Whiplash

I agree. For nearly its entire length, I found the movie to be ambivalent about Simmons' methods. But then, of course, there's that one big scene (you know the one). That scene didn't feel ambivalent in the least. Does that mean the movie justifies Simmons' teaching method? I dunno for sure, but man I sure was charged up at the end!

 

I just learned this late this week: J.K. Simmons has won best supporting actor prizes from the NY and LA film critics' organizations. I think it's debatable whether he gives a lead or supporting performance in Whiplash, but really I'm just glad he won. It's well deserved.

Btw, both the NY and LA critics gave best film and best director to Boyhood, my other favorite movie so far this year. And Patricia Arquette (also Boyhood) took best supporting actress from both groups.

 

Great potential but bad movie with so much absurdities:
- speed is not everything when you play drums, what about your SOUND, your SWING.
- Even the most masochist of the jazz musicians won't play under his name a big festival with a drummer that hasn't rehearsed or played during months, let alone try to humiliate him during a concert, killing the show.
- any great music school will keep a professor who beats pupils and has one who commits suicide ?
- talking about Charlie Parker and requirements for playing jazz and playing lame muzak in a bar ?
and many others...
The movie gives a bad definition of what jazz is.

 

I think it's a amazing a film about a jazz drummer was even made in the first place in this day and age. Usually you'd have to bribe someone to even get jazz mentioned in any form of mainstream media.

 

This movie was incredible! A must see!!

 

Another such scene I don't see mentioned much: the kid gets t-boned in a car accident, and yet manages to make the gig at the last minute. I dunno about that.

 

Clearly the focus of the movie is less on the music than on some of the monomaniacal personalities that succeed at the highest level in very competitive fields. The fabulous jazz is a bonus.

 

From the Wikipedia article on Whiplash:

In high school, writer director Damien Chazelle was in a "very competitive" jazz band and drew on the experience of "just dread" that he felt in those years. He based the JK Simmons character on his former band instructor but "pushed it further" adding in bits of Buddy Rich as well as other notorious band leaders.

Originally conceived in the form of an 85-page screenplay, Chazelle's Whiplash came to prominence after being featured in the 2012 Black List that includes the top motion picture screenplays not yet produced. Right of Way Films and Blumhouse Productions teamed up to produce, and in order to secure financing for the feature, helped Chazelle turn 15 pages of his original screenplay into a short film starring Johnny Simmons in the role of the drummer and J. K. Simmons (no relation) in the role of the teacher. The 18-minute short film went on to receive much acclaim after screening at the 2013 Sundance Film Festival, which ultimately attracted investors to sign on and produce the complete version of the script. The feature-length film was financed for $3.3 million by Bold Films.

In August 2013, Miles Teller signed on to star in the role originated by Johnny Simmons; J. K. Simmons remained attached to his original role. Principal photography began the following month with filming taking place throughout Los Angeles, including the Hotel Barclay, Palace Theater, and the Orpheum Theatre.

Early on Chazelle gave Simmons direction that "I want you to take it past what you think the normal limit would be" telling him "I don’t want to see a human being on-screen anymore. I want to see a monster, a gargoyle, an animal." Many of the band members in the movies were real musicians or music students and Chazelle tried to capture the real moments of terror from them. However, Chazelle noted that in between takes Simmons was "as sweet as can be" which Chazelle credits from making the shoot "nightmarish."

 

I thought it was a very good movie. I don't think the director was going for realism here, I think he took the basic approach of an old school Hollywood melodrama. Everything is a little heightened, a little exaggerated, but I believe it was a conscious decision to help capture the intensity of the psychological warfare going on between these two characters. Even the musical charts were manic, they fit the explosive personality of Simmons. The energy level in this movie is intense, it's like that emotional state you get in somewhere between anger and panic, where everything just kind of blurs together. In my opinion, not something easy to pull off onscreen.

I think the people that have the hardest time with this movie are jazz fans, because of the complete focus on technique and no real mention of improvisation. But, despite the setting it's not a film about jazz, it's a character study that just happens to use a jazz band as the vehicle.

Simmons and Teller were both excellent.

 

I was wondering about this myself. I think it's more a co-lead with the drummer than a supporting role.

 

I agree. But if supporting actor improves his chances of winning awards, I'm fine with it.

Btw, he won supporting actor from the National Society of Film Critics as well.

 

Couple of musical "oops" in this one:

* The main song the band plays features a funky rhythm guitar that's present every single time the band starts. But there's never a guitar player in the band.

