving myself before I perished. I used to love this film and looked down on my father for saying the movie made him feel “nervous”. After my mental breakdown I have never been able to watch this film ever again when it used to give me so much motivation to push me past my limits. Thank you to anyone who has read this.
The father's point in the finale is very underrated. Paul Reiser gives a great performance. At the end he witnesses his song perform greatness. He doesnt cheer, He walks away. He knows his son is gone at this point. He is the monster that the Jazz teacher created.
@@timloss87 I don’t get it. How did it ruin him? It ruined his relationship, sure, but that’s it. Relationships come and go. Your career is what’s important. Success.
That's exactly the thing I didn't like about Whiplash's ending. It gave redemption to Fletcher, without repentance. It's just wrong. But seeing it was intentional by the director, to leave a sour happy ending, it just makes sense. It's a reflection on how we condone human abuse as long as things get done. We give more value to things than to people.
Well said. And the sad thing is that you do NOT need to be abusive to be effective. There are countless examples of coaches who were astoundingly successful without being jerks. One huge example is John Wooden. In Kareem Abdul Jabbar's autobiography, he says that Wooden probably raised his voice once during the year. And when Wooden did raise his voice, EVERYONE listened. With these crazy coaches and teachers, the students tune out the yelling and start ignoring it.
what is not triumphant about this? He archieved his goal to be the best or one of the best.He surpased his teacher and paved a way for his future . what u guys think other do to be the best of the world ? like look at bodybuilders lik ronny coleman his body is completly destroyed because of enhancing drugs bodybuilder have to sacrifice so much mor for success but thats what the journey so great. And he regret nothing he said it with a smile on his face
@@Ubreakable-lr2dk The journey isn't made great because the end goal was achieved, that's not how shit works. If I want to get a new pc and for that I murder a whole family and steal all their valuables, that wasn't justified nor something good. He didn't surpass his teacher, he clearly submitted to him by wanting his approval. Using your own example of bodybuilders, sure they might look amazing for a few years and become famous, then die when they hit 40 or 50 because they hurt their body so much. What isn't triumphant? Neiman finally finishes his transition into Fletcher's pet
@@DragonZombie2000 yeah, which is used to argue my point. If you just go by "the end justifies the means", even that analogy makes sense and would be considered correct. Driving people to suicide just to get a good drummer is insane
It's a fucking movie, on an isolated subject. It was a big win for both actors who did an amazing job. I just so happen to love jazz, so it's also a big win for me.
I used to have this type of relationship with one of my mentors during my time as a research assistant at a university. He was a tenured professor, so he knew he could get away with almost anything without being held accountable. I would always tell myself “I’m going to leave, I can’t put up with this abuse”, but every once in a while, he would actually say I did something good, and I was sucked right back in and gave it a second, third, fourth, etc. chance. As soon as I saw the exchange of glances during the final scene of Whiplash, I knew exactly what was being displayed. He was being sucked right back into the cycle of abuse.
@@therandomdude7347 did he had anything to loose at this point, it was his last chance at achieving something greater than a mediocre life and he took it.
@@TheMaulam12345 He's not actually that great TBH. Like, Jazz isn't that popular and people mostly do it because they like Jazz. And Andrew's solo, while physically straining, isn't that technically impressive. He isn't the greatest player ever, he's just good.
@@andrerobertson3151thats the point, not Even in sports (that are in Nature competitive) You cant meassure who is the Best of the Best, You only can give a Lost of "greatest of all times" and still You would fall short for a Lot of reasons it's a futiñez unnecesary but somehow shoehorned view about success and greatness, it's false, that doesnt exist but we pretend, it's just a mean to justify control and power dinámics.
To me the ending starts, and this is key, when Andrew leaves the stage and hugs his father, before going back and hijacking the band from Fletcher. He's saying goodbye to his father, embracing Fletcher and his methods and, in my mind, becoming his teacher's mini me. Fletcher used Andrew's dad as an unending source of humiliation and that's what the boy tacitly accepted in that goodbye. I don't think Andrew will become a teacher and mimic Fletcher's abuse, but he'll carry his own Fletcher in his mind forever. That's what that mutual smile means. To me the movie is about, among other things, how you can survive abuse, but it always leaves you disfigured.
This! you put it very poignantly. No matter how much you move on or how much time has elapsed, abuse always leaves you disfigured. There is no respite no escape. the body keeps the score.
You say “disfigured”…but that’s certainly a subjective appraisal. Some of the greatest performers underwent traumatic experiences to find success at the top and would do it all over again if they had to. 99.99% of people will never know this type of traumatic experience but they also go to their deathbed never having achieved the greatness that this type of traumatic teaching can achieve.
@@alexblaze8878 I think the problem here is the operative word "can" - "the greatness this type of traumatic teaching CAN achieve." The thing is, greatness has been achieved by people who experienced less antagonistic teaching methods, too, and this style of teaching can also break people down WITHOUT building them back up. If this teaching method reliably delivered greatness every time, or even MOST of the time, that argument might hold water, but there are plenty of examples of harsh teaching methods having the opposite effect - even within the context of the film, it drives one kid to suicide. I don't think you can define a failure to teach and motivate more harshly than "your student killed themselves". Now they won't just fail to achieve greatness, they'll fail to achieve ANYTHING. Couple that fact with the reality that jazz music isn't exactly a core skill needed for survival and you have a situation where the net outcome is negative - at best, you'll create a very talented jazz player, but at worst, you'll create a corpse, or even just people who are afraid of teachers, or give up music, or are otherwise artificially limited or damaged, AND the effect of all that negativity on the people around them. When you compare the overall positive impact he's had on people's lives vs the negative impact, it's pretty clear that this method of teaching has more drawbacks than benefits, is totally unreliable, and is dangerous for the students. (To be clear, I'm not saying that ALL strict or demanding teaching methods are bad or unproductive, I'm saying that this level of intensity goes far beyond what might be seen as a reasonable tradeoff of pressure vs results).
The director came out and said that, in his mind, Andrew will be dead at age 34 of five an overdose, penniless and friendless. That’s the darkness that wins in this scene. When his father looks at Andrew, he looks on as if he lost his son because he has.
@@alexblaze8878 I've always wondered why Fletcher was trying to find someone and make him into a"great one" instead of striving to become one himself. Maybe "those who can't do, teach"
I truly understood how abusive Fletcher's behavior was when I realised that he learned Neiman's parents' occupations, just to use that in his swears. When I first watched their chat in the hall, I thought "That is really good, Fletcher kinda trying to relief his student." Then he started mentioning his mother leaving him after birth in his swears. I was shocked. He asked about Neiman's parents, just to use it against him. I honestly think that he would really mention Neiman's parents more if they were musicians. I think that he would often make fun of that Neiman will never make his father/mother proud by playing like this. And who knows, maybe that gay insults he was making against one of those drummers were real. Maybe that guy was really homosexual and Fletcher was using that on his own benefit.
Fletcher could also have asked about Neiman’s parents being musicians to know wether he should be worrying about them. They might have a foothold in the music industry and make trouble for Fletcher if he abuses their son.
@@Dr_Skowronek not only that but if they were musicians they might be able to notice unhealthy practice habits or competition standards compared to the public
I remember listening to an autobiography of Jackie Chan where he decribes the conflicting feelings he had about his teacher. He hated the guy for beating him with a bamboo rod whenever he messed up, but also acknowledged that the guys teaching, barbaric as it was, made him a master at his craft.
It truly does boil down to whether or not you agree with “the ends justify the means.” When I was young I did something absolutely moronic and my dad really let me have it and while most would disagree with what happened it really did sort me out. Not sure if tough love really applies to this situation but it’s always worth thinking about.
@@100StepProgram some ends justify some means. for example pushing an old woman is generally wrong. but if that old woman is about to be hit by a car, the end(saving her life) justifies the means(pushing her).
i agree. i've experienced this ambivalence too. when we were kids, our coaches used to shoot pucks at us in hockey practice when we started the build-up behind the goal to make sure we always had our heads up and were looking towards the center. if you didn't do that, you got a shotand that hurt a lot. some people thought it was hard, but we became very good at building up and won a lot of championships. so they were very good at making us successful but at the same time their methods were pushing the envelope
@@chriz9959 I think that's somewhat different to what Fletcher does in the movie. Fletcher isn't enabling the consequences of being a "bad" drummer to reach Nieman more than he is actively psychologically tearing Nieman down. His treatment towards Nieman is not one of a teacher showing a student the consequence of doing something wrongly, being more about amplifying that consequence and uselessly adding insult to injury.
@@kostan55well said. There’s a difference between discipline - enforced strategically and where necessary - and straight-up abuse. Correcting a child or a student in harsh ways is questionable for some, but psychological torture and violence is far worse, i think
When my son was very young I got the idea that he would make a good pianist. His personality somehow leaned that way: analytical and this really amazing beat in his body when nobody is watching or when very excited. As a 7 year old he met his piano instructor who soon swooned about him being one of her best. I was very happy for him because I am thinking he is a bit of a genius and here is some affirmation. He did extremely well in his first ever piano exam, going into "the hall of fame". But in the meantime I did learn about the abuse behind the scenes with the teacher's yelling and pounding his fingers on the keys one day. I just know it is so wrong for the teacher to get glory through her students, using them to attain some acknowledgement.... NO! I moved him out of the system and today he gets lessons at home at a much more relaxed pace. Music is to support our spirits and our souls not to make us mindless preforming zombie monkeys
@@lets_see_777 because you want to be the best? You wouldn't understand because that's not what you push for? People really need to understand that the world doesn't revolve around your lense. People want different things.
@@eej3320 I mean that is cool that you believe that but that doesn't make it true. And even then who are you to say that humans shouldn't chase greatness? Was going to the moon a waste of time? Was industrialization a waste of time? Are all inventions useless? You might not like people pushing the boundaries of what they can but that's cool, it's a free world so you do you and let others do as they wish.
My interpretation of the ending has always been that Miles Teller's character chose success and greatness over happiness. Like you said, he validated his abuser's actions. In the overarching story line, it is essentially a happy ending. But, the character may never be happy again, because he has chosen to suffer for the sake of greatness.
@@westonstevens3239 That’s not the same as suffering actually being necessary for greatness. Great athletes and performers with long, acclaimed careers _take care_ of their bodies rather than beating the everloving sh*t out of them.
@@AAA-tp7nc “He wasn’t happy but he was happy” make up your mind, dude. “His own version of happiness” is completely meaningless. This is basically the equivalent of saying that the life of a heroin addict isn’t bad because the heroin makes them feel good.
No film has made me feel more than whiplash. I had a teacher in college that was fletcher but turned down by maybe 5 degrees. Even down to the rumours of a students suicide. Because of him, because of the fear he put in me - a vision of a pathetic future - I became someone worthwhile. I’m disciplined, self sufficient, fit, professional and well off. I love who I am on paper but at the same time, I hate the person I’ve become. My capacity for emotion has been reduced to near 0 and my priorities are backwards. I’m just existing, making money and burning calories. It’s difficult for me to love people, know how to show it and keep them around. If I had the choice to take a lower paying job but be able to care about people again, I would. This is what this method of teaching does to people. Some wonder what happened to Andrew after the film ends - I know exactly what happens to him. When I see the face on andrews dad in the finale, I see the horror. I see myself witnessing the death of my own humanity. He’s become greatness but he’s also lost himself, entirely. Damien Chazelle is a master for being able to accurately portray this experience so precisely and intimately. I believe it when he says he went through this. In a way, I think the fact that he made this film is a more of a success in gaining closure for himself. They say communication helps - well whiplash communicates this experience perfectly. I can only dream of feeling catharsis like that.
I feel you. And yet you can learn to accept yourself as an imperfect being. To be merciful. To be kind. To learn to love yourself and others. It takes time and repetition. But you can do it. Because you have learned so much already you can learn this too.
Sounds like you're just scared of trying to be happy. Making money and not caring about others is the easy way out in life I make top % money and I also have a happy relationship.
oh my god yesss. I scrolled down so much to see if anyone else noticed that. To me it portrays how Fletcher has truly won through his methods of abuse and manipulation and that is easily misinterpreted as Nieman's success. Also it kinda gives a hint that this how their relationship is going to be since Fletcher believes in criticism not praise. So he will continue abusing Nieman under the disguise of mentoring him towards greatness. That scene had me absolutely terrified! I'm surprised how more people are not seeing that.
@@nikolarajkovic4595 Nieman got what he wanted but that was the approval of his abuser which is exactly why it's so sad. The way Nieman smiles at the end was the satisfaction of finally getting validated which is exactly how narcissist - victim co-dependent relationship works. Abusers make you feel worthless to the point of an emotional breakdown when you think of walking away but the abusers will at times actually validate you and that feels great cause you finally have the approval of someone who looked down on you and you are sucked right back into the vicious cycle of manipulation and pleasing the abuser. This is the very reason its difficult for the victim to get out of an abusive relationship so i feel like if Nieman wanted to walk away he would have done so long ago. Which is also why i think Nieman will definitely continue working with Fletcher cause Nieman will continue seeking approval from Fletcher, and in the case that he doesn't, he will carry Fletcher in his mind forever. He might not bully others but throughout the movie we saw how Nieman's behaviour changed towards his friends and family, and he started thinking of others as beneath him.
I think the movie is asking the question : "is greatness worth it?". Some people see Neimans look of pure elation at the end of his solo and think that it is worth it. Others see his fathers look of stunned horror and think that it isn't. It doesn't have to have one interpretation.
It doesn't, you'll be forgoten anyways. If you're great you'll be remembered by centuries, that's right. But what is the purpouse of that? To avoid death in some way? Absurd, everything will die, the universe will inevitably colapse, wether is freeze death or a second Big Bang, doesn't matter, everything will be forgoten. And even if you get the recognition: does this recognition means actually something? Doesn't matter what you do, you'll never, but EVER satisfy need, nor everyone will recognize you. Let's take Bach or Mozart for example: yes, great musicians, theyll probably live as long as western society does, but: does everyone likes them? No. Actually some people finds classical music boring. You could argue that people find classical music boring because they're ignorants, but see, that's a fallacy. Why? Because you'll be imposing your own self experience and knowledge into others, stating, at the same time, that your way of living is the onlyone right, wich is not. Because knowledge is not "humanity's goal", there's no such thing. There is no goal, so doesn't matter what you do, everything is the same in the "grand scheeme of things". So, what matters? Nothing, objectively speaking. Now, what does matter is your own life and what you do with it. I think the best approach to music or any art is not "being the best, or being recognize AS..." but enjoying it, otherwise is a wasted life in the purpouse of something unachievable. If you get recognition: great. But if you don't, then what? You're suddendly not worth it anymore? If that's the case then nothing is worth it.
"is greatness worth it?" Musician Jimi Hendrix achieved greatness via sacrifice & hard work - His greatness affected my life in a positive way so for ME his greatness was worthwhile. Galileo's years of sacrifice to prove that the earth revolved around the sun, Isaac Newton's “Principia Mathematica” - for mankind these were worth it. Maybe these people had a Fletcher in their life? And without a Fletcher in their lives we would still be living in mud huts.
@@FedeKai95 ironically here you're imposing your nihilistic ideas on everyone else and saying the best approach everyone else should have regarding art is to just enjoy it. But that's a very narrow view. It doesn't take into account that regardless of how meaningful recognition is people still love it and it's not wrong to pursue it. You look at the world as devoid of purpose and meaning so why would just enjoying something without taking it seriously be any more meaningful than trying to pursue greatness. Also, you ignore the idea that people genuinely enjoy the grind and working hard and the journey of getting to the top (probably not applicable to Neiman). Just because you're working extremely hard and your work takes a toll on you doesn't mean you don't love and enjoy it. To say that would be to say Kobe or Jordan never loved basketball.
It's a very bittersweet ending. Yes, it feels satisfying to see Neiman prove Fletcher wrong and show the world that he's one of the greats. It's also fairly clear that it's where his life peaks and that it's all going to be downhill from there. He chose passion over happiness.
@@YakubTheScientist8841 right... All that talk of Charlie Parker meant absolutely nothing. Totally wasn't meant as foreshadowing. That was sarcasm btw. You know, since you clearly need everything spelled out for you.
@@tezz2698 LOL that was hilarious, if you think charlie parker is supposed to be a parralel to neiman then you dont know anything about charlie parker, thats so cute you tried to speak but have no clue what you're even talking about
the ending of whiplash was incredibly horrifying, man. i was as obsessed and called it passion. i was constantly puking out of anxiety. the ending of whiplash solidified telling me to chill.
Whiplash has always been a favourite of mine, but it's always a very intense watch, there's very rarely a dull moment. I also respect Damien Chazelle for going for more complex endings which aren't necessarily happy, but not exactly a downer either. Great video bro!
@@flightofthebumblebee9529 I would argue this ending _does_ “spoonfeed the audience”, by giving them the epic musical triumph of a conclusion that most people were hoping for going into a movie about jazz. It gives them a pass for forgive or forget the sadistic torment that occurred much earlier in the film which brought the two main characters to that moment. Anything sinister put into the framing and execution of the finale is so subtle that without a direct statement of authorial intent it would be easily dismissed as unintentional. The simple fact is, whatever the filmmaker hoped people would take away from it, the ending of Whiplash is Fletcher’s entire worldview being vindicated. He believes abusive tactics are fair game because they get the best results, and Andrew’s final performance *is* “the best results”. It’s the only scene in the whole film where we focus on a musician’s performance purely for its greatness, and it’s also the culmination of everything Fletcher has done to supposedly “achieve” that greatness out of a student. But… it’s not true. It’s a lie. Abuse is not uniquely useful in getting people to achieve. In reality, it’s not useful _at all._ Abuse literally damages the human brain, aka the very thing that individual achievement ultimately comes out of. When a great athlete or performer comes from an abusive background (or present situation), that is an additional hardship that they had to overcome on their way to success, _never_ a reason for it. This movie, accidentally or otherwise, says the opposite.
I remember my dad and I watching this for the first time together a few years back. We interpreted the ending differently. For my dad, Andrew had finally achieved greatness in his craft and Fletcher witnessed the next great jazz drummer that would go down in history. I saw the end as Andrew slipping back into his obsession that would eventually kill him (to me, the earlier car accident was a warning.) Fletcher had him back under his abusive control and that's what the smile was about.
Absolutely agree. Its tragic that right after andrew takes control of the music ("i'll cue you in" to his band mates and then fletcher) and taking power back from fletcher, fletcher comes back in and we see why he smiles: he has groomed andrew like a well-trained dog. In fletchers eyes, andrew has had his moment of power, of playing conductor, and now he is totally submissive and ready to obey. Even the way fletcher moves his hands, its like the hand movements you would give to a dog when you tell it to sit. Fletcher is not proud of Andrew. He is proud of himself for training him so well.
To me the movie shows that this kind of success is ultimately empty and destructive. Fletcher sacrifices one of his students' life and others' physical and psychological well-being to get one great drummer, while Neiman sacrifices his relationships and ends up completely isolated to become one. In the end he is the great drummer he dreamed to be but, other than that, he has nothing in his life and will probably continue to have nothing since to maintain this success he will have to continue practicing and making sacrifices, with no time for family or relationships and seeing others as beneath him.
