Whiplash

Frank O. Pinion

Wailin wrote: »

Dear Lord. An enjoyable film with good acting from the two leads. Looking over this thread makes me cringe though with the amount of words such as 'masterpiece','exhilarating', etc been thrown about. One Flew Over The Cuckoos Nest, Schindlers List, Raging Bull........all masterpieces. Whiplash? Erm, nope. Seems like a lot of people jumping on the hype bandwagon to me.

Well, why don't you tell us what a modern masterpiece is, and not films from 20+ years ago? Or maybe a film can't be a masterpiece until it's decades old.

Wailin

Jeeesh.......lads, lads calm down! It's not a masterpiece, in 10 years time it'll be forgotten about. I enjoyed the film (which I said) and would recommend it to anyone. Plus i do play an instrument and loved the ending (musically, visually and acting). I think it is limited to a certain audience, my Wife didn't like it (plays an instrument and more musical than me) and a few people I know didn't rate it too highly.......opinions as we know. I think the word masterpiece is used too often on films that don't deserve it, and as I said, I don't believe Whiplash will be remembered or spoken about the way 'true' masterpieces are. For a selective audience it will maybe.

Frank O. Pinion

So, you're not going to name recent masterpieces then? Cool.

Decuc500

Well if a masterpiece is defined as "one that is considered the greatest work of a person's career" then Whiplash can be considered one!

Also nice to see it win best editing at the Oscars. That was certainly well deserved.

pixelburp

Wailin wrote: »

Jeeesh.......lads, lads calm down! It's not a masterpiece, in 10 years time it'll be forgotten about. I enjoyed the film (which I said) and would recommend it to anyone. Plus i do play an instrument and loved the ending (musically, visually and acting). I think it is limited to a certain audience, my Wife didn't like it (plays an instrument and more musical than me) and a few people I know didn't rate it too highly.......opinions as we know.

And that's the problem; you invited contention by implying that while you and yours are expressing mere opinions for not being wowed, those who loved the film are simply falling for the hype, and it couldn't possibly be that they genuinely loved the film. No, it must be the hype. Dumping on the other side without even trying to engage in discussion isn't particularly fun and gets the reaction you got. To be fair, you say you'd recommend it, but it was just the tone and language that got my own hackles up

As for the 10 year argument, well that's conjecture in the extreme: let those in 10 years decide if Whiplash is worth remembering. The idea that masterpieces, whatever those are, follow some formula or graduation process is ludicrous anyway; it's just a cultural crapshoot as to what gets remembered as 'true'. Regard the here and now and the future will take care of itself.

squonk

I watched this last night. I wasn't impressed. I'd sum it up as Great Music, Crap Film.

JK Simmons does deserve the Oscar for the intensity of his performance. I haven't seen some of the other nominees though so my opinion may change after I've viewed those movies.

Here's how I'd sum up what I saw. Unlikeable twat ends up in a music academy and is into what he's doing. Gets found by the best teacher in the place and invited to join the big boy's band. That's like throwing gas on a fire. Fletcher was completely over the top. At no point did anybody even think to report his behaviour to the school authorities. Seriously??? Meanwhile twatboy, around the time he's coming across as a total dick to his family and friends, meets a nice girl who agrees to a date with him and, amazingly, doesn't dump him on the spot for his nerdy jazz bul**** talk during the date. The problem now though is that the film escalates to its conclusion too quickly. I can only liken it to a film scenario where two countries have a shouting match coupled with some pushing and shoving over a trade dispute and then the following day they're launching nukes against each other! Seriously??? The sotry itself is simplistic. I cheered when twatboy gets dumped out of the academy and then rings Nicole about the jazz recitle. That led to the best line of the film "I'll have to ask my boyfriend". Understated, and brilliant! I wasn't the least big surprised that twatboy got set up in the concert at the end. True to form though he goes away, comes back and then completely showboats for 10 minutes showing a level of disrespect to the other musicians on stage with him that is incredibly unbelieveable. All in all at the end of the day, if you take the view he's become a jazz great, he's now just a big fish in a small pond. Big woop! Frankly you just know he's going to top himself like the other ex student because, once he's achieved greateness, where is there to go from there? The music kept me entertained. It's a pretty unforgettable film overall.

FlyingIrishMan

squonk wrote: »

I watched this last night. I wasn't impressed. I'd sum it up as Great Music, Crap Film.

When somebody says twatboy that many times in a review, you know you need to take their review seriously...

johnny_ultimate

squonk wrote: »

The story itself is simplistic.

It is not simplistic. You have merely simplified it down to a sarcastic plot synopsis, which can be done with any film.

squonk

It's an incredibly simplistic plot and a rushed plot at that. That was one of the major points of the film I disliked. Sorry for not choosing to jump on the bandwagon.

squonk

FlyingIrishMan wrote: »

When somebody says twatboy that many times in a review, you know you need to take their review seriously...

He was a boy and he was a twat. Whether I'd used twatboy or 'the young neuroitic, musically inclined gentleman', the review is still the same and the film is still substandard.

