I’m watching Whiplash again (for maybe the fiftieth time) and for the life of me I still can’t tell if Miles Teller’s character Andrew is actually off-tempo when JK Simmons’ Fletcher says he is. To those who have a better ear for that, is he really? Or is he doing fine, and either Fletcher is truly fucking with him or the movie is just counting on us not being able to tell the difference?
I don’t hear it but maybe someone with better ears can?
Whiplash is a movie that has stuck with me over time, not because of its plot or film technique, but because of its underlying philosophical question--is there something intrinsically "good", noble, and admirable about the absolute pursuit of excellence that goes beyond traditional notions of good and evil?
Fletcher's character is often criticized as this evil sociopath who is willing to destroy his students in pursuit of his goal of creating the next musical genius. Because he is willing to sacrifice the health and safety of his students, he is branded as the villain and antagonist in the film. Because of his lack of altruistic concern for others, we brand him as "evil".
But what if he isn't evil? What if he's actually the positive mentor, a good influence in the film?
In Nietzsche's book Beyond Good and Evil, he talks about a history of morality and the evolution of what we consider to be morally good and evil. He argues that modern morality is often a form of slave morality. Those who are powerful, who pursue excellence, who display cunning, pride, ambition, and who are willing to strive for their goals are considered evil, whereas those who are meek, kind, forgiving, etc. are considered good. He characterizes it as a sort of herd mentality to morality. It's okay to be "average", to be an everyman, to follow the herd and to be mediocre.
He contrasts this with the ancient Greeks and their idea that the good is noble and heroic nature. For example, take Achilles and Odysseus. Proud, noble, cunning, strong.
This is a form of master morality. He talks about the ubermensch in other works--the concept of a single individual who is willing to overcome obstacles to achieve their goals, who is willing to redefine what is morally good according to his or her own values, and who is willing to pursue those goals with a certain fervor.
A good example of Nietzsche's master morality applied to the arts is Beethoven. Nietzsche praised Beethoven for his pride and self-awareness of his own amazing talents and skill. It is said that when Beethoven played for an audience of royalty that he would stop if his performance was interrupted by chattering in the audience. To quote the great composer speaking to a prince:
"What you are, you are by accident of birth; what I am, I am by myself. There are and will be a thousand princes; there is only one Beethoven."
In Nietzsche's mind, having genius in the world is worth the sacrifice of conve
... keep reading on reddit ➡
I'm not saying that is actually what happened. Just a cool way to interprete the movie.
I watched the movie today, and noticed that Fletcher didn't actually have a substitute for Neyman during the concert at the end of the movie. So it's implied that he was going to continue the concert without drums, and planned to do it from the beginning. That sounds weird. He doesn't seem like a person who would leave the impression that he can't handle his band in front of so many people. It might be just a small plot hole, and it probably is. But a cool way to see this scene is him expecting Andrew to get back on stage and have a better performance, motivated by what Fletcher did to him. So he would just pretend to be surprised and angry at Andrew.
TL;DR: Fletcher is Andrew's real Dad (not Jim) - a fact everyone knows apart from Andrew. One can assume Andrew's Mum 'left' because of her affair with Fletcher. This is the reason for all the events in Whiplash - Fletcher's pushing of Andrew to do well and make something of himself, the reason for Fletcher being fired, the change in Andrew and the odd relationship between Andrew and Jim.
This may seem a bit 'tin foil hat', but bear with me.
ANDREW'S 'FAMILY'.
Firstly, it's important to note that there is absolutely no mention of where Andrew's Mother is or why she left. There is also no mention of any kind of family of Fletcher's. These are important points. These are elements of the story that have been left blank for a reason and, I believe, they're linked.
Andrew's home life has always puzzled me. We are meant to believe that his Dad Jim is his only true parent and that his Mum left when he was a baby. Andrew and Jim are supposed to have a strong bond, such as one you'd expect a Father and teenager-raised-by-just-that-Father to have. However, they don't seem to be close at all. Their dialogue always seems forced and awkward. All they seem to do is watch films together, mutually zoned-out. They don't act like Father and Son at all. After his first proper practice with Fletcher, Andrew sits discouraged, yet ignores a call from Jim. Jim very seldom supports Andrew and, even when he does, it's clear to the viewer he doesn't understand/approve of what he's supporting. Other than Jim, given the lack of screen-time for his other 'family' members, it's clear there is little in the way of love and care in Andrew's home-life. The focus on the Father-Son relationship is an important theme.
BITTER PARENTS.
It's interesting to note that Jim and Fletcher are never seen on-screen together. The film is clearly meant to convey some kind of remote animosity between them; Jim raising Andrew yet Fletcher being the real Dad. The final scene is a really good representation of this tenuous relationship. We have Andrew on stage, Fletcher being the domineering, commanding presence in front of Andrew, whilst Jim is the encouraging, sympathetic presence at the side of the stage. This is a metaphor for the entire time Andrew has been getting to know Fletcher - them both butting heads together, while Jim watches from the side, silently concerned.
There are several very interesting and revealing exchanges between Andrew and Fletcher/Jim which hint at
... keep reading on reddit ➡The title explains it all. Although there's not much evidence for this theory, I've heard it quite a bit and I think it's pretty interesting. What are your guys' thoughts?
A lot of scenes in that film involve the characters appreciating or hating some piece of music. I couldn't tell the difference between good music and bad music so I had to rely on the characters to give me queues about what the music was supposed to be. Were the "bad" pieces actually bad and I'm unable to tell, or where they virtually indistinguishable?