Except if you look at when he first acts like others are beneath him, it’s when his family just shrug off his study without any attempt to understand. He’s studying in an elite school, while his cousin is playing football in a D3 school, and the family, his own family, reduce his study to small talk while fawning over his cousin. Popular mediocrity over unpopular excellence. Skill, talent & achievement be damned; can you make a living from being middle of a massive herd? It’s not until this moment that he decides that what he’s doing is superior to those in his family, and by extension he’s superior for doing it.
I didn't really get the impression of them feeling they're better. Just, that they didn't understand him nor his passion. Which led to him becoming bitter and deciding to get lost in his passion solely for himself, since in his eyes, no one could get him and what made him happy
@@NerdyDumbProductions It’s not that they didn’t understand him or his passion. It’s that they didn’t want to. Sure they asked, but it was more out of box-ticking than any genuine desire to know. Hard to take being hand-waved away so easily by those closest in the world to you. I can relate.
I never saw this as a happy ending at all. To me Fletcher was a villain, and that's it. Including the suicide angle in the movie to me always made it clear that no success was worth the lives of the young. It's a complex relationship, as abusive relationships tend to be. No "happy" angles here. Humans can make good of the shittiest situations.
exactly !! for me the ending was to stick it to Fletcher show him he was not going down without a fight. In that moment none of them are right they are just delivering an amazing performance
Agree. Fletcher had a point, a student will never reach greatness if they're praised for mediocrity... And having a point makes him a much more interesting villain IMO... But the way he did things was completely unjustified, not to mention self-serving. He didn't care how many lives he would ruin as long as *he* got to be the one who would discover the next musical genius, and that's what made him evil.
Dude even fletcher lied about how his student got into a car accident when in reality he killed himself due to his stress and anxiety he experienced with fletcher . He literally gaslighted everyone in that room.
To be fair, they don't explicitly say the dude killed himself or that it was fletcher's fault. He died in a car accident, and that could've been suicide but it is left ambiguous for a reason
That’s very reductionist. It’s also: • “A gripping exploration of the pursuit of artistic excellence at any cost.” • “An intense study of the mentor-protégé dynamic and the fine line between pushing limits and exploitation.” • “A dramatic portrayal of obsession with perfection and the psychological toll it takes on young artists.” • “A cinematic journey into the psyche of a young musician under extreme pressure to succeed.” • “A narrative on the sacrifices and moral compromises made in the name of achieving greatness.” • “An illustration of the power dynamics in teacher-student relationships within the high-stakes world of elite music conservatories.” • “A reflection on the personal cost of ambition and the relentless pursuit of a seemingly unattainable ideal.” • “A study of resilience and determination in the face of brutal criticism and unyielding standards.” • “An examination of the intersection between talent, hard work, and the sometimes destructive nature of artistic ambition.” • “A portrayal of the fine line between discipline and abuse in the quest for artistic achievement.”
You can see it in how his dad looks at him in that scene. He know's he's losing his son, that Fletcher has trapped him in his web again and now he's succeeded beyond all doubt, it's going to be impossible to pull him back out.
i think an interesting thing to notice about the final scene is that it's done in a drum solo, complete with speedups and slowdowns, completely divorced from the other performers there. it's just neimann and fletcher, who is controlling neimann and making sure his tempo is "right" and all that. it's incredibly relieving to see, has a viscerality to it that intensifies the scene (because it's much easier to make drumming look physical than horns), and showcases what looks like neimann finally getting over fletcher by giving it that sense of intimacy. it also has absolutely nothing to do with being a good jazz drummer. drummers are timekeepers first and foremost. bang out a neil peart or karen carpenter solo all you want: if you can't keep time with your bandmates you suck as a drummer. great drummers, like ringo starr, are even able to keep an eclectic group of diverse talents who have barely any musical overlap in what they want together and keep a sense of unity throughout the band that makes their songs work when they perform them live without the need for solos. it's always going to be about that sense of unity you can provide your bandmates. there's no sense of unity with neimann and the rest of the ensemble; hell, the ensemble isn't even playing. he's following the conductor--in a jazz ensemble, where everyone--conductor included--is stuck on the drummer's time and they have to either deal with it or be the bassist and try to get things in their favor. he was pushed to such a degree he forgot what the point of being a jazz drummer in the first place even is because of fletcher's cruelty and thinks that playing a solo is enough "jazz" to impress some guy whom the audience only sees playing corporate bossanova. it just goes to show how ingrained fletcher's abuse truly is in neimann, that this victory doesn't even really fit in the spirit of jazz and artistic freedom. it's hard to do when a dictator's breathing down your neck.
Thx so much for your response as an actual musician. I love this film as it captures much of my relationship with my father's method in trying to push me academically. But I found it ironic in the movie that jazz, which is about spontaneous creative freedom, becomes a burden of discipline for the young guy. Your comment adds another level of irony.
Ok so I wasn't imagining stuff when his tempo sounded off and I don't even listen to music much but something just felt off and disconnected between Nieman and the rest of the band
There is a read of the ending where Neiman could only push through because he turned away from Fletcher. He didn't have that moment under Fletcher's tutelage. He didn't have that moment without hugging his father before. Fletcher was just along for the ride in that last scene. Sure, Fletcher probably doesn't see it that way, and the ambiguity of the scene is what makes us talk about it and consider it thoughtfully. But on the other hand, maybe Fletcher did understand that Neiman only succeeded after violently opposing what Fletcher was doing and ripping control of the band away from him in that scene.
You nailed it. You used a lot less words to express the sentiments I have put elsewhere in this Chat. As for Fletcher, it doesn't matter if his methods directly got Neiman there or indirectly (Neiman opposing Fletcher)... he's taking that credit in his mind. Had to break him for him to be built back up, played my part. And to Fletcher, he's also a Martyr... he sacrificed his CAREER and all the other kids he could have molded, because HE saw the value in Neiman, knew the potential. But for Neiman, he over comes his abuser and thrives IN SPITE of him. To the point that he's STRONGER than his abuser now. Like the kid picked on in HS, meeting his HS Bullies a decade later when he's excelled and they've failed. He's so much stronger than Fletcher that he can share that stage with him... and not only not freeze up, but excel. And yes, there is satisfaction in making Fletcher smile... but not because Neiman wanted to please Fletcher, that's confirmation (unneeded, but gladly taken) that even his Abuser is impressed by what Neiman has become. Fletcher doesn't know it, but that moment is Fletcher conceding any 'power' he had to Neiman. It's unneeded, because Neiman no longer recognizes Fletcher as having any power over him... that's behind him, Fletcher is already 'defeated'... but when Fletcher himself hands it over, that's a cherry on talk. Because Fletcher doesn't know he has nothing, he thinks he's giving something of value here. Sort of the 'thought that counts'. Neiman knows the 'gift' is worthless, there is no power there to be transferred... but he understands Fletcher doesn't see it that way. He beats Fletcher, and then Fletcher (already beaten) submits. It's like winning twice in one game.
@@seanthomas1552 None of what I said was after the final note. What I broke down is how they even ended up on that stage for Neiman to have his moment. If Neiman doesn't Survive, if he's still a Victim, he wouldn't even be able to get on that stage to face Fletcher again. So all that recovering happened BEFORE he got up there.
@@theclimbto1 "It's unneeded, because Neiman no longer recognizes Fletcher as having any power over him... that's behind him, Fletcher is already 'defeated'... " The context for these sentences can not be understood until after we see how this all plays out after that final note. What if Neiman immediately goes "that was great, did you like it? See, I knew I was great, and now you do too." What if Neiman turns around and starts cussing out Fletcher, due to finally getting one over on him (doesn't seem like getting past anything to me.)
I’d agree with this if it weren’t for the smile they shared in the scene. Neiman waits for Fletchers approval in the form of a smile before he himself smiles with pride. He’s still performing FOR Fletcher.
A shot I love from the finale of Andrew's father looking at him through the doors offstage. The expression on his face is brokenhearted, horrified. It's a quick shot but communicates the scene's intention perfectly.
It's an endless cycle of abuse. I am an artist and I understand how hard it is so love your job and also having it to live a normal daily life. It can be so hard to love your passio, but feeling forced to do it every single day and I feel like its Andrew's situation. The moment he stepped into fletchers studio, I felt that love and passion died inside him cause of the pressure of "being one of the greats." You can't do your passion everyday you will get tired of pushing yourself everyday its exhausting. Art is something made for the artist, not other people, and Neiman was doing his passion for fletcher, which I would say is not a fun way to pursue band (thanks for reading this btw)
Honestly, I read the ending more as Neiman didn't care anymore what Fletcher thought, but Neiman knew he had a great opportunity to flex his skills in front of a lot of people, and a lot of important people at that, so Neiman went back after hugging his father and hijacked Fletcher's own show, using it to showcase himself instead. Fletcher can't really deny Neiman's ability at that point, and now, because Neiman had the balls to hijack his own show while playing flawlessly, at least respects Neiman enough to give him this moment. Neiman, knowing he can't conduct an entire jazz band by himself, accepts Flethcer's help in the moment and the two do get a brief glimpse of what maybe could have been if Fletcher wasn't so abusive. The end. Not sure how the director meant the ending when he made it, but that's how it came off to me.
Agreed! People also tend to forget that he clearly mouths FUCK YOU to Fletcher during it haha It was only when he truly felt that he had nothing to lose and cast everything aside that he shone as brightly as he could and achieved greatness. He wasn't drumming to get back at Fletcher or to impress the audience he was doing it for HIMSELF. It IS a happy ending :)
@@blacknapalm2131 But then Fletcher takes back control of the situation and begins puppeting Neiman. Neiman desperately wants Fletcher's approval, and Fletcher realizes this.
I thought the same when he was returning to the stage, but the end of the performance makes it clear that this was never about the audience - by never showing the audience's applause, and zooming in on the fact that Neimen was locking eyes with Flecher, seeking validation, Neiman was clearly playing to prove himself to Flecher and say "I am the best, so the pain was worth it", absolving him of the abuse.
I'm a martial artist. I've had some extremely severe yet caring teachers in the martial arts. Being abusive and being tough are not the same thing. I did not see the end of Whiplash as a happy ending. I was happy that the student found excellence but it annoyed me that the teacher was not destroyed by his arrogance. Maybe he was, because I saw his smile as diabolical as opposed to genuine.
The inherently violent nature of martial arts (no, they're not "for spirituality/health", that's mcdojo bullshit), likely filters out the likes of Fletcher. Be a lot harder to go as far past the line as Fletcher did when you're literally surrounded by people trained in violence. Not even because they would be likely to gang up on an abusive instructor (though that can and does happen), but because of the implied threat, and because abusers are cowards.
@@Scaevola9449Spirituality and health are huge part of martial arts. The greatest fighters of all time all speak about the relief it brings their soul and the health they receive from living like a champ, so that’s just ignorance
@@reservoirfrogs2177 While the discipline and really everything surrounding martial arts does bring health and spiritual benefits, my point was that these benefits were not and ARE NOT the primary purpose of martial arts by nature. Some dumb westerners might water down and twist martial arts to serve that purpose, but martial arts are fundamentally exactly what their name contains. Martial. Arts. For violence. Be it defensive or offensive, martial arts are fundamentally a way of systematizing and elevating violence to an congruent, refined art. Practitioners may benefit physically and mentally, but that is not the primary purpose of a martial art's existence. Someone might practice for that purpose, but the art itself remains a system for violence.
The way I interpreted the ending, it wasn't entirely about validating Fletcher. By this point in the film, both Andrew & Fletcher hated each other's guts. Andrew did what he did at the end for himself, not for Fletcher. Bebop jazz is often cited as a contained dialogue between musicians, understanding & building off of each other. I believe Andrew, for the first time in the film, communicated that he had become his own man, not defined by or controlled by Fletcher. This is implied by his decision to take control of the ensemble against Fletcher's wishes. At that moment, Andrew seized control of the ensemble & ambience from Fletcher. The band belonged to Andrew in that moment. Fletcher cares about his professional reputation & wouldn't force stop the ensemble to make a scene. Andrew knows this & weaponizes it to both earn accolades from the audience & metaphorically flip off Fletcher for attempting to ruin his career among all the other emotional trauma. While Fletcher is infuriated by this on a personal level, the musician side of him can't help but to respect Andrew in that moment for not backing down and for asserting dominance. Fletcher begins to realize Andrew is undergoing the exact evolution he was trying to manufacture his whole teaching career & decides to go with it, despite the insurrection & the personal animosity he feels toward Andrew because he respects the glowing passion he sees & he knows the show must go on. While Fletcher technically still got what he wanted in the end, Andrew's evolution moment happened in spite of Fletcher, rather than being a byproduct of seeking his approval. Andrew took control & Fletcher took a backseat. When they smile at each other, it isn't as people who've suddenly forgotten their disdain for each other. They smile at each other as two musicians who've put their differences on hold to acknowledge the passion of the moment because at their core, their desire for greatness is most important to them.
Yeah dude I definitely agree with you, too many people wanna say Andrew would 99% likely end up, like Fletchers other gem, with a life of sorrow and misery rather than not letting Fletcher live in his head rent free. Great interpretation IMO
This is how I view the ending as well. Andrew taking control of his life as a musician away from Fletcher and Fletcher finally seeing the passion and talent in a rather poignant way. You articulated that very well!
that's also how i saw it "you wanna make me look like a retard in front of the music industry big shots? i'll take control of your band. and there's nothing you can do to prevent it!"
@@sabin97that’s what they want you to believe. yes, he became great, but he ruined himself through it. no emotion. no love. now he will be like fletcher.
You can see the movie as a defense of abuse and insanity as a method, or you can see it as an amoral depiction of the brutal and often tragic ordeal of trying to become extraordinary at something.
Don't worry guys, the MC of Whiplash doesn't die of an overdose. He dies to old age peacefully after retiring from his air force pilot job with his best friends.
As someone who only recently watched this movie, the ending was unexpected and one of the most satisfying endings in cinema I've experienced. It totally made me forget that Andrew would probably live a life similar to the other student of Fletcher, as I was more focused on the fact that his career is now most definitely made, not only because he will have Fletcher's support, but also because of the audience present at this display at the end.
The ending seems such an intense portrayal of a narcissist - victim co-dependent relationship, the victim 'playing' the exact tunes that the narcissist needs. Fletcher's smile at the end seems like an addict's who got his dose and then everything collapsed until he craves another high.
Yeeeeahh thats not really how it is though for abusive relationships and hell not even like that with addicts either lol. Usually an abusive person wouldn’t even give you the satisfaction of making you feel as if you done right. And I know from experience. Abusers are never satisfied and they LOVE to remind you of that. Dunno about narcissists though. Not every abuser is a narcissist so idk if they ever make you feel good for a second then start over ? Idk jus me doe
@@caitie2010 Ye I disagree, that smile, that final brief moment of approval is what the chase for greatness is about. When abusive coaches and parents push their students/children all they look forward to is that act of approval.
@@caitie2010 That's not exactly how some abuse works. Some get off on the power, some get off on approval and validation. The power types are obvious, they want to be above you and any rise above them is unacceptable, which is usually born of severe insecurity. The "approval" types, aka narcissists? Not so much. They want validation, respect (even if not earned) and place themselves in positions where they can get it. In this case they case the high of validation above the wishes of others, bodily harm does not alarm them even if they are the direct cause. It's born of insecurity also, but mixed with pure arrogance and the idea they are "the chosen one" psychologically. Therefore, they abuse others. Regardless, both types are "junkies". They have no morals outside of the high of achieving the "goal" for dopamine. Dysfunctional Narcissists are all about themselves and constant validation, tearing others down and convincing themselves that the target is below them to be above them, thus validating their want to "build" someone into what is their essential toy. In essence it's different from sociopathy, it's highly emotional and parasitic, rather then unempathetic. It's selfish want over the well being of others, which a functional calculating sociopath (In some certain positions with a lack of power at least) will see as detrimental as it will invoke issues in the long run for the said person who does them. Narcissism is essentially someone high on their own emotions, who will abuse others if it gives them the "high". That is abusive. Abusers are not just "the big bad wolf". There's snakes, weasels, prideful demons. This is that type.
I trained as a classical musician for a really long time, even have a degree in it. I can't speak for the rest of the classical world, but I can say that while Fletcher's physical abuse would definitely not be overlooked nowadays, the intense pressure and anxiety he purposely causes others to feel, all the emotional stuff in this movie IS true. It was a common thing in my class at uni to have a total emotional breakdown at least once during the course. It was common to talk about some of the crueler things teachers had said. I had one teacher who made everyone I knew cry at least once by making them feel bad about their playing. We even had a conductor who was loved by the faculty and highly praised, but in the past he'd been known for being an angry drunk and he'd literally thrown chairs at people before. But he was someone who was kept around because he got "results." This video is completely right in that legitimate abuse can get overlooked if it leads to "greatness". And it's not like times have changed hugely. I'm not even that old, in fact I literally got my degree the year after Whiplash came out. Part of me wishes the ending was less ambiguous because I think there need to be more discussions around abuse with high-level performance areas like music or sports. But I'm very glad this movie got made *and* especially that it does end on a sour note (even if it's ambiguous), because I do truly believe that tolerating abuse isn't at all necessary to achieve greatness, and it's very sad that a vast majority of the people I knew when I was deep in the classical music world think otherwise.
Just saw this movie again. Just fantastic. Also the various interpretations and thoughts conveyed in the comments here also shows how great this script is. Excellent stuff.
“When something is presented cinematically with a skilled performer it feels true.” This might be one of the most insightful things I’ve ever heard, and I didn’t expect to stumble on it in a UA-cam video. But it explains *a lot*, like how a younger version of me could have thought Fight Club was an aspirational counter-culture fable, for example. But this is why film analysis like yours is so useful, because it allows the art to be somewhat opaque (leading to better stories) and the critiques to be somewhat pedantic, which leads to better understanding of the stories. Thank you so much. I fucking love Whiplash. ETA: I just want to add one bit of pushback on your analysis, which is, I think, a fairly uncontroversial one: that the ending of Whiplash is ambiguous, despite the triumph we feel in the audience. The director’s been up front about Neiman’s probable fate, that he’ll end up dead like Fletcher’s other student, but one thing I have heard mentioned is that THAT’S WHAT NEIMAN WANTS. That’s *his* happy ending, which we hear him explicitly articulate in the family dinner scene. He always wanted to burn brilliantly and burn out; there is some kind of flaw in his soul. A tragic flaw, if you will. Fuck, this movie’s so good.
Funny you mention Fight Club, because the line,”It’s only after we’ve lost everything that we’re free to do anything” is equally apt to both films. I don’t agree that he has a flaw in his soul. What’s a long life when your art will live forever? Everybody doesn’t need to know your name, just the right people. It’s not even about him; it’s about his music. His offspring. Offspring that will never sacrifice part of themselves to fit in with the herd. That won’t disappoint by not carrying on the family business. Who won’t ever lose their family name or heritage. Who’ll genuinely inspire others. Anyone can build a legacy; he’s aiming for immortality. But I digress, yeah; *FUCK THIS FILM’S GOOD!!!!* 👊
There's only one problem with that argument: Andrews looks for recognition not in the eyes of the audience or critics, but in Fletcher. That fact reveal us that to Andrew "to be a great drummer" is to be recognized by Fletcher, and this is delivered to the audience in the final scene. That's why is in fact an abusive relationship and it has nothing to do with Andrew being a great drummer or not. To Andrew the only important thing is if he is it to Fletcher, that's why the camera focuses in the stares between them at the end. Is a story about a narccisist and a codependant.