* Trumpets are frequently switching back from harmon mute to open on the music tracks, yet in the film they're literally standing up mimicking playing with their horns open while the track plays trumpets in harmon.

 

I'd be amazed if he didn't pick up the Oscar for this film.

 

Me too. I think he and Patricia Arquette are sure things this year.

 

Saw this yesterday. Wow!

This is now my second favorite film of the year.

(and here I was going to make a brief statement about the ending, but since I obviously have no idea how to use the spoiler tag...)

Shalom, y'all!

L. Bangs

 

When it's framed as a movie about petty and empty competitiveness in an academic environment, or about the over-the-top competitiveness that drives athletics, it's much more spot-on, but I could see how some people really hated it - it doesn't work as a film about art or specifically jazz, if it was, it would get so much wrong.

 

Actually seeing some other negative takes from jazz writers and musically-inclined film critics. Basically the view is that it gets jazz completely wrong and/or it's not a good jazz movie (which doesn't necessarily mean it's a bad movie).

DownBeat's was scathing: http://www.downbeat.com/default.asp?sect=news&subsect=news_detail&nid=2577

The New Yorker had the best closing lines: http://www.newyorker.com/culture/richard-brody/whiplash-getting-jazz-right-movies

Glenn Kenny absolutely hated it, period: http://somecamerunning.typepad.com/...-invented-worlds-of-birdman-and-whiplash.html

Not crazy about All About Jazz's writing in general, but this guy didn't like it musically speaking: http://www.allaboutjazz.com/whiplash-buddy-rich-by-tyran-grillo.php

 

Hoping to see Whiplash this weekend.

 

Here's what Peter Erskine (well-known jazz drummer) said about Whiplash:

"Have you ever encountered an educator like JK Simmons's band director character before?

I've played under the baton of stern and demanding conductors, as well as the critical ears of some pretty tough bandleaders. I've always experienced equal amounts of praise and criticism from the toughest of them. A conductor or bandleader will only get good results if he or she shows as much love or enthusiasm as the discipline or toughness they dole out. Being a jerk is, ultimately, self-defeating in music education: for one thing, the band will not respond well; secondly, such bandleaders are anathema to the other educators who ultimately wind up acting as judges in competitive music festivals -- such bands will never win (the judges will see to that).

What impression of jazz studies do you think the general public will come away with from watching the film?

I'm disappointed that any viewer of the film will not see the joy of music-making that's almost always a part of large-ensemble rehearsals and performances. Musicians make music because they LOVE music. None of that is really apparent in the film, in my opinion.

Also, the misrepresentation of the Jo Jones throwing the cymbal at Charlie Parker's feet anecdote may well lead people to thinking that Jo Jones did indeed, as JK Simmons' character avers, try to decapitate Charlie Parker at that epochal jam session in Kansas City where a very real Charlie Parker attempted to play some of his double-time / new harmony improvisation and more or less flubbed it. Papa Jo eventually tossed a cymbal towards Charlie Parker's young feet in a "gonging" motion to get him off the bandstand. Jazz masters could be tough, but the movie gets that story all wrong."

Source:
http://www.kcet.org/arts/artbound/counties/los-angeles/drummer-peter-erskine-on-whiplash-film.html

 

This reinforces why I have no desire to see this movie.

 

Many thanks for those links. I particularly enjoyed this quote from the last one:

On leaving the screening I attended, I thought, "It's not that the movie gets jazz wrong—although it does—it’s that it gets LIFE ON THE PLANET EARTH wrong."

One of the comments had the welcome news that noted bullying thug/director Lars von Trier may be quitting directing. Good riddance!

 

That much we can agree on.

 

Here is Bill Bruford's commentary on the movie from the (London's) Times:

http://www.progressiveears.org/forum/showthread.php/12139-Bill-Bruford-on-Whiplash

 

Something is rotten in the state of Denmark...

 

Not so one-sided, there are quite a few people who find the film problematic. David Thomson's review in The New Republic makes a lot of good points, if you're interested.

I'd heard nothing but good things - this both from reviews and friends - and so went ready to really like it last night. I will say that it, in many ways it's well put-together and very competently done. Much of it is a joy to watch (and listen to). But it's kind of like eating crap for dinner: tastes good going down, but afterwards you think "what the hell was that all about?" The messages about talent, teaching, and relationships are completely ridiculous. The plot is - how can I put this nicely - a bit implausible (not always a bad thing, but the director seems to going for realism here). The film has absolutely nothing to do with either being a musician or music education. It's a standard-issue sports movie with a bit of Full Metal Jacket and a couple of songs thrown in.