@@FedeKai95 There can't be audiences or critics, or a world outside Neiman and Fletcher's view, if the story of _Whiplash_ is going to hang together and be compelling. There can't be another definition of success. There can't be another criterion for art. There can't be anyone who fights Fletcher, walks out of his rehearsal, or tells him to shove it where the sun don't shine. He's really an allegorical figure - meant to represent the unforgiving side of craft and excellence. Which is the only side of it _Whiplash_ is meant to illuminate.
It’s probably one of my favorite movies because of how many angles you can view it from. You can isolate it down to a story of abuse, one of achieving potential, or academic pressure to follow through with a path you chose. You can mix all of those together and witness it as a human mind experiencing human problems, or the contrived plot of a tightly written story that pegs its tension. It truly is a beautiful little gem that is so easy to rewatch.
The lesson to learn here is you have to be in control of your own passion. While a level of suffering may be necessary for greatness, that suffering should never come from someone trying to benefit off it.
The abuse done in a learning experience makes you train/learn much more because of the fear and/or the approval of the abuser. What's doing the results isn't the abuse itself but it's the fact that you spend so much more time training and learning that makes you a pro. There have been ALOT of people who trained like crazy in their domain because they were inspired and passionate about it and achieved the same results. So no, being abusive doesn't give results in itself.
There's pushing someone beyond their limits, then there's abuse. It's sort of like working out to get stronger. You are tearing you muscles apart, so it becomes stronger overtime. But overwork it, you will only cause damage to it, even if there's short term gains. Both require time, blood sweat and tears, but one is done so for the goal of growth, while the other is more of an unhealthy obsession.
@@prabeshgurung1067 Obsession is the word lazy use to decribe the dedicated. -Zyzz Even bodybuilder have to sacrfice there body with enhanced drugs to be the best it takes blood sweat and tears which is showing at the end on the drumset. In every physical spo9rts by the way even football ord bycicling. Its like a drill instructor testing ur limits if u are tough enough for this but at the end when u make it its joy because u are a man now
It’s nice to feel validated about this ending. I know more people are aware of its true undertones nowadays, but I remember how many people first thought it was a happy ending of a sort. And I was constantly arguing against that, because I felt like the dad’s reaction was clearly one of horror, and the sense of exhilaration the ending gives you is easily mistakable as a positive thing, when really it’s incredibly dark
It's like someone commits suicide, and they smile as they pull the trigger, and everyone screams how dare you portray suicide in a positive light. Clueless people.
Heck, another thing about that ending scene is something else. Sure Fletcher finally showed respect to his students that ruined his teaching, but does that guarantee Neiman a consistent job? Will he be able to support himself? Will he take over Fletcher’s job? Who cares if you’re the top artist under classical training if you’re, at the end of the day, a bard playing for people that listen to you while getting drunk to relax at the end of the day.
There's also the misunderstanding that Andrew succeeded in impressing the pros in the audience (the concert was kind of an audition/showcase). After listening to the two songs, most people in the audience would have gotten the impression that Andrew was a great soloist, but an awful rhythm section member, which is not a combination bandleaders would be interested in when looking for a drummer. Add to that the psychological problems, and it is clear that Andrew is always going to struggle with his career and his life. In an interview, Chazelle stated, "Andrew will be a sad, empty shell of a person and will die in his 30s of a drug overdose." Thus, the argument of whether or not Fletcher's methods were justified because they helped Andrew achieved greatness is misleading. All Andrew has achieved (by the end of the film) is a great solo.
Also that shines Fletcher himself in bad light. In order to get revenge on Nieman he sacrificed his whole band, they ruined first piece in front of that evil audience which never forget! Not sure what he was going to do next if Nieman didn't start to play Caravan and went out with his dad instead. Did Fletcher have spare drummer at that moment?
@@FlareDope Is a great drummer really one who can't keep a rhythm section going? Also what's the point of Andrew's solo if the piece is ruined anyways, the audience isn't going to enjoy a bunch of anger-induced hitting.
If Fletcher was really as prestigious of a figure in the New York jazz scene as the movie makes him out to be, Neiman would have instantly attained cult hero status when he attacked Fletcher on the stage. Everyone in the band, everyone in the audience, everyone connected with the Schafer program in any way would have been talking about this incident INCESSANTLY. Fletcher's status as a sadistic teacher would have been well known, and the majority of people probably would have been sympathetic to Neiman, especially considering he'd been hit by a truck just minutes earlier. Everyone in the music press would be banging down Neiman's door trying to interview him, and in all likelihood he would have gotten plenty of gigs out of the resulting notoriety. I feel like they could have worked this angle into the plot and still had the fateful reunion with Fletcher resulting in the finale's concert.
That's an interesting angle, but consider this.... Neiman didn't want that. He was conditioned into thinking ONLY Fletcher's approval was of any merit. He likely would have turned down opportunities, covered up the abuse, and pushed himself harder back to the opportunity for Fletcher's approval. That's the message I took away from this. The abusive conditioning and presuppositions going into Fletcher's tutelage taught Neiman that Fletcher was the only path to greatness and the only thing that mattered in the end. And to Neiman, it was worth any cost.
I’d have to disagree. I think there was no fallout or vindication for Neiman after Fletcher was fired because Fletcher was so renowned that he would have had powerful connections to help keep the entire mess quiet. Even the process of him being fired from the school seemed to be handled as discreetly as possible and then ‘pushed under the rug’. Fletcher lost his job but he really didn’t lose his standing. And let’s be honest, this happens in real life situations all the time. So I think the depiction in the movie was more accurate to what have happened if these characters existed in real life than the scenario explained in your comment.
And while I think your angle is interesting as well, I think it would have resulted in a ‘break’ in the tension that is held between Neiman and Fletcher during the whole movie. I personally love that that break in tension happens in the LAST minute of the movie. It leaves you, as the viewer, just sitting there, ruminating, long after the credits have ended. The movie is just SO intense that the break in tension at the VERY end is SO impactful. It makes you feel like you’ve been holding your breath for two hours and you get to finally let it go right there at the end. Had Neiman found some success before the ending, as you suggested, I think that tension would have been lost. Not to mention, it would have made the ending less believable and impactful. Because of the fact that (in the movie) Neiman has gained nothing after all his struggles with Fletcher, it helps give credence to this idea that Neiman has nothing left to lose. He has no success, and Fletcher’s last trick to smear Neiman’s name in front of so many important people, just so that Neiman can never find success in the future is the final straw that breaks the camel’s back. Neiman gives his father a hug- almost as if he is saying goodbye, then completely transforms on stage into someone else. The look of horror on his father’s face as he watches a spectacle of simultaneous greatness and self destruction really cements this idea that Neiman is gone. I think if Neiman found cult success for beating up Fletcher, this moment where he loses himself to finally fulfil Fletcher’s purpose wouldn’t be such a believable conclusion. Why would you bother losing yourself if you have already obtained what you wanted? And sure, you could argue that he would do so because he wants to obtain Fletcher’s approval, and I would agree with this argument, BUT I just don’t think it would have made the conclusion as impactful as the scenario that was written into the movie, why? Because this movie focuses a lot on the abuse Fletcher committed. The fact that in the movie, Fletcher’s last trick backs Neiman into a corner, is like the final act of abuse. Fletcher is a manipulator, he knows that Neiman has not had any success since school and he wants to keep it that way. He baits him with a chance to play for him, a chance for some success, only to rip it all away. That really is an incredible act of abuse, and I think if Neiman had had some success without Fletcher, this moment may have never even taken place.
That's completely naive. Look at Lawrence Krauss, Richard Feynman, and what they did and said to women. Powerful abusers use their power to maintain their reputation and status. Yes there might be some people celebrating to see some revenge on an abuser. But not many would say anything to Neiman, much less openly. Most people would avoid him to avoid controversy, regardless of personal feelings. Just like nobody spoke up when Fletcher hurled a frickin chair at him.
Whiplash is arguably my favorite film made. The last segment literally gave me chills and the raw emotion & power is incredibly gripping. I rlly need to rewatch
One of my favorite movies and to answer the question, I don't think abuse should be received in order to get results. As someone with ADD, I'd rather be distracted and only get a little bit done in a day than to take Adderal, get a lot done in a day, but lose my personality in the process. Sucess is different for everyone and no one should have to suffer at the hands of another in order to achieve that.
Absolutely, I think it's interesting that some of the most respected athletes are artists of our time achieved what they did at great personal cost. I definitely agree with you though.
interesting bc i have add and i still think that the high price of success is a choice that i want to make. i take my meds and work because i know that add won’t be taken as a serious hurdle in my career/life.
@@lexijs not everybody reacts the same way to the drug, when I took it I felt like my body got hijacked. I was in the passenger seat of a limo telling my driver where to go but I wasn’t the driver so not having that control deeply disturbed me so I stopped. I’ve now surrounded myself in an environment that understands that I space out mid conversation and that also allow me to put certain measures in place for me to work more efficiently like listening to music. The abuse I experienced while teaching never taught me anything more. It just established a mindset where I can beat this person by doing well, which is exactly what I did.
My husband was diagnosed with ADHD as an adult. He was prescribed Adderall first and he said that it gave him horrible anxiety and thoughts about unaliving himself, which he had never felt in his life before. Our doctor switched him to Vyvanse and it helps him so much, but he's still his goofy, eager self when he takes it. I don't want to tell you what to do with your medical choices but I think things have come a long way with treating ADHD since the days of "take Adderall and shut up". But I hope you (and anyone else reading this) do whatever makes you happy! 🥰
when i watched the ending, i thought "oh good, andrew doesn't care about what fletcher thinks of him anymore" because he started playing before fletcher cued him. but then as the rest of the band joins in, he starts listening to fletchers directions again after being on the brink of liberation. then at the end andrew is happy, but not for the right reasons. just when he was almost free, he goes back to his old ways of fletcher's approval meaning happiness instead of his own talent giving him happiness.
dont think so, playing in a band means having to be a team player, that was only benefiting him at that point, he did what he wanted the best way possible, and if he thought fletchers doing his part would benefit him even more especially knowing where he was... playing to many people and in a band
Not entirely true. Its happy depending on your perspective and worldview. For some, its disappointing to see the abuser win, but for others, seeing Neiman achieve true perfection in the art he has aspired for his whole life is triumphant and wonderful. In the end, they both did achieve what they wanted, at the cost of everything else. That can be happy depending on how much you value ego, and the desire to be the best.
@@Megalodon鮫The abuser didn't win, what does fletcher gain except popularity for having a great drummer trained under his hands. Not much he just wants to have a great drummer by having people push their absolute limits.
The movie only gets better and better. Even though I’ve only seen it for the first time a couple months ago, it still permeates in my head tossing around this question that the finale tosses up despite setting the drumsticks down. Thanks for highlighting this and mulling over this difficult ending to a phenomenal film.
Yeah it's been one of my favorites for awhile and like I say in the video, my opinion on it has certainly changed a good bit over the years. Thanks for the comment!
To me, this film is exceptional because the protagonist and antagonist have the same goal: greatness. I don't think this is just about wanting results. I believe that both Fletcher and Nieman have gone insane and cycle through a toxic relationship. Yes, Fletcher absolutely amplifies Nieman's anxiety and is abusive towards him - but Nieman too is abusive towards himself. He puts himself through whatever means necessary to be the best fit for the role in his pursuit of becoming one of the greatest drummers of all time. So here's an interesting thought: is Fletcher so hard on Nieman because he believes he is capable of achieving greatness or because abusers are more likely to abuse individuals like Nieman that exhibit traits of low self-esteem, vulnerability, desire, etc? In my opinion, the ending of this film not only results in Fletcher and Nieman achieving greatness but going above and beyond. This moment isn't like every other film where the hero and villain are on the cliché grand stage and one defeats the other. No, they are on a relatively small stage that separates their relevance from space and time. It is an absolutely triumphant moment when one least expects it. Chazelle certainly might disagree with me and I can't argue with the creator necessarily but I view this moment as the ultimate win. There can only be one hero in this film and it is Nieman. Not only does he win but he conquers his enemy and his dreams. This brings us back to the final question of this video: What do we do with a leadership style that harms the person, but gets results? Well, both sides can be argued, as in this video. Bobby Knight was able to produce an undefeated season and is viewed as a hero whereas the latter examples produced the opposite desired outcome. Another great example, like Knight, is Steve Jobs. He was both a tyrant and a hero to both his family and business. I assume it would be redundant for me to list the results he produced. Abuse is a very troubling reality for many people across the world and in every case, I would argue that kindness is the key to healthy living. Unfortunately, a great sword can not be made without precision, heat and force. It is important to keep in mind that this is "just a film" - and how many Steve Jobs' are there for every John Brannen? In Nieman's case, I view him as someone that overcame the abuse but when considering where he goes on from that moment can't be known for sure. Does the audience just view him and Fletcher as lunatics even though for them it is a triumphant moment? Does Nieman continue his greatness from that point on? Do Nieman and the cancelled Fletcher continue the cycle of their toxic relationship? Who knows. All I know is that movie absolutely rips. Kudos to everyone involved in that film, for like the hero and antagonist, they achieved greatness!
Heat and force is relatively a different thing while compare to violence and abuse. These people indeed achieve greatness in their toxic mentorships, but what happened to people who weren't able to deal with it? sound like all the bad of the society can be simply wiped off, killed, stomped on, for sake to save the "good" parts, like an accepted anti-utopia world. It's just death, blood, violence picture but swapped with pretty imagery of "greatness". Heat and force is the product of work upon yourself, building your way towards your desire. Heat and force mean to achieve things without "cutting" and "killing". The abuse will never be accepted, if so, criminals who wanted to build a great world of their own would be running free. The sacrifice of violence is ridiculous and it stays that way. I don't agree with your standpoint at all.
Thanks so much! And I think for the most part, if you look at the most "successful" people in our culture, there isn't really a happily ever after. It's usually just a bummer.
@@evanonline8409 yeah, i've sort of been collecting "non-endings" as i call them, that seem to tuck all the conflict away nicely in honor of the credits rolling, but don't actually address any of the larger issues, only the personal conflicts of the characters that might even come screaming back into the picture in like a month anyways. It's why i got excited when you mentioned you were working on this one. I find them so fascinating and I hadn't thought of Whiplash as one of those until now. Gonna have to watch this one again.
Didn't the director say it was about a music teacher he had when he was young, and that he dropped out? I see this movie as him wondering what kind of person would go through with it. And that's exactly what the movie does. It shows us the amount of obsession needed, and it doesn't paint it positively
It also kinda makes me think.. what if the director was thinking about another version of himself that does go through with it and keeps pursuing something that could possibly damage his mental being.
Fletcher got what he wanted in the end, total domination and manipulation of his student. He doesn't care about the person, he only cared about what that person could do to indulge in his completely warped notion of what quality or success is about. They are both smiling at the end, but the end is one of the saddest endings that I've ever witnessed is a movie, and at the same time one of the best sad endings ever filmed in cinema!
I always had that weird feeling about the ending, and I have to say, you managed to put my thoughts perfectly into words. Thank you for that beautiful essay.
I've noticed how no-one has mentioned a small detail about the dinner scene. As he's talking to his father, Andrew mentions how Charlie Parker only gained a friend after a cymbal was thrown at his head. Well later on in the movie Fletcher recalls how he told Andrew that story, them both sharing a nice moment in remembering the time. It was such a small thing but it goes to show how Fletcher impacted Andrew. I think that Andrew's fate was sealed, and the death of one of Fletcher's former students showed where Andrew would be going. He gave up his sanity for perfection, to indulge himself into his craft so much so that he's nothing more than what he can preform. I think Fletcher only receives validation in the end, seeing what his months of destruction and rebuilding has amounted to. The ending is nothing more than the last glimpse of Andrew devoting himself, being sucked back in by Fletcher to sign away his life.
I saw Fletcher as a projection of Andrews own obsession with artistic achievement. I remember waiting to find out half their interactions all happened in Andrews mind. I loved the ending, and I love when a movie leaves you thinking the way this one does. Great video!
God I loved the ending of this movie so much. The way the editor denies us seeing the words "good job" escaping from lips of J.K. Simmons. One part triumphant victory and simultaneously two parts cautionary tale make for an ending that feels horrific and joyful at the same time. It was so refreshing to see a film refrain from beating us over the head with a prescriptive moralistic theme. the ending felt honest, even though it was bittersweet
The thing is, you can get good results while building somebody up, and you can make a good product without crunch. The lie that abuse or crunch is necessary is there to cover over incompetence. A good teacher is sometimes severe and sometimes pushes you, especially when he can see that you are not giving your best, but he also knows when to back down and encourage. Teaching is that push pull, sometimes you have to be that strict-no BS enforcer, other times you have to be gentle and encouraging, there's a push-pull to it. And Fletcher only knows how to push, not to pull. So he's not really a good teacher.
To me the ending was beautiful. Everyone is worried about fletchers abuse. But anyone here who’s attempted or done anything in the upper 8th percentile will tell you that you abuse yourself to achieve things more than any instructor ever will. Nieman could’ve always quit. He didn’t. Nieman played his hands and drums bloody. Fletcher never made him. Truth is everyone else in the band had their own form of self harm that got them there which you never saw. You only saw Niemans. Look up what happens to wind instrument players. It’s called embouchure collapse . To me, The ending was about Nieman finally accepting what he needs to put himself through in order to achieve what HE wants. Fletcher is a physical embodiment of that. And in the end Nieman realizes no one can push himself like him. Not even fletcher. Fletcher smiles because he realizes the kid has finally surrendered himself to the entire process. Which most people refuse to do.
The message (not the intended one) is not about abuse, effort or human relationship. Is more about the nature of madness. If you are going to such lengths of obsession you enter a region where you have no option but success, you entered this palce where even an above average result becomes mediocre. Fischer, Newton, Kurt Cobain, Ozzy Osbourne, Van Gogh, Tesla... The story of those people without a success in the end would be just a cautionary tale about the dangers of obsession. In times of toxic positivity is easy to overlook the love needed to make a torturous path produce results, suffering by itself is not a bad thing, a meaningless suffering is.
andrew gave in on fletcher's obsession. andrew should have just stood up right before the last note and walked away with his father to give fletcher his tragic moment and tragic ending. nonetheless, the ending was really troubling and disturbing for me. but still the ending was a good choice for a wonderful movie like this.
I immediately took away the message that to reach that height is always more than talent and luck. And the wicked cocktail of traits that gets you to that place assures you that the company you find there (and are forced to share that success with) will be less than ideal.
Maybe I interpreted it wrong, but the way Fletcher's mouth moves at the end of the movie to me looks like he says "good job," which is honestly what I would expect Fletcher to say as his praise would just continue the cycle of abuse.
An interesting observation about Andrew Neiman at the end of the film is how hostile and rebellious against Fletcher's approval or disapproval he was in that performance, even mouthing the words, "fuck you," early on. So, while Fletcher's abuse was deeply unethical, it was the realization on Andrew's part that his giving a shit about what this abusive person thought of him was what held him back from achieving true greatness. So, if Fletcher had the intuition that his relentless abuse would lead to this display true artistic greatness (besides Fletcher merely being a sadist), then he indeed achieved his aim by the end of the film, along with Andrew in fact. The biggest commonality between Andrew and Fletcher is that they both appear to value great art (in this case, music) more than human wellbeing (their own or others), Andrew often putting himself through more abuse than Fletcher ever put him through, not to mention Andrew's severing of a promising romantic relationship in the service of his higher calling. I think that's fundamental to understanding why this brutal form of motivation is effective on some people (or teams) and not others. The difference being that the former is aligned with their mentors valuing human greatness above human wellbeing, and the latter valuing the inverse of that.
I think the idea is that the question is “Was it worth it?” For us - fuck no. For them - yes. That’s the difference. And none of us - or them - are wrong. But I think Fletcher is a bad teacher. A great tutor - but bad teacher. He went through breaking 100s of students to get one or two gems.
One of the only few movies where it keeps you watching for the entire 2 hours and is very entertaining. The performances are phenomenal and the way that it is directed is quite perfect. I think there were so many foreshadowing events that took place that were very key details for Neimans character and the way of his obsession with his passion is what makes the movie just more intense and entertaining. I especially replayed the part of him getting into the car accident and going back to get his drums to play, such a way to show how much he really is obsessed and was affected due to Neiman’s way of teaching him.
Some of the most rewarding moments I look back on were times I had to dig-deep and pull through dark and desperately challenging events. Seeing yourself grow and doting on the ones that helped you through it; mentor, friend, and even a rival. I can't help but feel love for both characters, even if the method was toxic.
I just played through the first hour of Gris like literally 35 seconds ago, got on UA-cam to watch your Gris video again and got here within 5 minutes of you uploading haha.
Nearly every time I look at someone behaving in a way I consider to be substandard, I always think back to their family. I think “that person wasn’t loved enough” rather than thinking “that person just sucks at life.” The dinner scene in Whiplash might be my favorite scene in the whole movie. Our protagonist only fell into the clutches of the antagonist because he wasn’t shown sufficient support at home. Such is often the case in reality; art imitates life, and Whiplash is a brilliant piece of art.
I never saw the full film, only a couple of parts to give me the context. I did see the last scene on UA-cam. I definitely agree with what you said about the film as a whole. It’s not a happy ending, it’s complicated. Fletcher is abusive, manipulative, and cruel. Niman will end up the same if he continues down this path. It’s another warning about abuse and obsession. One day I’ll finally watch this movie, just got to get over the teacher abuse. Lord knows getting over an abusive coach is hard
I'm convinced that Fletcher's logic is not "I'll abuse those students to make a Charlie Parker out of one of them" but "I claim to be making the next Charlie Parker so that I can abuse people". Maybe Fletcher even fooled himself that his abuse has a higher purpose. The fact that he'd rather have vengeance on Neiman (I don't think Fletcher "gave up" on him, he just wants revenge for his lost power) for reporting him rather than giving a fair shot reveals that. The final smile is for me an attempt to save face or a concession of defeat. Same goes for the scene where he discusses Charlie Parker at the club. Why rant about an hypothetical tragedy (Parker not being pushed enough) when there's an actual tragedy, Parker dying at 35 ? Roughly at the same age, Miles Davis released Kind of Blue, and still had in him thirty years to build an everlasting legacy. Parker's death is not directly linked to any abuse, but is still reminescent of the fate of Sean Casey, the one who met Fletcher's expectation and died for it. It's not "succeed or die trying" in Fletcher's class, it's "give up or die succeeding". And therefore the ending is saying that Neiman not only lost everything (family ; love interests...) in his pursuit of Fletcherian perfection, but will quite simply die of it.
You are completely right, I think this is an easy movie to misread Fletcher is defiantly abusive, evil and his practices are counter productive. One note though when Fletcher tells the class about his student dying he lies and says that they died in a car accident we find out that he killed himself later when that lady approaches Neiman about Fletcher being an abusive teacher we never actually get confirmation that he was feeling anxious or depressed because of the teaching but obviously it’s implied
To be fair, Andrew wanted to be the best, and to be so, he had to overcome fletcher. To be the best at anything, you have to be willing to put yourself through what others can't handle.
It's concerning to me how many people completely misunderstand the ending of this film and wholeheartedly believe Fletcher was in the right. Go to any comment section under a clip of this movie and see how many people throw around the term "participation trophy".
This is the only video on Whiplash I've seen, so far, that I agree with. I read people saying "the perfect ending" and what not but it's neither a positive ending nor a good one in terms of storytelling - I feel. Andrew's character barely has any development. He starts off as an ambitious and motivated musician, becomes more and more emotionally detatched from friend(s) and family; becomes more obsessed and also kind of abusive like his "mentor" or some might say he becomes more confident. But in the end he is still only focused on becoming a great musician and earning his abuser's approval. His skill improves along the way but that is not a character trait. When Fletcher offers him the part as drummer for the JVC band, I thought (maybe hoped) he was going to turn it down and show that he isn't desperate for Fletcher's approval anymore or that his love for music is not worth throwing away his mental health. He could've called out Fletcher on the bullshit about the former student who committed suicide. At the concert in the end, I thought he was going to mess up on purpose and thereby ruin Fletcher's reputation (more). Or maybe have a tremendous performance and then just up and leave in the middle of the concert, as to stick it to his former abuser. Instead, he just validates all the abuse his fucking cuntass piece of shit instructor gave him. Fletcher exposes his own hypocrisy when Andrew asks if you can go too far and maybe discourage the next Charlie Parker from becoming Charlie Parker. "No. Because the next Charlie Parker would never be discouraged." Charlie Parker and the basketball athletes you mentioned in this video all achieved their success IN SPITE of all the abuse they were put through and not because of it. As evidenced by a great many more instances of abusive methods from teachers and coaches failing, instead of "getting results".
I think it’s perfect because it doesn’t contradict its story yet still feels fulfilling to Andrew’s character and leaves a happy impression. The ending is bitter and spiteful, he only plays caravan to showcase his talent and potentially ruin Fletcher’s show, his dad sees him and realised that his son is gone. Andrew has lost everything except his music and the ending captures that perfectly, the close up of him and Fletcher really conveys how this is the only relationship he has left. Yet it still feels triumphant with Andrew finally gaining Fletcher’s respect and being recognised for his talent allowing him to achieve his goal. The way it leaves you feels happy for Andrew and fulfilled while actually being quite a depressing finale is why many including myself think the ending is so perfect
I almost wish I hadn’t seen this film when I did in 8th grade as a music student. It is BECAUSE of this film that for the longest time I thought that practice looked like painful amounts of repetition and self hatred and constant frustration with being less-than perfect. I missed the whole point of music, which was that it is supposed to be enjoyed, more than anything else, even in academics. I also missed the whole point of that film, which is even more sad.
I honestly think you really overstate how "complicated" of an ending it is. It's more that it's a complex feeling communicated in a simple, pure way, and the way we respond to it is complicated. It depends a lot on your personal experience. As an artist, I really push myself to do my best, which can sometimes get me stuck in negative feedback loops, questioning my talent, commitment, etc. I talked to a lot of people about the film when it first came out, and none of them were like, "ah, yes, that's a happy ending!" (Then again, some people think the Irishman, Goodfellas, and the Sopranos are positive representations, so maybe there's no accounting for taste.) The ending basically aims to make you ask the question, "is it worth it to give into abuse and suffering in order to become great?" My general take on the film is while I love it, that question is kinda misleading. It's probably true that there are some abusive leaders out there who manage to achieve greatness through their abuse and malpractice, but I think there are just as many teachers out there who achieve greatness without any of that. Their greatness and their abuse are not as connected as we think. Us human beings draw conclusions based on patterns like this far too often.
As a drummer, jazz musician, and music teacher, I really disliked this movie for so many reasons. Thank you for investigating and clarifying one of them.
It's almost as if abusive teaching is such a hallowed tradition that we feel we have no choice but to keep it secret and let it flourish. Breaking faith with it is like turning your back on music itself.
Fletcher subscribes to the mindset that: you must push people off the edge if you wish to see them ever fly. Whether or not you think this is a good minset is the question the movie makes you ask.
This ending reminded me of the ending of Gone Girl, where it effectively leaves a bad taste in my mouth by bringing things to an ironic, false "happy" ending that has unsettling implications.
Our Jr High director did not go to the lengths Fletcher did, but he did ride you if he thought you had talent -- one on one, he was encouraging but he'd cut you down in front of everyone quite regularly And he achieved amazing results, having mere kids play pieces that grown adults would find challenging. I resented him at the time, but now appreciate how difficult a job he had, and wish I had understood/appreciated what he was trying to do. Our High School director played head games with us too, but seemed to know the right way to bring us together without ever hating him. Do incredible results justify harsh methods? To a point, yes I think so -- very few ppl will achieve their max potential without being pushed or challenged, BUT there are limits. Some ppl will simply break or quit, so one size does not fit all. Fletcher as the director said cannot be redeemed, IMHO because he is doing it for his own vanity. I never felt that my grade school directors were doing it only for their own glory, it really did feel like they wanted us to achieve the best we could and they didn't want us to waste that brief and fleeting opportunity.
Do you think that teacher should ask a student about their learning style then? Like, if criticism breaks one person and challenges another, then do you think it would be helpful for a teacher to ask a student beforehand what motivates them? I had a similar experience in high-school art class, in which our art teacher would ask kids "Have you even painted in your life? This landscape looks flat/underdeveloped." or "I'm disappointed" when they handed in work. She definitely had the experience to see what made a strong piece. And she had this one specific teaching approach that might have motivated some people. But also, I think about how this approach sometimes came when students didn't expect it/could "consent" to it (when the student was working). Or how some people didn't respond well to this specific approach. How can a teacher have a strong idea of what a student wants or what would be best for the student without the student telling them first? Or at least, how can they know without the student's feedback?
@@annabellelin7730 Your example with the art teacher is something I realized too: teaching is a separate skill of being good at something. So the ineffective approach and overly harsh methods happened several times during grade school. My mom was a teacher and certainly had opinions on what was effective education and what was beyond the pale and should have been obvious to anyone who taught kids-- with this band director in particular, I think she had that exact conversation (in private, parent to teacher) with him. It didn't change anything. Looking back, it seems like a lot of teachers have one way of doing things, and if it gets (in their mind) the "right result" for the majority of students, then that's how they're going to run their classroom. One exception: I remember my drafting teacher actually having a conversation with the literal pot smoking freaks that always were in his class. It was an elective class so he thought they were there of their own free will like the rest of us - he realized in talking to them his class was a dumping ground for the counselors. From then on, he did not try to discipline them and they stopped causing any issues in the class. In college (architecture), the issue was resolved by being able to pick your own professor for the core classes. I always did better with ones that were more flexible and kept things professional, and avoided the ones who had the attitude of "you're mine this semester and you're going to think and do things exactly as I say!". One professor literally in front of other students asked why one of us was voluntarily signing up for another prof who was known for being this domineering and unpleasant. In an ideal world, definitely a teacher would realize that one approach does not suit all, and that while most can handle it, riding one particular student hard is going to be wildly ineffective and damaging.
The cost of greatness doesnt always sacrifice ones sanity and well being for happiness. Sacrifices must be made but with the right mentors you learn to balance accordingly.
Fletcher turns him into someone who is now conditioned to live entirely for external validation, losing any sense of his own passion, purpose and feelings. Aka a completely empty shell of a person, a slave to the world, a man who sold his soul
'abuse' without a purpose, without an intent for future success, or without 'love', is just evil. 'abuse' (limited) that makes a person better and with a purpose can be justified by a coach or 'teacher' if its matches the persons character and mature personality, and is eventually seen as 'tough love' with scar tissue that heals over time, and does not lead to self destruction .
Miles Teller described the look his father gives him at the end of the movie as not one of finally understanding his son's passion but instead one of horror at witnessing the extent of his son's obsession.
That’s exactly what’s missing from this essay.
thats what i thought like he finally turned into a monster
i thought it wad deeper. His father didn't have the courage his son did.
@@dylanguion6731 right? i'm surprised that wasn't mentioned at all. that was by far the main indicator that this ending was not supposed to be seen as "happy" but "tragic"
From the Screenplay:
AT THE LOBBY DOORS
Jim watches Andrew -- crazed, exhausted, looks like he’s pushing himself past what is safe -- and knows there is no longer anything he can do about it.
He has lost.
And then -- one of the USHERS steps forward from the edge of the stage. He looks at Jim -- and closes the doors, blocking Jim’s view.
We linger on Jim for a moment -- behind the closed door, in silence.
Conclusion:
When you read the script, you realize that Jim “Lost” his son to his desire to no longer impress him but to impress Fletcher who has become a stand in for Jim since Fletcher’s way of thinking has corrupted Andrew.
It’s a tale of abuse but Andrew does make the choice to go out there and even if this ending is a symbol for the type of brutal life style he’d have to live to stay successful which is the argument the film poses with the Charlie Parker story and how he ends up dead at 34 of an overdose, Andrew would rather have it that way anyway if it means never being forgotten.
I love how when Fletcher’s student dies (which we later learn was pretty much Fletcher’s fault), he does cry- not because a human being was lost… but because a musician was lost. Instead of remembering him as a person, he plays his music for the class and never talks about the guy himself. It really gives insight on how he views people
I disagree that it was Fletcher’s fault. A single teacher, years ago, made you kill yourself? It was because he was a good musician but never amounted to anything.
Really hit the nail on the head there. Thanks Batman
I just realised how Fletcher's past student cause of death was a car accident which foreshadows the near death experience Nieman goes through rushing to make it in time to the performance after forgetting his drum sticks. He was that close to becoming another casualty under Fletcher's guise.
@@antonieng agree, but I think the past student hanged himself
@@Luke-yu1tj Fletcher tells the class that the student died in a car crash, but it's later revealed it was suicide.
I see the hug Andrew gives to his father at the end as a goodbye hug. It’s Andrews last moment as a normal player and person. After he walks back onto the stage, he transforms into what Fletcher always wanted, knowing his life will never being the same. His dad watches him change his entire person and life and he knows his son is gone and forever tied to Fletcher.
Why are you so nihilistic? Like chill Andrew is like 17 life can change every day forever? You serious? Wtf is wrong with these people with their such narrow small view on life lol
Agreed except I don't think he's necessarily tied to Fletcher specifically but rather he's now tied to what Fletcher embodies; the relentless, engulfing pursuit of perfection to the exclusion of everything else.
Would agree until the "forever tied to fletcher" bit.
Yea I think that’s why his father has a look of like horror when he sees Neiman on the stage
Could be that on one level a person has to sacrifice relationships to other people to achieve the highest excellence. That is part of the bargain. Not saying it's laudable, but I imagine Picasso was likely an asshole, but that was part of his character that enabled him to be a genius at what he did.
These moments of "happiness" are part of and necessary to the cycle of abuse. If they weren't there it would be much easier for people to leave these dysfunctional relationships. The abuse is seen as justified for these brief moments of relief.
More than a little bit of Stockholm Syndrome going on.
Kind of like the midsommar endinf
i dont think this is the relationship abuse or parenting abuse type. Nieman isn't abused by Fletcher as much as he is abuser of himself in this movie. That smile at the end between Fletcher and Neiman is kinda "i know what you doing" thing between them, or "same rules apply" from Filth, cus they are kinda of the same type of person. I like how in my language movies title is "Obsession" or more accurate is "Posession" and not a "Whiplash".
@@MrSam1804 nah
@@MrSam1804 Did we watch the same film?
One of the most noticeably absent things from the ending was any applause, or external validation at all. Any other movie of this type would end with a standing ovation - not only to underline how great the performance was but to give the movie audience that sense of payoff as well. So why is there no applause at the end?
A key motif of the movie is the intense focus required to play at this level and how most people don't care about jazz at all. Removing the audience reaction from the ending highlights how narrowly these two characters are focused on excellence, even excluding their own audience. If art is a way to communicate, they have decided to only communicate with one another, cutting out everything else (Andrew's girlfriend, the door closing on his dad at the end, etc.) Even the close camera cuts of only their eyes in the final moment shows how hyper-focused they have become. Even the rest of the band no longer matters - like the Bobby Knight comparison, their goals are purely athletic and selfish and have nothing to do with the music or the audience.
Chef's kiss
Obsession has a price
Well said!
I think it's obvious there would be a standing applause from such a performance, whether the movie shows it or not it clearly happened. A bunch of high society types don't assemble to see the best jazz musicians in the world give the best performance a human can give and not give a rousing applause.
And he's not just a jazz machine, he's clearly a generational talent and, much like the guy who got ran over by a car, would go on to become a household name in jazz circles.
In the real world generational jazz talents like Miles Davis and Louis Armstrong endured far worse abuse than Andrew does in this film and turned out to be even greater musicians. Great musicians don't really exist anymore and it makes you wonder, is it because everyone is coddled more? The film asks the question, does it take extreme adversity and abuse to produce true greatness? It's a really fair question to ask, and there are countless examples where the answer is yes.
@Chase Miller yeah he needs to go back on the meds
I think the ending is rather tragic. I bounced between thinking “Oh, he’s finally getting away from Fletcher, and it looks like he’s becoming his own person again!” to “Fletcher still has his abusive… control over Neiman.” The very end is the latter, which I find really sad.
You missed a big part of the film then. Andrew wants to be great, and he’s achieving that.
@@FlareDope yeah but even if he is great he's going to die alone like he foreshadowed based on how the actors describes the aftermath of the film....
@@shadowboy2818which is his ideal and his prerogative. Y’all are misunderstanding this so much. It’s a story about individualism and the amazing feats we can sacrifice for as people.
But were those "sacrifices" worth it in the film is the big question in this film which it implies...For example, Andrew almost died in a car accident on his way to perform and still kept going to perform anyway without even getting medical attention. Also, the way he broke up with his girlfriend and how he's been getting more aggressive and rude comes off as horrific. Slowly throughout the film we see Andrew losing himself to this obsession of greatness. The story seems like a cautionary tale about how obsession and ambition can transform people for the worst.@@fredrickkenley674
Andrew does want to be one of the greats. Anytime there is a big once in a generation artist/performer, their success comes at sacrifice of something.
I never thought it was a happy ending at all, so I'm surprised to see so many people say it was. Yes, Miles emerges "victorious" in the end, but it's pretty much at the cost of his own sanity. He's no longer a hopeful jazz student, but a withered, broken jazz machine. And that's before even diving into the implications surrounding his abusive relationship with Fletcher.
Andrew, not miles
agreed
Not to mention the fact that there are plenty of similarly talented musicians who got there without their instructors having to resort to such...impractical tactics.
It will never not bother me how the antagonist was depicted as some kind of aspirational character.
@@wisemage0 except he's clearly portrayed as a villain and abusive figure, having positive traits doesn't mean the person is being depicted as aspirational
- that was kind of necessary for the point of the movie though. it has to be seen through nieman’s eyes. to him, his music career is the only metric of his life’s success, and fletcher is the judge of that metric. nieman thinks that the only way for his life to be worthwhile, for any life to be worthwhile, is to be great and fletcher can make him great, therefore fletcher becomes the only relevant source of approval in his life.
you cant have that godlike figure appear irredeemably bad or else nieman just looks like a dumbass. instead you show the audience what nieman sees in him, then you show the truth of how awful and abusive fletcher is, then you show how nieman continues to revere him, no matter what fletcher does.
This movie came out at a time in my life where I would study 14 hours a day and was experiencing success in college. My ego was so high and I truly believed I was better than other people. I went for a PHD and when other life events happened I snapped and had a mental breakdown. It took a year to recover. I survived and have a family and a home today. I’m successful on the outside but internally I still feel like a failure for something that happened 8 years ago. I always feel like I never lived up to my potential and it haunts me to this very day. To make things more complicated my best friend did achieve his dreams with a PHD in his field of computer science only for him to commit suicide a year later. This has me reflect on how that could have been me and what I perceived my mental breakdown to be a sign of weakness was me saving myself before I perished. I used to love this film and looked down on my father for saying the movie made him feel “nervous”. After my mental breakdown I have never been able to watch this film ever again when it used to give me so much motivation to push me past my limits. Thank you to anyone who has read this.
Thank you for sharing this and I'm sorry to hear about your friend.
I too feel the same
❤
How did your dad react when you changed your opinion on the movie?
thats a tens story my dude hope your ok now
The father's point in the finale is very underrated. Paul Reiser gives a great performance. At the end he witnesses his song perform greatness. He doesnt cheer, He walks away. He knows his son is gone at this point. He is the monster that the Jazz teacher created.
Neiman created himself. He could have walked out of Fletcher's studio any time he wanted, hell, Fletcher yelled at him to leave.
But why is he a monster? 😂 Why is this a bad thing? 😂
This is everything he practiced for..
@@TripsX but at what cost. It ruined him and everybody he lived.
@@timloss87 I don’t get it. How did it ruin him? It ruined his relationship, sure, but that’s it. Relationships come and go. Your career is what’s important. Success.
@TripsX that's the dilemma of the movie. Does the ends justify the means. My perspective is that Druming is his only relationship now.
That's exactly the thing I didn't like about Whiplash's ending. It gave redemption to Fletcher, without repentance. It's just wrong. But seeing it was intentional by the director, to leave a sour happy ending, it just makes sense. It's a reflection on how we condone human abuse as long as things get done. We give more value to things than to people.
I'd contest the context is we give more value to outcomes than people.
Well said. And the sad thing is that you do NOT need to be abusive to be effective. There are countless examples of coaches who were astoundingly successful without being jerks. One huge example is John Wooden. In Kareem Abdul Jabbar's autobiography, he says that Wooden probably raised his voice once during the year. And when Wooden did raise his voice, EVERYONE listened. With these crazy coaches and teachers, the students tune out the yelling and start ignoring it.
@@jeremymuir4332 Exactly, like “As long as the ends justify the means…”
We give more value to results than people. Which is good!
I had this exact same feeling after watching the film, knowing that it was purposeful makes it seem a lot less icky for me...
It’s incredible that fletcher is even able to abuse the audience; the ending feels triumphant when in reality it’s the furthest extent of his abuse.
what is not triumphant about this? He archieved his goal to be the best or one of the best.He surpased his teacher and paved a way for his future . what u guys think other do to be the best of the world ? like look at bodybuilders lik ronny coleman his body is completly destroyed because of enhancing drugs bodybuilder have to sacrifice so much mor for success but thats what the journey so great. And he regret nothing he said it with a smile on his face
@@Ubreakable-lr2dk The journey isn't made great because the end goal was achieved, that's not how shit works. If I want to get a new pc and for that I murder a whole family and steal all their valuables, that wasn't justified nor something good. He didn't surpass his teacher, he clearly submitted to him by wanting his approval. Using your own example of bodybuilders, sure they might look amazing for a few years and become famous, then die when they hit 40 or 50 because they hurt their body so much. What isn't triumphant? Neiman finally finishes his transition into Fletcher's pet
@@electroshock1021 thats a terrible analogy lol
@@DragonZombie2000 yeah, which is used to argue my point. If you just go by "the end justifies the means", even that analogy makes sense and would be considered correct. Driving people to suicide just to get a good drummer is insane
It's a fucking movie, on an isolated subject. It was a big win for both actors who did an amazing job. I just so happen to love jazz, so it's also a big win for me.
I used to have this type of relationship with one of my mentors during my time as a research assistant at a university. He was a tenured professor, so he knew he could get away with almost anything without being held accountable. I would always tell myself “I’m going to leave, I can’t put up with this abuse”, but every once in a while, he would actually say I did something good, and I was sucked right back in and gave it a second, third, fourth, etc. chance.
As soon as I saw the exchange of glances during the final scene of Whiplash, I knew exactly what was being displayed. He was being sucked right back into the cycle of abuse.
and get to new level of greatness.
@@TheMaulam12345but at the cost of losing everything
@@therandomdude7347 did he had anything to loose at this point, it was his last chance at achieving something greater than a mediocre life and he took it.
@@TheMaulam12345 He's not actually that great TBH. Like, Jazz isn't that popular and people mostly do it because they like Jazz. And Andrew's solo, while physically straining, isn't that technically impressive. He isn't the greatest player ever, he's just good.
@@andrerobertson3151thats the point, not Even in sports (that are in Nature competitive) You cant meassure who is the Best of the Best, You only can give a Lost of "greatest of all times" and still You would fall short for a Lot of reasons it's a futiñez unnecesary but somehow shoehorned view about success and greatness, it's false, that doesnt exist but we pretend, it's just a mean to justify control and power dinámics.
To me the ending starts, and this is key, when Andrew leaves the stage and hugs his father, before going back and hijacking the band from Fletcher. He's saying goodbye to his father, embracing Fletcher and his methods and, in my mind, becoming his teacher's mini me. Fletcher used Andrew's dad as an unending source of humiliation and that's what the boy tacitly accepted in that goodbye. I don't think Andrew will become a teacher and mimic Fletcher's abuse, but he'll carry his own Fletcher in his mind forever. That's what that mutual smile means. To me the movie is about, among other things, how you can survive abuse, but it always leaves you disfigured.
This! you put it very poignantly.
No matter how much you move on or how much time has elapsed, abuse always leaves you disfigured.
There is no respite no escape. the body keeps the score.
You say “disfigured”…but that’s certainly a subjective appraisal. Some of the greatest performers underwent traumatic experiences to find success at the top and would do it all over again if they had to.
99.99% of people will never know this type of traumatic experience but they also go to their deathbed never having achieved the greatness that this type of traumatic teaching can achieve.
@@alexblaze8878 I think the problem here is the operative word "can" - "the greatness this type of traumatic teaching CAN achieve." The thing is, greatness has been achieved by people who experienced less antagonistic teaching methods, too, and this style of teaching can also break people down WITHOUT building them back up. If this teaching method reliably delivered greatness every time, or even MOST of the time, that argument might hold water, but there are plenty of examples of harsh teaching methods having the opposite effect - even within the context of the film, it drives one kid to suicide. I don't think you can define a failure to teach and motivate more harshly than "your student killed themselves". Now they won't just fail to achieve greatness, they'll fail to achieve ANYTHING.
Couple that fact with the reality that jazz music isn't exactly a core skill needed for survival and you have a situation where the net outcome is negative - at best, you'll create a very talented jazz player, but at worst, you'll create a corpse, or even just people who are afraid of teachers, or give up music, or are otherwise artificially limited or damaged, AND the effect of all that negativity on the people around them.
When you compare the overall positive impact he's had on people's lives vs the negative impact, it's pretty clear that this method of teaching has more drawbacks than benefits, is totally unreliable, and is dangerous for the students.
(To be clear, I'm not saying that ALL strict or demanding teaching methods are bad or unproductive, I'm saying that this level of intensity goes far beyond what might be seen as a reasonable tradeoff of pressure vs results).
The director came out and said that, in his mind, Andrew will be dead at age 34 of five an overdose, penniless and friendless. That’s the darkness that wins in this scene. When his father looks at Andrew, he looks on as if he lost his son because he has.
@@alexblaze8878 I've always wondered why Fletcher was trying to find someone and make him into a"great one" instead of striving to become one himself. Maybe "those who can't do, teach"
I truly understood how abusive Fletcher's behavior was when I realised that he learned Neiman's parents' occupations, just to use that in his swears. When I first watched their chat in the hall, I thought "That is really good, Fletcher kinda trying to relief his student." Then he started mentioning his mother leaving him after birth in his swears. I was shocked. He asked about Neiman's parents, just to use it against him. I honestly think that he would really mention Neiman's parents more if they were musicians. I think that he would often make fun of that Neiman will never make his father/mother proud by playing like this. And who knows, maybe that gay insults he was making against one of those drummers were real. Maybe that guy was really homosexual and Fletcher was using that on his own benefit.
Fletcher lovebombed Neiman only to throw it back at him, thats manipulative behavior.
fr man motherfcuker was brutal!
Fletcher could also have asked about Neiman’s parents being musicians to know wether he should be worrying about them. They might have a foothold in the music industry and make trouble for Fletcher if he abuses their son.
@@Dr_Skowronek not only that but if they were musicians they might be able to notice unhealthy practice habits or competition standards compared to the public
@@brainbraynbryan8984 Correct.
I remember listening to an autobiography of Jackie Chan where he decribes the conflicting feelings he had about his teacher. He hated the guy for beating him with a bamboo rod whenever he messed up, but also acknowledged that the guys teaching, barbaric as it was, made him a master at his craft.
It truly does boil down to whether or not you agree with “the ends justify the means.” When I was young I did something absolutely moronic and my dad really let me have it and while most would disagree with what happened it really did sort me out. Not sure if tough love really applies to this situation but it’s always worth thinking about.
@@100StepProgram
some ends justify some means.
for example pushing an old woman is generally wrong. but if that old woman is about to be hit by a car, the end(saving her life) justifies the means(pushing her).
i agree. i've experienced this ambivalence too. when we were kids, our coaches used to shoot pucks at us in hockey practice when we started the build-up behind the goal to make sure we always had our heads up and were looking towards the center. if you didn't do that, you got a shotand that hurt a lot. some people thought it was hard, but we became very good at building up and won a lot of championships.
so they were very good at making us successful but at the same time their methods were pushing the envelope
@@chriz9959 I think that's somewhat different to what Fletcher does in the movie.
Fletcher isn't enabling the consequences of being a "bad" drummer to reach Nieman more than he is actively psychologically tearing Nieman down.
His treatment towards Nieman is not one of a teacher showing a student the consequence of doing something wrongly, being more about amplifying that consequence and uselessly adding insult to injury.
@@kostan55well said. There’s a difference between discipline - enforced strategically and where necessary - and straight-up abuse. Correcting a child or a student in harsh ways is questionable for some, but psychological torture and violence is far worse, i think
When my son was very young I got the idea that he would make a good pianist. His personality somehow leaned that way: analytical and this really amazing beat in his body when nobody is watching or when very excited. As a 7 year old he met his piano instructor who soon swooned about him being one of her best. I was very happy for him because I am thinking he is a bit of a genius and here is some affirmation. He did extremely well in his first ever piano exam, going into "the hall of fame". But in the meantime I did learn about the abuse behind the scenes with the teacher's yelling and pounding his fingers on the keys one day. I just know it is so wrong for the teacher to get glory through her students, using them to attain some acknowledgement.... NO! I moved him out of the system and today he gets lessons at home at a much more relaxed pace. Music is to support our spirits and our souls not to make us mindless preforming zombie monkeys
good to know, whats the point of playing if you dont even enjoy it anymore.
@@lets_see_777 because you want to be the best? You wouldn't understand because that's not what you push for?
People really need to understand that the world doesn't revolve around your lense. People want different things.
@@waynewayne8419 cool, hope you become the best
and the beast
@@eej3320 I mean that is cool that you believe that but that doesn't make it true. And even then who are you to say that humans shouldn't chase greatness?
Was going to the moon a waste of time? Was industrialization a waste of time? Are all inventions useless?
You might not like people pushing the boundaries of what they can but that's cool, it's a free world so you do you and let others do as they wish.
My interpretation of the ending has always been that Miles Teller's character chose success and greatness over happiness. Like you said, he validated his abuser's actions. In the overarching story line, it is essentially a happy ending. But, the character may never be happy again, because he has chosen to suffer for the sake of greatness.
Few achieve greatness without great suffering. It's just the way things are.
If it wasn't that way, we'd be living in the world of the mediocre.
@@westonstevens3239
That’s not the same as suffering actually being necessary for greatness.
Great athletes and performers with long, acclaimed careers _take care_ of their bodies rather than beating the everloving sh*t out of them.
@@westonstevens3239 and I accept that life. Don't take it so seriously
Success and greatness was his own version of happiness. It made him fulfilled, which to him was even better than “happiness”
@@AAA-tp7nc
“He wasn’t happy but he was happy” make up your mind, dude.
“His own version of happiness” is completely meaningless. This is basically the equivalent of saying that the life of a heroin addict isn’t bad because the heroin makes them feel good.
No film has made me feel more than whiplash. I had a teacher in college that was fletcher but turned down by maybe 5 degrees. Even down to the rumours of a students suicide. Because of him, because of the fear he put in me - a vision of a pathetic future - I became someone worthwhile. I’m disciplined, self sufficient, fit, professional and well off.
I love who I am on paper but at the same time, I hate the person I’ve become. My capacity for emotion has been reduced to near 0 and my priorities are backwards. I’m just existing, making money and burning calories. It’s difficult for me to love people, know how to show it and keep them around.
If I had the choice to take a lower paying job but be able to care about people again, I would. This is what this method of teaching does to people. Some wonder what happened to Andrew after the film ends - I know exactly what happens to him.
When I see the face on andrews dad in the finale, I see the horror. I see myself witnessing the death of my own humanity. He’s become greatness but he’s also lost himself, entirely.
Damien Chazelle is a master for being able to accurately portray this experience so precisely and intimately. I believe it when he says he went through this. In a way, I think the fact that he made this film is a more of a success in gaining closure for himself. They say communication helps - well whiplash communicates this experience perfectly. I can only dream of feeling catharsis like that.
I feel you. And yet you can learn to accept yourself as an imperfect being. To be merciful. To be kind. To learn to love yourself and others. It takes time and repetition. But you can do it. Because you have learned so much already you can learn this too.
Alexa play Unravel
Sounds like you're just scared of trying to be happy. Making money and not caring about others is the easy way out in life
I make top % money and I also have a happy relationship.
@@GoriIIaTacticsI thought suicide was the easy way out in life?
This is a nine month old UA-cam comment but I do wish the best for you, wherever and however you are now. Good luck to ya, for your sake and for mine.
I never heard anyone mention how at 9:01 it looks like Fletcher is about to slap him, it's a very poetic montage.
Oh I saw that. You are not alone.
I saw that too. I thought he was gonna punch him
Pozdrav Nikola 👹
oh my god yesss. I scrolled down so much to see if anyone else noticed that. To me it portrays how Fletcher has truly won through his methods of abuse and manipulation and that is easily misinterpreted as Nieman's success. Also it kinda gives a hint that this how their relationship is going to be since Fletcher believes in criticism not praise. So he will continue abusing Nieman under the disguise of mentoring him towards greatness. That scene had me absolutely terrified! I'm surprised how more people are not seeing that.
@@nikolarajkovic4595 Nieman got what he wanted but that was the approval of his abuser which is exactly why it's so sad. The way Nieman smiles at the end was the satisfaction of finally getting validated which is exactly how narcissist - victim co-dependent relationship works. Abusers make you feel worthless to the point of an emotional breakdown when you think of walking away but the abusers will at times actually validate you and that feels great cause you finally have the approval of someone who looked down on you and you are sucked right back into the vicious cycle of manipulation and pleasing the abuser. This is the very reason its difficult for the victim to get out of an abusive relationship so i feel like if Nieman wanted to walk away he would have done so long ago.
Which is also why i think Nieman will definitely continue working with Fletcher cause Nieman will continue seeking approval from Fletcher, and in the case that he doesn't, he will carry Fletcher in his mind forever. He might not bully others but throughout the movie we saw how Nieman's behaviour changed towards his friends and family, and he started thinking of others as beneath him.
I think the movie is asking the question : "is greatness worth it?". Some people see Neimans look of pure elation at the end of his solo and think that it is worth it. Others see his fathers look of stunned horror and think that it isn't. It doesn't have to have one interpretation.
It doesn't, you'll be forgoten anyways. If you're great you'll be remembered by centuries, that's right. But what is the purpouse of that? To avoid death in some way? Absurd, everything will die, the universe will inevitably colapse, wether is freeze death or a second Big Bang, doesn't matter, everything will be forgoten.
And even if you get the recognition: does this recognition means actually something? Doesn't matter what you do, you'll never, but EVER satisfy need, nor everyone will recognize you. Let's take Bach or Mozart for example: yes, great musicians, theyll probably live as long as western society does, but: does everyone likes them? No. Actually some people finds classical music boring. You could argue that people find classical music boring because they're ignorants, but see, that's a fallacy. Why? Because you'll be imposing your own self experience and knowledge into others, stating, at the same time, that your way of living is the onlyone right, wich is not. Because knowledge is not "humanity's goal", there's no such thing. There is no goal, so doesn't matter what you do, everything is the same in the "grand scheeme of things". So, what matters? Nothing, objectively speaking. Now, what does matter is your own life and what you do with it.
I think the best approach to music or any art is not "being the best, or being recognize AS..." but enjoying it, otherwise is a wasted life in the purpouse of something unachievable. If you get recognition: great. But if you don't, then what? You're suddendly not worth it anymore? If that's the case then nothing is worth it.
It's also arguably a false dichotomy
"is greatness worth it?" Musician Jimi Hendrix achieved greatness via sacrifice & hard work - His greatness affected my life in a positive way so for ME his greatness was worthwhile. Galileo's years of sacrifice to prove that the earth revolved around the sun, Isaac Newton's “Principia Mathematica” - for mankind these were worth it. Maybe these people had a Fletcher in their life? And without a Fletcher in their lives we would still be living in mud huts.
@@FedeKai95 ironically here you're imposing your nihilistic ideas on everyone else and saying the best approach everyone else should have regarding art is to just enjoy it. But that's a very narrow view. It doesn't take into account that regardless of how meaningful recognition is people still love it and it's not wrong to pursue it. You look at the world as devoid of purpose and meaning so why would just enjoying something without taking it seriously be any more meaningful than trying to pursue greatness. Also, you ignore the idea that people genuinely enjoy the grind and working hard and the journey of getting to the top (probably not applicable to Neiman). Just because you're working extremely hard and your work takes a toll on you doesn't mean you don't love and enjoy it. To say that would be to say Kobe or Jordan never loved basketball.
@@suf1an658 you're commiting more than one mistake in your reply. I won't waste my time, still. Have a nice day.
It's a very bittersweet ending. Yes, it feels satisfying to see Neiman prove Fletcher wrong and show the world that he's one of the greats. It's also fairly clear that it's where his life peaks and that it's all going to be downhill from there. He chose passion over happiness.
Obsession* not passion
Its not clear that it's going downhill from there, thats your own theory, not supported by any context at all. Beta.
@@YakubTheScientist8841 right... All that talk of Charlie Parker meant absolutely nothing. Totally wasn't meant as foreshadowing.
That was sarcasm btw. You know, since you clearly need everything spelled out for you.
@@tezz2698 LOL that was hilarious, if you think charlie parker is supposed to be a parralel to neiman then you dont know anything about charlie parker, thats so cute you tried to speak but have no clue what you're even talking about
@@YakubTheScientist8841 So why on Earth do you think they kept bringing him up?
the ending of whiplash was incredibly horrifying, man. i was as obsessed and called it passion. i was constantly puking out of anxiety. the ending of whiplash solidified telling me to chill.
I’m glad for you.
Proud of you!
Obsessed is a word the lazy use to discribe the dedicated. - Zyzz
@@Ubreakable-lr2dk it is a little different. be careful out there thinking every obsession is dedication, its going to drag you through the mud
@@Ubreakable-lr2dk I'm dedicated to stalking this girl at my school lol
Whiplash has always been a favourite of mine, but it's always a very intense watch, there's very rarely a dull moment. I also respect Damien Chazelle for going for more complex endings which aren't necessarily happy, but not exactly a downer either. Great video bro!
I hate endings that spoon feed the audience. This ending was perfect.
@@flightofthebumblebee9529
I would argue this ending _does_ “spoonfeed the audience”, by giving them the epic musical triumph of a conclusion that most people were hoping for going into a movie about jazz. It gives them a pass for forgive or forget the sadistic torment that occurred much earlier in the film which brought the two main characters to that moment. Anything sinister put into the framing and execution of the finale is so subtle that without a direct statement of authorial intent it would be easily dismissed as unintentional.
The simple fact is, whatever the filmmaker hoped people would take away from it, the ending of Whiplash is Fletcher’s entire worldview being vindicated. He believes abusive tactics are fair game because they get the best results, and Andrew’s final performance *is* “the best results”. It’s the only scene in the whole film where we focus on a musician’s performance purely for its greatness, and it’s also the culmination of everything Fletcher has done to supposedly “achieve” that greatness out of a student.
But… it’s not true. It’s a lie. Abuse is not uniquely useful in getting people to achieve. In reality, it’s not useful _at all._ Abuse literally damages the human brain, aka the very thing that individual achievement ultimately comes out of. When a great athlete or performer comes from an abusive background (or present situation), that is an additional hardship that they had to overcome on their way to success, _never_ a reason for it. This movie, accidentally or otherwise, says the opposite.
@@randomjunkohyeah1 I disagree.
@@flightofthebumblebee9529
On what?
@@randomjunkohyeah1 we have no idea where it goes after the ending. But the experience produced the next Charlie Parker
I remember my dad and I watching this for the first time together a few years back. We interpreted the ending differently. For my dad, Andrew had finally achieved greatness in his craft and Fletcher witnessed the next great jazz drummer that would go down in history. I saw the end as Andrew slipping back into his obsession that would eventually kill him (to me, the earlier car accident was a warning.) Fletcher had him back under his abusive control and that's what the smile was about.
Absolutely agree. Its tragic that right after andrew takes control of the music ("i'll cue you in" to his band mates and then fletcher) and taking power back from fletcher, fletcher comes back in and we see why he smiles: he has groomed andrew like a well-trained dog. In fletchers eyes, andrew has had his moment of power, of playing conductor, and now he is totally submissive and ready to obey. Even the way fletcher moves his hands, its like the hand movements you would give to a dog when you tell it to sit. Fletcher is not proud of Andrew. He is proud of himself for training him so well.
To me the movie shows that this kind of success is ultimately empty and destructive.
Fletcher sacrifices one of his students' life and others' physical and psychological well-being to get one great drummer, while Neiman sacrifices his relationships and ends up completely isolated to become one.
In the end he is the great drummer he dreamed to be but, other than that, he has nothing in his life and will probably continue to have nothing since to maintain this success he will have to continue practicing and making sacrifices, with no time for family or relationships and seeing others as beneath him.
Except if you look at when he first acts like others are beneath him, it’s when his family just shrug off his study without any attempt to understand. He’s studying in an elite school, while his cousin is playing football in a D3 school, and the family, his own family, reduce his study to small talk while fawning over his cousin. Popular mediocrity over unpopular excellence. Skill, talent & achievement be damned; can you make a living from being middle of a massive herd?
It’s not until this moment that he decides that what he’s doing is superior to those in his family, and by extension he’s superior for doing it.
@@hibernopithecus7500 Andrew it's stupid for believe that he is better that's the point
@@Zora-jr2lk Are they also stupid for believing they’re better?
I didn't really get the impression of them feeling they're better. Just, that they didn't understand him nor his passion. Which led to him becoming bitter and deciding to get lost in his passion solely for himself, since in his eyes, no one could get him and what made him happy
@@NerdyDumbProductions It’s not that they didn’t understand him or his passion. It’s that they didn’t want to. Sure they asked, but it was more out of box-ticking than any genuine desire to know. Hard to take being hand-waved away so easily by those closest in the world to you. I can relate.
I never saw this as a happy ending at all. To me Fletcher was a villain, and that's it. Including the suicide angle in the movie to me always made it clear that no success was worth the lives of the young. It's a complex relationship, as abusive relationships tend to be. No "happy" angles here. Humans can make good of the shittiest situations.
exactly !! for me the ending was to stick it to Fletcher show him he was not going down without a fight. In that moment none of them are right they are just delivering an amazing performance
Agree. Fletcher had a point, a student will never reach greatness if they're praised for mediocrity... And having a point makes him a much more interesting villain IMO... But the way he did things was completely unjustified, not to mention self-serving. He didn't care how many lives he would ruin as long as *he* got to be the one who would discover the next musical genius, and that's what made him evil.
Dude even fletcher lied about how his student got into a car accident when in reality he killed himself due to his stress and anxiety he experienced with fletcher . He literally gaslighted everyone in that room.
To be fair, they don't explicitly say the dude killed himself or that it was fletcher's fault. He died in a car accident, and that could've been suicide but it is left ambiguous for a reason
@@buffkangaroodog it is made clear that the former student took his own life by his family's lawyer. The car crash story was a lie told by Fletcher.
Whiplash is basically a story of how abusive relationships can "successfully" function and continue to do so.
That’s very reductionist. It’s also:
• “A gripping exploration of the pursuit of artistic excellence at any cost.”
• “An intense study of the mentor-protégé dynamic and the fine line between pushing limits and exploitation.”
• “A dramatic portrayal of obsession with perfection and the psychological toll it takes on young artists.”
• “A cinematic journey into the psyche of a young musician under extreme pressure to succeed.”
• “A narrative on the sacrifices and moral compromises made in the name of achieving greatness.”
• “An illustration of the power dynamics in teacher-student relationships within the high-stakes world of elite music conservatories.”
• “A reflection on the personal cost of ambition and the relentless pursuit of a seemingly unattainable ideal.”
• “A study of resilience and determination in the face of brutal criticism and unyielding standards.”
• “An examination of the intersection between talent, hard work, and the sometimes destructive nature of artistic ambition.”
• “A portrayal of the fine line between discipline and abuse in the quest for artistic achievement.”
Ok @@lucask30
@@lucask30The point of their comment *was* to reduce it down
@@lucask30 Look up the word "basically" in the dictionary
@@buddyvanpeer the movie was basically about a guy who really liked to play jazz
You can see it in how his dad looks at him in that scene. He know's he's losing his son, that Fletcher has trapped him in his web again and now he's succeeded beyond all doubt, it's going to be impossible to pull him back out.
i think an interesting thing to notice about the final scene is that it's done in a drum solo, complete with speedups and slowdowns, completely divorced from the other performers there. it's just neimann and fletcher, who is controlling neimann and making sure his tempo is "right" and all that. it's incredibly relieving to see, has a viscerality to it that intensifies the scene (because it's much easier to make drumming look physical than horns), and showcases what looks like neimann finally getting over fletcher by giving it that sense of intimacy.
it also has absolutely nothing to do with being a good jazz drummer. drummers are timekeepers first and foremost. bang out a neil peart or karen carpenter solo all you want: if you can't keep time with your bandmates you suck as a drummer. great drummers, like ringo starr, are even able to keep an eclectic group of diverse talents who have barely any musical overlap in what they want together and keep a sense of unity throughout the band that makes their songs work when they perform them live without the need for solos. it's always going to be about that sense of unity you can provide your bandmates.
there's no sense of unity with neimann and the rest of the ensemble; hell, the ensemble isn't even playing. he's following the conductor--in a jazz ensemble, where everyone--conductor included--is stuck on the drummer's time and they have to either deal with it or be the bassist and try to get things in their favor. he was pushed to such a degree he forgot what the point of being a jazz drummer in the first place even is because of fletcher's cruelty and thinks that playing a solo is enough "jazz" to impress some guy whom the audience only sees playing corporate bossanova.
it just goes to show how ingrained fletcher's abuse truly is in neimann, that this victory doesn't even really fit in the spirit of jazz and artistic freedom. it's hard to do when a dictator's breathing down your neck.
Thx so much for your response as an actual musician. I love this film as it captures much of my relationship with my father's method in trying to push me academically. But I found it ironic in the movie that jazz, which is about spontaneous creative freedom, becomes a burden of discipline for the young guy. Your comment adds another level of irony.
Ok so I wasn't imagining stuff when his tempo sounded off and I don't even listen to music much but something just felt off and disconnected between Nieman and the rest of the band
I love this film, and a lot of my band friends do as well. NONE OF US thought it was a happy ending.
are u guys successful? when no, no wonder u guys think that
@@Ubreakable-lr2dk huh?
@@jdhowell916 even his username seems like a typo...
@@jdhowell916his point is that your don’t understand greatness
@@FlareDope his point is false
There is a read of the ending where Neiman could only push through because he turned away from Fletcher. He didn't have that moment under Fletcher's tutelage. He didn't have that moment without hugging his father before. Fletcher was just along for the ride in that last scene. Sure, Fletcher probably doesn't see it that way, and the ambiguity of the scene is what makes us talk about it and consider it thoughtfully. But on the other hand, maybe Fletcher did understand that Neiman only succeeded after violently opposing what Fletcher was doing and ripping control of the band away from him in that scene.
You nailed it. You used a lot less words to express the sentiments I have put elsewhere in this Chat.
As for Fletcher, it doesn't matter if his methods directly got Neiman there or indirectly (Neiman opposing Fletcher)... he's taking that credit in his mind. Had to break him for him to be built back up, played my part. And to Fletcher, he's also a Martyr... he sacrificed his CAREER and all the other kids he could have molded, because HE saw the value in Neiman, knew the potential.
But for Neiman, he over comes his abuser and thrives IN SPITE of him. To the point that he's STRONGER than his abuser now. Like the kid picked on in HS, meeting his HS Bullies a decade later when he's excelled and they've failed. He's so much stronger than Fletcher that he can share that stage with him... and not only not freeze up, but excel. And yes, there is satisfaction in making Fletcher smile... but not because Neiman wanted to please Fletcher, that's confirmation (unneeded, but gladly taken) that even his Abuser is impressed by what Neiman has become. Fletcher doesn't know it, but that moment is Fletcher conceding any 'power' he had to Neiman. It's unneeded, because Neiman no longer recognizes Fletcher as having any power over him... that's behind him, Fletcher is already 'defeated'... but when Fletcher himself hands it over, that's a cherry on talk. Because Fletcher doesn't know he has nothing, he thinks he's giving something of value here. Sort of the 'thought that counts'. Neiman knows the 'gift' is worthless, there is no power there to be transferred... but he understands Fletcher doesn't see it that way. He beats Fletcher, and then Fletcher (already beaten) submits. It's like winning twice in one game.
@@theclimbto1 This take is making a lot of assumptions of what happens after that final note...
@@seanthomas1552 None of what I said was after the final note.
What I broke down is how they even ended up on that stage for Neiman to have his moment.
If Neiman doesn't Survive, if he's still a Victim, he wouldn't even be able to get on that stage to face Fletcher again. So all that recovering happened BEFORE he got up there.
@@theclimbto1 "It's unneeded, because Neiman no longer recognizes Fletcher as having any power over him... that's behind him, Fletcher is already 'defeated'... "
The context for these sentences can not be understood until after we see how this all plays out after that final note. What if Neiman immediately goes "that was great, did you like it? See, I knew I was great, and now you do too." What if Neiman turns around and starts cussing out Fletcher, due to finally getting one over on him (doesn't seem like getting past anything to me.)
I’d agree with this if it weren’t for the smile they shared in the scene. Neiman waits for Fletchers approval in the form of a smile before he himself smiles with pride. He’s still performing FOR Fletcher.
A shot I love from the finale of Andrew's father looking at him through the doors offstage. The expression on his face is brokenhearted, horrified. It's a quick shot but communicates the scene's intention perfectly.
It's an endless cycle of abuse. I am an artist and I understand how hard it is so love your job and also having it to live a normal daily life. It can be so hard to love your passio, but feeling forced to do it every single day and I feel like its Andrew's situation. The moment he stepped into fletchers studio, I felt that love and passion died inside him cause of the pressure of "being one of the greats." You can't do your passion everyday you will get tired of pushing yourself everyday its exhausting. Art is something made for the artist, not other people, and Neiman was doing his passion for fletcher, which I would say is not a fun way to pursue band (thanks for reading this btw)
Conclusion make art that speaks to you, that makes you happy and successful (and also get away from abusive *ssholes)
Honestly, I read the ending more as Neiman didn't care anymore what Fletcher thought, but Neiman knew he had a great opportunity to flex his skills in front of a lot of people, and a lot of important people at that, so Neiman went back after hugging his father and hijacked Fletcher's own show, using it to showcase himself instead. Fletcher can't really deny Neiman's ability at that point, and now, because Neiman had the balls to hijack his own show while playing flawlessly, at least respects Neiman enough to give him this moment. Neiman, knowing he can't conduct an entire jazz band by himself, accepts Flethcer's help in the moment and the two do get a brief glimpse of what maybe could have been if Fletcher wasn't so abusive. The end.
Not sure how the director meant the ending when he made it, but that's how it came off to me.
THANK YOU! Finally, some sanity in the analysis of the ending. I couldn't have said it better myself. I feel validated
This is the best take I've seen in the comments
Agreed! People also tend to forget that he clearly mouths FUCK YOU to Fletcher during it haha
It was only when he truly felt that he had nothing to lose and cast everything aside that he shone as brightly as he could and achieved greatness.
He wasn't drumming to get back at Fletcher or to impress the audience he was doing it for HIMSELF. It IS a happy ending :)
@@blacknapalm2131 But then Fletcher takes back control of the situation and begins puppeting Neiman.
Neiman desperately wants Fletcher's approval, and Fletcher realizes this.
I thought the same when he was returning to the stage, but the end of the performance makes it clear that this was never about the audience - by never showing the audience's applause, and zooming in on the fact that Neimen was locking eyes with Flecher, seeking validation, Neiman was clearly playing to prove himself to Flecher and say "I am the best, so the pain was worth it", absolving him of the abuse.
I'm a martial artist. I've had some extremely severe yet caring teachers in the martial arts. Being abusive and being tough are not the same thing. I did not see the end of Whiplash as a happy ending. I was happy that the student found excellence but it annoyed me that the teacher was not destroyed by his arrogance. Maybe he was, because I saw his smile as diabolical as opposed to genuine.
The inherently violent nature of martial arts (no, they're not "for spirituality/health", that's mcdojo bullshit), likely filters out the likes of Fletcher.
Be a lot harder to go as far past the line as Fletcher did when you're literally surrounded by people trained in violence. Not even because they would be likely to gang up on an abusive instructor (though that can and does happen), but because of the implied threat, and because abusers are cowards.
@@Scaevola9449Spirituality and health are huge part of martial arts. The greatest fighters of all time all speak about the relief it brings their soul and the health they receive from living like a champ, so that’s just ignorance
@@reservoirfrogs2177 While the discipline and really everything surrounding martial arts does bring health and spiritual benefits, my point was that these benefits were not and ARE NOT the primary purpose of martial arts by nature. Some dumb westerners might water down and twist martial arts to serve that purpose, but martial arts are fundamentally exactly what their name contains. Martial. Arts. For violence. Be it defensive or offensive, martial arts are fundamentally a way of systematizing and elevating violence to an congruent, refined art. Practitioners may benefit physically and mentally, but that is not the primary purpose of a martial art's existence. Someone might practice for that purpose, but the art itself remains a system for violence.
@@Scaevola9449
what the fck are "spiritual benefits"?
does it have to do with distilled alcohol? or some magical "spirits"?
@@Scaevola9449ur wrong lmao
The way I interpreted the ending, it wasn't entirely about validating Fletcher. By this point in the film, both Andrew & Fletcher hated each other's guts. Andrew did what he did at the end for himself, not for Fletcher. Bebop jazz is often cited as a contained dialogue between musicians, understanding & building off of each other. I believe Andrew, for the first time in the film, communicated that he had become his own man, not defined by or controlled by Fletcher.
This is implied by his decision to take control of the ensemble against Fletcher's wishes. At that moment, Andrew seized control of the ensemble & ambience from Fletcher. The band belonged to Andrew in that moment. Fletcher cares about his professional reputation & wouldn't force stop the ensemble to make a scene. Andrew knows this & weaponizes it to both earn accolades from the audience & metaphorically flip off Fletcher for attempting to ruin his career among all the other emotional trauma. While Fletcher is infuriated by this on a personal level, the musician side of him can't help but to respect Andrew in that moment for not backing down and for asserting dominance. Fletcher begins to realize Andrew is undergoing the exact evolution he was trying to manufacture his whole teaching career & decides to go with it, despite the insurrection & the personal animosity he feels toward Andrew because he respects the glowing passion he sees & he knows the show must go on.
While Fletcher technically still got what he wanted in the end, Andrew's evolution moment happened in spite of Fletcher, rather than being a byproduct of seeking his approval. Andrew took control & Fletcher took a backseat. When they smile at each other, it isn't as people who've suddenly forgotten their disdain for each other. They smile at each other as two musicians who've put their differences on hold to acknowledge the passion of the moment because at their core, their desire for greatness is most important to them.
Yeah dude I definitely agree with you, too many people wanna say Andrew would 99% likely end up, like Fletchers other gem, with a life of sorrow and misery rather than not letting Fletcher live in his head rent free. Great interpretation IMO
This is how I view the ending as well. Andrew taking control of his life as a musician away from Fletcher and Fletcher finally seeing the passion and talent in a rather poignant way. You articulated that very well!
@@ryelorThis was my take
that's also how i saw it "you wanna make me look like a retard in front of the music industry big shots? i'll take control of your band. and there's nothing you can do to prevent it!"
@@sabin97that’s what they want you to believe. yes, he became great, but he ruined himself through it. no emotion. no love. now he will be like fletcher.
You can see the movie as a defense of abuse and insanity as a method, or you can see it as an amoral depiction of the brutal and often tragic ordeal of trying to become extraordinary at something.
This.
Don't worry guys, the MC of Whiplash doesn't die of an overdose.
He dies to old age peacefully after retiring from his air force pilot job with his best friends.
You mean Navy?
You mean Top Gun?
As someone who only recently watched this movie, the ending was unexpected and one of the most satisfying endings in cinema I've experienced. It totally made me forget that Andrew would probably live a life similar to the other student of Fletcher, as I was more focused on the fact that his career is now most definitely made, not only because he will have Fletcher's support, but also because of the audience present at this display at the end.
The ending seems such an intense portrayal of a narcissist - victim co-dependent relationship, the victim 'playing' the exact tunes that the narcissist needs. Fletcher's smile at the end seems like an addict's who got his dose and then everything collapsed until he craves another high.
Yeeeeahh thats not really how it is though
for abusive relationships and hell not even like that with addicts either lol.
Usually an abusive person wouldn’t even give you the satisfaction of making you feel as if you done right. And I know from experience. Abusers are never satisfied and they LOVE to remind you of that. Dunno about narcissists though. Not every abuser is a narcissist so idk if they ever make you feel good for a second then start over ? Idk jus me doe
@@caitie2010 Ye I disagree, that smile, that final brief moment of approval is what the chase for greatness is about. When abusive coaches and parents push their students/children all they look forward to is that act of approval.
@@caitie2010 That's not exactly how some abuse works. Some get off on the power, some get off on approval and validation. The power types are obvious, they want to be above you and any rise above them is unacceptable, which is usually born of severe insecurity. The "approval" types, aka narcissists? Not so much. They want validation, respect (even if not earned) and place themselves in positions where they can get it. In this case they case the high of validation above the wishes of others, bodily harm does not alarm them even if they are the direct cause. It's born of insecurity also, but mixed with pure arrogance and the idea they are "the chosen one" psychologically. Therefore, they abuse others.
Regardless, both types are "junkies". They have no morals outside of the high of achieving the "goal" for dopamine. Dysfunctional Narcissists are all about themselves and constant validation, tearing others down and convincing themselves that the target is below them to be above them, thus validating their want to "build" someone into what is their essential toy.
In essence it's different from sociopathy, it's highly emotional and parasitic, rather then unempathetic. It's selfish want over the well being of others, which a functional calculating sociopath (In some certain positions with a lack of power at least) will see as detrimental as it will invoke issues in the long run for the said person who does them.
Narcissism is essentially someone high on their own emotions, who will abuse others if it gives them the "high". That is abusive. Abusers are not just "the big bad wolf". There's snakes, weasels, prideful demons. This is that type.
@@bloodyidit4506 this is all pseudo psychological nonsense.
@@bloodyidit4506 you’re the abuser
I trained as a classical musician for a really long time, even have a degree in it. I can't speak for the rest of the classical world, but I can say that while Fletcher's physical abuse would definitely not be overlooked nowadays, the intense pressure and anxiety he purposely causes others to feel, all the emotional stuff in this movie IS true.
It was a common thing in my class at uni to have a total emotional breakdown at least once during the course. It was common to talk about some of the crueler things teachers had said. I had one teacher who made everyone I knew cry at least once by making them feel bad about their playing. We even had a conductor who was loved by the faculty and highly praised, but in the past he'd been known for being an angry drunk and he'd literally thrown chairs at people before. But he was someone who was kept around because he got "results." This video is completely right in that legitimate abuse can get overlooked if it leads to "greatness".
And it's not like times have changed hugely. I'm not even that old, in fact I literally got my degree the year after Whiplash came out. Part of me wishes the ending was less ambiguous because I think there need to be more discussions around abuse with high-level performance areas like music or sports. But I'm very glad this movie got made *and* especially that it does end on a sour note (even if it's ambiguous), because I do truly believe that tolerating abuse isn't at all necessary to achieve greatness, and it's very sad that a vast majority of the people I knew when I was deep in the classical music world think otherwise.
Just saw this movie again. Just fantastic. Also the various interpretations and thoughts conveyed in the comments here also shows how great this script is. Excellent stuff.
Just saw it for the first time; I think it’s the best movie I’ve ever seen. It feels like literature.
“When something is presented cinematically with a skilled performer it feels true.” This might be one of the most insightful things I’ve ever heard, and I didn’t expect to stumble on it in a UA-cam video. But it explains *a lot*, like how a younger version of me could have thought Fight Club was an aspirational counter-culture fable, for example. But this is why film analysis like yours is so useful, because it allows the art to be somewhat opaque (leading to better stories) and the critiques to be somewhat pedantic, which leads to better understanding of the stories. Thank you so much. I fucking love Whiplash.
ETA: I just want to add one bit of pushback on your analysis, which is, I think, a fairly uncontroversial one: that the ending of Whiplash is ambiguous, despite the triumph we feel in the audience. The director’s been up front about Neiman’s probable fate, that he’ll end up dead like Fletcher’s other student, but one thing I have heard mentioned is that THAT’S WHAT NEIMAN WANTS. That’s *his* happy ending, which we hear him explicitly articulate in the family dinner scene. He always wanted to burn brilliantly and burn out; there is some kind of flaw in his soul. A tragic flaw, if you will. Fuck, this movie’s so good.
Funny you mention Fight Club, because the line,”It’s only after we’ve lost everything that we’re free to do anything” is equally apt to both films.
I don’t agree that he has a flaw in his soul. What’s a long life when your art will live forever? Everybody doesn’t need to know your name, just the right people. It’s not even about him; it’s about his music. His offspring. Offspring that will never sacrifice part of themselves to fit in with the herd. That won’t disappoint by not carrying on the family business. Who won’t ever lose their family name or heritage. Who’ll genuinely inspire others. Anyone can build a legacy; he’s aiming for immortality.
But I digress, yeah; *FUCK THIS FILM’S GOOD!!!!* 👊
There's only one problem with that argument: Andrews looks for recognition not in the eyes of the audience or critics, but in Fletcher. That fact reveal us that to Andrew "to be a great drummer" is to be recognized by Fletcher, and this is delivered to the audience in the final scene.
That's why is in fact an abusive relationship and it has nothing to do with Andrew being a great drummer or not. To Andrew the only important thing is if he is it to Fletcher, that's why the camera focuses in the stares between them at the end. Is a story about a narccisist and a codependant.
@@FedeKai95 There can't be audiences or critics, or a world outside Neiman and Fletcher's view, if the story of _Whiplash_ is going to hang together and be compelling.
There can't be another definition of success. There can't be another criterion for art. There can't be anyone who fights Fletcher, walks out of his rehearsal, or tells him to shove it where the sun don't shine. He's really an allegorical figure - meant to represent the unforgiving side of craft and excellence. Which is the only side of it _Whiplash_ is meant to illuminate.
It’s probably one of my favorite movies because of how many angles you can view it from. You can isolate it down to a story of abuse, one of achieving potential, or academic pressure to follow through with a path you chose. You can mix all of those together and witness it as a human mind experiencing human problems, or the contrived plot of a tightly written story that pegs its tension. It truly is a beautiful little gem that is so easy to rewatch.
The lesson to learn here is you have to be in control of your own passion. While a level of suffering may be necessary for greatness, that suffering should never come from someone trying to benefit off it.
The abuse done in a learning experience makes you train/learn much more because of the fear and/or the approval of the abuser. What's doing the results isn't the abuse itself but it's the fact that you spend so much more time training and learning that makes you a pro. There have been ALOT of people who trained like crazy in their domain because they were inspired and passionate about it and achieved the same results.
So no, being abusive doesn't give results in itself.
There's pushing someone beyond their limits, then there's abuse.
It's sort of like working out to get stronger. You are tearing you muscles apart, so it becomes stronger overtime. But overwork it, you will only cause damage to it, even if there's short term gains.
Both require time, blood sweat and tears, but one is done so for the goal of growth, while the other is more of an unhealthy obsession.
@@prabeshgurung1067 Obsession is the word lazy use to decribe the dedicated. -Zyzz Even bodybuilder have to sacrfice there body with enhanced drugs to be the best it takes blood sweat and tears which is showing at the end on the drumset. In every physical spo9rts by the way even football ord bycicling. Its like a drill instructor testing ur limits if u are tough enough for this but at the end when u make it its joy because u are a man now
@@Ubreakable-lr2dk Zyzz: The guy that died at 22 from overdose at a gay sauna
It’s nice to feel validated about this ending. I know more people are aware of its true undertones nowadays, but I remember how many people first thought it was a happy ending of a sort. And I was constantly arguing against that, because I felt like the dad’s reaction was clearly one of horror, and the sense of exhilaration the ending gives you is easily mistakable as a positive thing, when really it’s incredibly dark
It's like someone commits suicide, and they smile as they pull the trigger, and everyone screams how dare you portray suicide in a positive light. Clueless people.
Anyone who thought that is an absolute moron.
Heck, another thing about that ending scene is something else. Sure Fletcher finally showed respect to his students that ruined his teaching, but does that guarantee Neiman a consistent job? Will he be able to support himself? Will he take over Fletcher’s job? Who cares if you’re the top artist under classical training if you’re, at the end of the day, a bard playing for people that listen to you while getting drunk to relax at the end of the day.
There's also the misunderstanding that Andrew succeeded in impressing the pros in the audience (the concert was kind of an audition/showcase). After listening to the two songs, most people in the audience would have gotten the impression that Andrew was a great soloist, but an awful rhythm section member, which is not a combination bandleaders would be interested in when looking for a drummer. Add to that the psychological problems, and it is clear that Andrew is always going to struggle with his career and his life. In an interview, Chazelle stated, "Andrew will be a sad, empty shell of a person and will die in his 30s of a drug overdose."
Thus, the argument of whether or not Fletcher's methods were justified because they helped Andrew achieved greatness is misleading. All Andrew has achieved (by the end of the film) is a great solo.
Also that shines Fletcher himself in bad light. In order to get revenge on Nieman he sacrificed his whole band, they ruined first piece in front of that evil audience which never forget! Not sure what he was going to do next if Nieman didn't start to play Caravan and went out with his dad instead. Did Fletcher have spare drummer at that moment?
@@allmycircuits8850 Fletcher didn't need one, he already had the hooks in
No he achieved greatness, and you’re a fool
@@FlareDope Is a great drummer really one who can't keep a rhythm section going? Also what's the point of Andrew's solo if the piece is ruined anyways, the audience isn't going to enjoy a bunch of anger-induced hitting.
If Fletcher was really as prestigious of a figure in the New York jazz scene as the movie makes him out to be, Neiman would have instantly attained cult hero status when he attacked Fletcher on the stage. Everyone in the band, everyone in the audience, everyone connected with the Schafer program in any way would have been talking about this incident INCESSANTLY. Fletcher's status as a sadistic teacher would have been well known, and the majority of people probably would have been sympathetic to Neiman, especially considering he'd been hit by a truck just minutes earlier. Everyone in the music press would be banging down Neiman's door trying to interview him, and in all likelihood he would have gotten plenty of gigs out of the resulting notoriety. I feel like they could have worked this angle into the plot and still had the fateful reunion with Fletcher resulting in the finale's concert.
That's an interesting angle, but consider this.... Neiman didn't want that. He was conditioned into thinking ONLY Fletcher's approval was of any merit. He likely would have turned down opportunities, covered up the abuse, and pushed himself harder back to the opportunity for Fletcher's approval. That's the message I took away from this. The abusive conditioning and presuppositions going into Fletcher's tutelage taught Neiman that Fletcher was the only path to greatness and the only thing that mattered in the end. And to Neiman, it was worth any cost.
I’d have to disagree. I think there was no fallout or vindication for Neiman after Fletcher was fired because Fletcher was so renowned that he would have had powerful connections to help keep the entire mess quiet. Even the process of him being fired from the school seemed to be handled as discreetly as possible and then ‘pushed under the rug’. Fletcher lost his job but he really didn’t lose his standing. And let’s be honest, this happens in real life situations all the time. So I think the depiction in the movie was more accurate to what have happened if these characters existed in real life than the scenario explained in your comment.
And while I think your angle is interesting as well, I think it would have resulted in a ‘break’ in the tension that is held between Neiman and Fletcher during the whole movie. I personally love that that break in tension happens in the LAST minute of the movie. It leaves you, as the viewer, just sitting there, ruminating, long after the credits have ended. The movie is just SO intense that the break in tension at the VERY end is SO impactful. It makes you feel like you’ve been holding your breath for two hours and you get to finally let it go right there at the end.
Had Neiman found some success before the ending, as you suggested, I think that tension would have been lost. Not to mention, it would have made the ending less believable and impactful. Because of the fact that (in the movie) Neiman has gained nothing after all his struggles with Fletcher, it helps give credence to this idea that Neiman has nothing left to lose. He has no success, and Fletcher’s last trick to smear Neiman’s name in front of so many important people, just so that Neiman can never find success in the future is the final straw that breaks the camel’s back. Neiman gives his father a hug- almost as if he is saying goodbye, then completely transforms on stage into someone else. The look of horror on his father’s face as he watches a spectacle of simultaneous greatness and self destruction really cements this idea that Neiman is gone. I think if Neiman found cult success for beating up Fletcher, this moment where he loses himself to finally fulfil Fletcher’s purpose wouldn’t be such a believable conclusion. Why would you bother losing yourself if you have already obtained what you wanted? And sure, you could argue that he would do so because he wants to obtain Fletcher’s approval, and I would agree with this argument, BUT I just don’t think it would have made the conclusion as impactful as the scenario that was written into the movie, why? Because this movie focuses a lot on the abuse Fletcher committed. The fact that in the movie, Fletcher’s last trick backs Neiman into a corner, is like the final act of abuse. Fletcher is a manipulator, he knows that Neiman has not had any success since school and he wants to keep it that way. He baits him with a chance to play for him, a chance for some success, only to rip it all away. That really is an incredible act of abuse, and I think if Neiman had had some success without Fletcher, this moment may have never even taken place.
That would be unnecessary fodder
That's completely naive. Look at Lawrence Krauss, Richard Feynman, and what they did and said to women. Powerful abusers use their power to maintain their reputation and status. Yes there might be some people celebrating to see some revenge on an abuser. But not many would say anything to Neiman, much less openly. Most people would avoid him to avoid controversy, regardless of personal feelings. Just like nobody spoke up when Fletcher hurled a frickin chair at him.
The scene where they lock eyes says it all, Andrew was scared until Fletcher smiled, which was an indicator that Andrew was allowed to smile
Whiplash is arguably my favorite film made. The last segment literally gave me chills and the raw emotion & power is incredibly gripping. I rlly need to rewatch
One of my favorite movies and to answer the question, I don't think abuse should be received in order to get results. As someone with ADD, I'd rather be distracted and only get a little bit done in a day than to take Adderal, get a lot done in a day, but lose my personality in the process. Sucess is different for everyone and no one should have to suffer at the hands of another in order to achieve that.
Absolutely, I think it's interesting that some of the most respected athletes are artists of our time achieved what they did at great personal cost. I definitely agree with you though.
interesting bc i have add and i still think that the high price of success is a choice that i want to make. i take my meds and work because i know that add won’t be taken as a serious hurdle in my career/life.
@@lexijs not everybody reacts the same way to the drug, when I took it I felt like my body got hijacked.
I was in the passenger seat of a limo telling my driver where to go but I wasn’t the driver so not having that control deeply disturbed me so I stopped. I’ve now surrounded myself in an environment that understands that I space out mid conversation and that also allow me to put certain measures in place for me to work more efficiently like listening to music. The abuse I experienced while teaching never taught me anything more.
It just established a mindset where I can beat this person by doing well, which is exactly what I did.
Everyone's different, right? My ADHD have been a lifesaver
My husband was diagnosed with ADHD as an adult. He was prescribed Adderall first and he said that it gave him horrible anxiety and thoughts about unaliving himself, which he had never felt in his life before. Our doctor switched him to Vyvanse and it helps him so much, but he's still his goofy, eager self when he takes it. I don't want to tell you what to do with your medical choices but I think things have come a long way with treating ADHD since the days of "take Adderall and shut up". But I hope you (and anyone else reading this) do whatever makes you happy! 🥰
when i watched the ending, i thought "oh good, andrew doesn't care about what fletcher thinks of him anymore" because he started playing before fletcher cued him. but then as the rest of the band joins in, he starts listening to fletchers directions again after being on the brink of liberation. then at the end andrew is happy, but not for the right reasons. just when he was almost free, he goes back to his old ways of fletcher's approval meaning happiness instead of his own talent giving him happiness.
dont think so, playing in a band means having to be a team player, that was only benefiting him at that point, he did what he wanted the best way possible, and if he thought fletchers doing his part would benefit him even more especially knowing where he was... playing to many people and in a band
Essentially, whiplash didn't actually give us a happy ending. It manipulated us into thinking it did. We became Neiman.
well you wish lol, you are no one like us .
Not entirely true. Its happy depending on your perspective and worldview. For some, its disappointing to see the abuser win, but for others, seeing Neiman achieve true perfection in the art he has aspired for his whole life is triumphant and wonderful. In the end, they both did achieve what they wanted, at the cost of everything else. That can be happy depending on how much you value ego, and the desire to be the best.
@@Megalodon鮫The abuser didn't win, what does fletcher gain except popularity for having a great drummer trained under his hands. Not much he just wants to have a great drummer by having people push their absolute limits.
@@ZerosGuitarbut that’s exactly what fletcher wants, and he got it
The movie only gets better and better. Even though I’ve only seen it for the first time a couple months ago, it still permeates in my head tossing around this question that the finale tosses up despite setting the drumsticks down. Thanks for highlighting this and mulling over this difficult ending to a phenomenal film.
Yeah it's been one of my favorites for awhile and like I say in the video, my opinion on it has certainly changed a good bit over the years. Thanks for the comment!
To me, this film is exceptional because the protagonist and antagonist have the same goal: greatness. I don't think this is just about wanting results. I believe that both Fletcher and Nieman have gone insane and cycle through a toxic relationship. Yes, Fletcher absolutely amplifies Nieman's anxiety and is abusive towards him - but Nieman too is abusive towards himself. He puts himself through whatever means necessary to be the best fit for the role in his pursuit of becoming one of the greatest drummers of all time. So here's an interesting thought: is Fletcher so hard on Nieman because he believes he is capable of achieving greatness or because abusers are more likely to abuse individuals like Nieman that exhibit traits of low self-esteem, vulnerability, desire, etc? In my opinion, the ending of this film not only results in Fletcher and Nieman achieving greatness but going above and beyond. This moment isn't like every other film where the hero and villain are on the cliché grand stage and one defeats the other. No, they are on a relatively small stage that separates their relevance from space and time. It is an absolutely triumphant moment when one least expects it. Chazelle certainly might disagree with me and I can't argue with the creator necessarily but I view this moment as the ultimate win. There can only be one hero in this film and it is Nieman. Not only does he win but he conquers his enemy and his dreams. This brings us back to the final question of this video: What do we do with a leadership style that harms the person, but gets results? Well, both sides can be argued, as in this video. Bobby Knight was able to produce an undefeated season and is viewed as a hero whereas the latter examples produced the opposite desired outcome. Another great example, like Knight, is Steve Jobs. He was both a tyrant and a hero to both his family and business. I assume it would be redundant for me to list the results he produced. Abuse is a very troubling reality for many people across the world and in every case, I would argue that kindness is the key to healthy living. Unfortunately, a great sword can not be made without precision, heat and force. It is important to keep in mind that this is "just a film" - and how many Steve Jobs' are there for every John Brannen? In Nieman's case, I view him as someone that overcame the abuse but when considering where he goes on from that moment can't be known for sure. Does the audience just view him and Fletcher as lunatics even though for them it is a triumphant moment? Does Nieman continue his greatness from that point on? Do Nieman and the cancelled Fletcher continue the cycle of their toxic relationship?
Who knows. All I know is that movie absolutely rips. Kudos to everyone involved in that film, for like the hero and antagonist, they achieved greatness!
am not reading alldat
I did--because it was written beautifully. @@RED-my9hl
Heat and force is relatively a different thing while compare to violence and abuse. These people indeed achieve greatness in their toxic mentorships, but what happened to people who weren't able to deal with it? sound like all the bad of the society can be simply wiped off, killed, stomped on, for sake to save the "good" parts, like an accepted anti-utopia world. It's just death, blood, violence picture but swapped with pretty imagery of "greatness".
Heat and force is the product of work upon yourself, building your way towards your desire. Heat and force mean to achieve things without "cutting" and "killing".
The abuse will never be accepted, if so, criminals who wanted to build a great world of their own would be running free.
The sacrifice of violence is ridiculous and it stays that way.
I don't agree with your standpoint at all.
chill bro. it’s not that deep
This is literally victim blaming
what happens on the other side of happily ever after? It's a question that that permeates more and more of my appreciation of things. Great video!
Thanks so much! And I think for the most part, if you look at the most "successful" people in our culture, there isn't really a happily ever after. It's usually just a bummer.
@@evanonline8409 yeah, i've sort of been collecting "non-endings" as i call them, that seem to tuck all the conflict away nicely in honor of the credits rolling, but don't actually address any of the larger issues, only the personal conflicts of the characters that might even come screaming back into the picture in like a month anyways. It's why i got excited when you mentioned you were working on this one. I find them so fascinating and I hadn't thought of Whiplash as one of those until now. Gonna have to watch this one again.
Didn't the director say it was about a music teacher he had when he was young, and that he dropped out?
I see this movie as him wondering what kind of person would go through with it. And that's exactly what the movie does. It shows us the amount of obsession needed, and it doesn't paint it positively
It also kinda makes me think.. what if the director was thinking about another version of himself that does go through with it and keeps pursuing something that could possibly damage his mental being.
Fletcher got what he wanted in the end, total domination and manipulation of his student. He doesn't care about the person, he only cared about what that person could do to indulge in his completely warped notion of what quality or success is about. They are both smiling at the end, but the end is one of the saddest endings that I've ever witnessed is a movie, and at the same time one of the best sad endings ever filmed in cinema!
I always had that weird feeling about the ending, and I have to say, you managed to put my thoughts perfectly into words. Thank you for that beautiful essay.
I've noticed how no-one has mentioned a small detail about the dinner scene.
As he's talking to his father, Andrew mentions how Charlie Parker only gained a friend after a cymbal was thrown at his head.
Well later on in the movie Fletcher recalls how he told Andrew that story, them both sharing a nice moment in remembering the time. It was such a small thing but it goes to show how Fletcher impacted Andrew.
I think that Andrew's fate was sealed, and the death of one of Fletcher's former students showed where Andrew would be going. He gave up his sanity for perfection, to indulge himself into his craft so much so that he's nothing more than what he can preform.
I think Fletcher only receives validation in the end, seeing what his months of destruction and rebuilding has amounted to. The ending is nothing more than the last glimpse of Andrew devoting himself, being sucked back in by Fletcher to sign away his life.
what make u think that Andrew gonna kill himself? ppl are different
@@TheMaulam12345 The director himself said he believes Andrew will die in his 30s of a drug overdose
I saw Fletcher as a projection of Andrews own obsession with artistic achievement. I remember waiting to find out half their interactions all happened in Andrews mind. I loved the ending, and I love when a movie leaves you thinking the way this one does. Great video!
God I loved the ending of this movie so much. The way the editor denies us seeing the words "good job" escaping from lips of J.K. Simmons. One part triumphant victory and simultaneously two parts cautionary tale make for an ending that feels horrific and joyful at the same time. It was so refreshing to see a film refrain from beating us over the head with a prescriptive moralistic theme. the ending felt honest, even though it was bittersweet
The thing is, you can get good results while building somebody up, and you can make a good product without crunch. The lie that abuse or crunch is necessary is there to cover over incompetence. A good teacher is sometimes severe and sometimes pushes you, especially when he can see that you are not giving your best, but he also knows when to back down and encourage. Teaching is that push pull, sometimes you have to be that strict-no BS enforcer, other times you have to be gentle and encouraging, there's a push-pull to it. And Fletcher only knows how to push, not to pull. So he's not really a good teacher.
To me the ending was beautiful. Everyone is worried about fletchers abuse. But anyone here who’s attempted or done anything in the upper 8th percentile will tell you that you abuse yourself to achieve things more than any instructor ever will.
Nieman could’ve always quit. He didn’t. Nieman played his hands and drums bloody. Fletcher never made him. Truth is everyone else in the band had their own form of self harm that got them there which you never saw. You only saw Niemans. Look up what happens to wind instrument players. It’s called embouchure collapse .
To me, The ending was about Nieman finally accepting what he needs to put himself through in order to achieve what HE wants. Fletcher is a physical embodiment of that. And in the end Nieman realizes no one can push himself like him. Not even fletcher. Fletcher smiles because he realizes the kid has finally surrendered himself to the entire process. Which most people refuse to do.
The message (not the intended one) is not about abuse, effort or human relationship. Is more about the nature of madness. If you are going to such lengths of obsession you enter a region where you have no option but success, you entered this palce where even an above average result becomes mediocre. Fischer, Newton, Kurt Cobain, Ozzy Osbourne, Van Gogh, Tesla... The story of those people without a success in the end would be just a cautionary tale about the dangers of obsession. In times of toxic positivity is easy to overlook the love needed to make a torturous path produce results, suffering by itself is not a bad thing, a meaningless suffering is.
andrew gave in on fletcher's obsession. andrew should have just stood up right before the last note and walked away with his father to give fletcher his tragic moment and tragic ending. nonetheless, the ending was really troubling and disturbing for me. but still the ending was a good choice for a wonderful movie like this.
I immediately took away the message that to reach that height is always more than talent and luck. And the wicked cocktail of traits that gets you to that place assures you that the company you find there (and are forced to share that success with) will be less than ideal.
Maybe I interpreted it wrong, but the way Fletcher's mouth moves at the end of the movie to me looks like he says "good job," which is honestly what I would expect Fletcher to say as his praise would just continue the cycle of abuse.
An interesting observation about Andrew Neiman at the end of the film is how hostile and rebellious against Fletcher's approval or disapproval he was in that performance, even mouthing the words, "fuck you," early on. So, while Fletcher's abuse was deeply unethical, it was the realization on Andrew's part that his giving a shit about what this abusive person thought of him was what held him back from achieving true greatness. So, if Fletcher had the intuition that his relentless abuse would lead to this display true artistic greatness (besides Fletcher merely being a sadist), then he indeed achieved his aim by the end of the film, along with Andrew in fact.
The biggest commonality between Andrew and Fletcher is that they both appear to value great art (in this case, music) more than human wellbeing (their own or others), Andrew often putting himself through more abuse than Fletcher ever put him through, not to mention Andrew's severing of a promising romantic relationship in the service of his higher calling. I think that's fundamental to understanding why this brutal form of motivation is effective on some people (or teams) and not others. The difference being that the former is aligned with their mentors valuing human greatness above human wellbeing, and the latter valuing the inverse of that.
Beautifully put.
At least one person actually gets it
YOU GET IT
But shouldn’t human greatness go together with human well-being?
I think the idea is that the question is “Was it worth it?”
For us - fuck no. For them - yes. That’s the difference. And none of us - or them - are wrong.
But I think Fletcher is a bad teacher. A great tutor - but bad teacher. He went through breaking 100s of students to get one or two gems.
One of the only few movies where it keeps you watching for the entire 2 hours and is very entertaining. The performances are phenomenal and the way that it is directed is quite perfect. I think there were so many foreshadowing events that took place that were very key details for Neimans character and the way of his obsession with his passion is what makes the movie just more intense and entertaining. I especially replayed the part of him getting into the car accident and going back to get his drums to play, such a way to show how much he really is obsessed and was affected due to Neiman’s way of teaching him.
drum go brrrrt
Couldn't agree more
Some of the most rewarding moments I look back on were times I had to dig-deep and pull through dark and desperately challenging events. Seeing yourself grow and doting on the ones that helped you through it; mentor, friend, and even a rival. I can't help but feel love for both characters, even if the method was toxic.
I just played through the first hour of Gris like literally 35 seconds ago, got on UA-cam to watch your Gris video again and got here within 5 minutes of you uploading haha.
I've got my first lurker
I always view this movie as a horror movie,the ending was him defeating the monster.The roles would be reversed from here on out.
Nearly every time I look at someone behaving in a way I consider to be substandard, I always think back to their family. I think “that person wasn’t loved enough” rather than thinking “that person just sucks at life.”
The dinner scene in Whiplash might be my favorite scene in the whole movie. Our protagonist only fell into the clutches of the antagonist because he wasn’t shown sufficient support at home. Such is often the case in reality; art imitates life, and Whiplash is a brilliant piece of art.
I never saw the full film, only a couple of parts to give me the context. I did see the last scene on UA-cam.
I definitely agree with what you said about the film as a whole. It’s not a happy ending, it’s complicated. Fletcher is abusive, manipulative, and cruel. Niman will end up the same if he continues down this path. It’s another warning about abuse and obsession. One day I’ll finally watch this movie, just got to get over the teacher abuse. Lord knows getting over an abusive coach is hard
If you keep uploading videos like this you’re going to blow up. You’re already so good at this wow
I'm convinced that Fletcher's logic is not "I'll abuse those students to make a Charlie Parker out of one of them" but "I claim to be making the next Charlie Parker so that I can abuse people". Maybe Fletcher even fooled himself that his abuse has a higher purpose. The fact that he'd rather have vengeance on Neiman (I don't think Fletcher "gave up" on him, he just wants revenge for his lost power) for reporting him rather than giving a fair shot reveals that. The final smile is for me an attempt to save face or a concession of defeat.
Same goes for the scene where he discusses Charlie Parker at the club. Why rant about an hypothetical tragedy (Parker not being pushed enough) when there's an actual tragedy, Parker dying at 35 ? Roughly at the same age, Miles Davis released Kind of Blue, and still had in him thirty years to build an everlasting legacy. Parker's death is not directly linked to any abuse, but is still reminescent of the fate of Sean Casey, the one who met Fletcher's expectation and died for it.
It's not "succeed or die trying" in Fletcher's class, it's "give up or die succeeding". And therefore the ending is saying that Neiman not only lost everything (family ; love interests...) in his pursuit of Fletcherian perfection, but will quite simply die of it.
You are completely right, I think this is an easy movie to misread Fletcher is defiantly abusive, evil and his practices are counter productive. One note though when Fletcher tells the class about his student dying he lies and says that they died in a car accident we find out that he killed himself later when that lady approaches Neiman about Fletcher being an abusive teacher we never actually get confirmation that he was feeling anxious or depressed because of the teaching but obviously it’s implied
To be fair, Andrew wanted to be the best, and to be so, he had to overcome fletcher. To be the best at anything, you have to be willing to put yourself through what others can't handle.
I have a theory that Fletcher wasn’t trying to sabotage Andrew but was trying to push him beyond his limits like he said he’d do for anyone
It's concerning to me how many people completely misunderstand the ending of this film and wholeheartedly believe Fletcher was in the right. Go to any comment section under a clip of this movie and see how many people throw around the term "participation trophy".
This is the only video on Whiplash I've seen, so far, that I agree with. I read people saying "the perfect ending" and what not but it's neither a positive ending nor a good one in terms of storytelling - I feel. Andrew's character barely has any development. He starts off as an ambitious and motivated musician, becomes more and more emotionally detatched from friend(s) and family; becomes more obsessed and also kind of abusive like his "mentor" or some might say he becomes more confident. But in the end he is still only focused on becoming a great musician and earning his abuser's approval. His skill improves along the way but that is not a character trait. When Fletcher offers him the part as drummer for the JVC band, I thought (maybe hoped) he was going to turn it down and show that he isn't desperate for Fletcher's approval anymore or that his love for music is not worth throwing away his mental health. He could've called out Fletcher on the bullshit about the former student who committed suicide. At the concert in the end, I thought he was going to mess up on purpose and thereby ruin Fletcher's reputation (more). Or maybe have a tremendous performance and then just up and leave in the middle of the concert, as to stick it to his former abuser. Instead, he just validates all the abuse his fucking cuntass piece of shit instructor gave him. Fletcher exposes his own hypocrisy when Andrew asks if you can go too far and maybe discourage the next Charlie Parker from becoming Charlie Parker. "No. Because the next Charlie Parker would never be discouraged." Charlie Parker and the basketball athletes you mentioned in this video all achieved their success IN SPITE of all the abuse they were put through and not because of it. As evidenced by a great many more instances of abusive methods from teachers and coaches failing, instead of "getting results".
I think it’s perfect because it doesn’t contradict its story yet still feels fulfilling to Andrew’s character and leaves a happy impression. The ending is bitter and spiteful, he only plays caravan to showcase his talent and potentially ruin Fletcher’s show, his dad sees him and realised that his son is gone. Andrew has lost everything except his music and the ending captures that perfectly, the close up of him and Fletcher really conveys how this is the only relationship he has left. Yet it still feels triumphant with Andrew finally gaining Fletcher’s respect and being recognised for his talent allowing him to achieve his goal. The way it leaves you feels happy for Andrew and fulfilled while actually being quite a depressing finale is why many including myself think the ending is so perfect
Now that was an good ending to the video... I spit water all over my computer... One hell of an video, well done man.
I almost wish I hadn’t seen this film when I did in 8th grade as a music student. It is BECAUSE of this film that for the longest time I thought that practice looked like painful amounts of repetition and self hatred and constant frustration with being less-than perfect. I missed the whole point of music, which was that it is supposed to be enjoyed, more than anything else, even in academics. I also missed the whole point of that film, which is even more sad.
I used to play. I got good eventually, after years of practicing until my hands blistered and bled. Greatness isn't born into a person, it's forged.
I honestly think you really overstate how "complicated" of an ending it is. It's more that it's a complex feeling communicated in a simple, pure way, and the way we respond to it is complicated. It depends a lot on your personal experience. As an artist, I really push myself to do my best, which can sometimes get me stuck in negative feedback loops, questioning my talent, commitment, etc. I talked to a lot of people about the film when it first came out, and none of them were like, "ah, yes, that's a happy ending!" (Then again, some people think the Irishman, Goodfellas, and the Sopranos are positive representations, so maybe there's no accounting for taste.) The ending basically aims to make you ask the question, "is it worth it to give into abuse and suffering in order to become great?" My general take on the film is while I love it, that question is kinda misleading. It's probably true that there are some abusive leaders out there who manage to achieve greatness through their abuse and malpractice, but I think there are just as many teachers out there who achieve greatness without any of that. Their greatness and their abuse are not as connected as we think. Us human beings draw conclusions based on patterns like this far too often.
Maybe I didn't communicate my thoughts as clearly as I hoped to, but I think we're pretty much on the same page about all this. Thanks for watching!
Love how you included different forms of media to support your evaluation, great video dude
As a drummer, jazz musician, and music teacher, I really disliked this movie for so many reasons. Thank you for investigating and clarifying one of them.
It's almost as if abusive teaching is such a hallowed tradition that we feel we have no choice but to keep it secret and let it flourish. Breaking faith with it is like turning your back on music itself.
Fletcher subscribes to the mindset that: you must push people off the edge if you wish to see them ever fly. Whether or not you think this is a good minset is the question the movie makes you ask.
I understood this conflicted ending on my first watch, so that ending sequence was unfogettable! What a finale for an amazing movie!
This ending reminded me of the ending of Gone Girl, where it effectively leaves a bad taste in my mouth by bringing things to an ironic, false "happy" ending that has unsettling implications.
Our Jr High director did not go to the lengths Fletcher did, but he did ride you if he thought you had talent -- one on one, he was encouraging but he'd cut you down in front of everyone quite regularly And he achieved amazing results, having mere kids play pieces that grown adults would find challenging. I resented him at the time, but now appreciate how difficult a job he had, and wish I had understood/appreciated what he was trying to do. Our High School director played head games with us too, but seemed to know the right way to bring us together without ever hating him.
Do incredible results justify harsh methods? To a point, yes I think so -- very few ppl will achieve their max potential without being pushed or challenged, BUT there are limits. Some ppl will simply break or quit, so one size does not fit all.
Fletcher as the director said cannot be redeemed, IMHO because he is doing it for his own vanity. I never felt that my grade school directors were doing it only for their own glory, it really did feel like they wanted us to achieve the best we could and they didn't want us to waste that brief and fleeting opportunity.
Do you think that teacher should ask a student about their learning style then? Like, if criticism breaks one person and challenges another, then do you think it would be helpful for a teacher to ask a student beforehand what motivates them?
I had a similar experience in high-school art class, in which our art teacher would ask kids "Have you even painted in your life? This landscape looks flat/underdeveloped." or "I'm disappointed" when they handed in work.
She definitely had the experience to see what made a strong piece. And she had this one specific teaching approach that might have motivated some people. But also, I think about how this approach sometimes came when students didn't expect it/could "consent" to it (when the student was working). Or how some people didn't respond well to this specific approach.
How can a teacher have a strong idea of what a student wants or what would be best for the student without the student telling them first? Or at least, how can they know without the student's feedback?
@@annabellelin7730 Your example with the art teacher is something I realized too: teaching is a separate skill of being good at something.
So the ineffective approach and overly harsh methods happened several times during grade school. My mom was a teacher and certainly had opinions on what was effective education and what was beyond the pale and should have been obvious to anyone who taught kids-- with this band director in particular, I think she had that exact conversation (in private, parent to teacher) with him. It didn't change anything. Looking back, it seems like a lot of teachers have one way of doing things, and if it gets (in their mind) the "right result" for the majority of students, then that's how they're going to run their classroom.
One exception: I remember my drafting teacher actually having a conversation with the literal pot smoking freaks that always were in his class. It was an elective class so he thought they were there of their own free will like the rest of us - he realized in talking to them his class was a dumping ground for the counselors. From then on, he did not try to discipline them and they stopped causing any issues in the class.
In college (architecture), the issue was resolved by being able to pick your own professor for the core classes. I always did better with ones that were more flexible and kept things professional, and avoided the ones who had the attitude of "you're mine this semester and you're going to think and do things exactly as I say!". One professor literally in front of other students asked why one of us was voluntarily signing up for another prof who was known for being this domineering and unpleasant.
In an ideal world, definitely a teacher would realize that one approach does not suit all, and that while most can handle it, riding one particular student hard is going to be wildly ineffective and damaging.
The cost of greatness doesnt always sacrifice ones sanity and well being for happiness. Sacrifices must be made but with the right mentors you learn to balance accordingly.
I'm just sorry I didn't watch this film sooner. It is a rare gem, a brilliant film. Simmons and Teller played very well off one another.
Miles Teller is incredibly underrated. His latest performance in Top Gun Maverick was fantastic.
Fletcher turns him into someone who is now conditioned to live entirely for external validation, losing any sense of his own passion, purpose and feelings. Aka a completely empty shell of a person, a slave to the world, a man who sold his soul
'abuse' without a purpose, without an intent for future success, or without 'love', is just evil.
'abuse' (limited) that makes a person better and with a purpose can be justified by a coach or 'teacher' if its matches the persons character and mature personality, and is eventually seen as 'tough love' with scar tissue that heals over time, and does not lead to self destruction .