Callanutd

Joining the conversation late but myself and my OH both thought it was one of the best films we have seen in a long time. JK Simmons is electric in it. The best thing he has done since OZ. Possibly a bit early in its life to bestow "Masterpiece" on it but a fantastic movie that will stand the test of time.
For me of the Oscar winners of the last 10 years only The Hurt Locker and possibly No country for old men would I describe as modern masterpieces. The Social Network and Django Unchained maybe as well.

MagicMarker

Callanutd wrote: »

For me of the Oscar winners of the last 10 years only The Hurt Locker and possibly No country for old men would I describe as modern masterpieces. The Social Network and Django Unchained maybe as well.

Ahhh here!

Callanutd

MagicMarker wrote: »

Ahhh here!

Good points you've made there to argue against my opinion.

Wailin

Frank O. Pinion wrote: »

So, you're not going to name recent masterpieces then? Cool.

Recent, as in the last 10 years? Nope, I couldn't name one, can you?

FloatingVoter

Masterpieces in the last 10 years...only one that springs to my mind is There Will Be Blood.
...and that's only personal. I thought No Country for Old Men was rubbish. Wolf of Wall Street was robbed last year. Neither would qualify as masterpieces from either of their extremely talented creators (Coens / Scorcese). Both have done better.

johnny_ultimate

There are dozens, if not hundreds, of brilliant films, from all over the world, for every individual taste, from the last 10 years that will definitely stand the test of time - and many of their reputations will only improve over the years. Is it really necessary that we need to apply an arbitrary tag to them all? I don't know, arguing whether a film is a masterpiece or not just seems like an argument destined to go nowhere, an impossible loop of subjective opinion. Better to just focus on what did or didn't work for every individual viewer.

Callanutd

My reasoning for putting down NCFOM was Javier Bardems performance. I thought it was superb and elevated the film.
Hurt Locker was the first win for a female director at the Oscars and for me was a gripping movie. But again it all comes down to personal opinion. In the past ten years we have seen Crash, Slumdog Millionaire, The Artist and Argo win best picture at the Oscars. While I enjoyed all of them as movies I dont for one second believe any deserved their wins. Obviously a lot of people disagreed with me!

Wailin

Callanutd wrote: »

My reasoning for putting down NCFOM was Javier Bardems performance. I thought it was superb and elevated the film.
Hurt Locker was the first win for a female director at the Oscars and for me was a gripping movie. But again it all comes down to personal opinion. In the past ten years we have seen Crash, Slumdog Millionaire, The Artist and Argo win best picture at the Oscars. While I enjoyed all of them as movies I dont for one second believe any deserved their wins. Obviously a lot of people disagreed with me!

Argo won best picture?! Dear Lord......

Frank O. Pinion

Wailin wrote: »

Recent, as in the last 10 years? Nope, I couldn't name one, can you?

In general, I call very few films "masterpieces". I personally don't think Whiplash was one, but I have no problem with other people calling Whiplash a masterpiece. I can easily see why some would consider it so. My own personal taste for "masterpieces" strictly from Best Picture nominees would be The Departed, No Country For Old Men, There Will Be Blood, Inglourious Basterds, Inception, and Django Unchained.

Synecdoche, New York, Mr. Nobody, and Inland Empire would be masterpieces that didn't get Oscar nominations.

I'm sure calling any of these films "masterpieces" is a travesty of film reviewing to you, and we should all just watch the fun masterpiece, Schindler's List, again.

johnny_ultimate

Why is so much weight being placed on Oscar nominations and wins in this discussion? Been a long time since the Oscars have been anything near an all-inclusive celebration of all the great things happening in cinema. Come to think of it, I don't know if it ever was that. A majority of great films, even American ones, are routinely ignored by the Academy, and far less worthy candidates regularly celebrated. Oscars are not a useful barometer for anything, sadly.

Wailin

Frank O. Pinion wrote: »

In general, I call very few films "masterpieces". I personally don't think Whiplash was one, but I have no problem with other people calling Whiplash a masterpiece. I can easily see why some would consider it so. My own personal taste for "masterpieces" strictly from Best Picture nominees would be The Departed, No Country For Old Men, There Will Be Blood, Inglourious Basterds, Inception, and Django Unchained.

Synecdoche, New York, Mr. Nobody, and Inland Empire would be masterpieces that didn't get Oscar nominations.

I'm sure calling any of these films "masterpieces" is a travesty of film reviewing to you, and we should all just watch the fun masterpiece, Schindler's List, again.

No not at all. All good movies, particularly Inception and There Will be Blood. I absolutely loved Interstellar, although most people I know thought it was a pile of kak.

Callanutd

Interested to hear peoples thoughts then on this years crop of nominations? From the ones ive seen I thought Boyhood was terrible, a great concept but just way too long and ultimatley boring. I thought Birdman was interesting and the performances very good but its not a film I will be in a rush to watch a second time. The Theory of Everything was very enjoyable and I was impressed with Redmayne. American Sniper was a good film, kept my attention and was entertaining. The Imitation game again enjoyable, good performances. The Grand Budapest hotel wasnt for me. I dont enjoy Wes Anderson really, The Royal Tenenbaums aside. I have yet to see Selma. That leaves Whiplash and having seen 7 of the 8 it is the only one I actually would sit down and watch again quite soon after seeing it.

adox

So, that film Whiplash..........................

e_e

Demanding masterpieces from the Oscars time in time out and then complaining when they don't meet that standard is a hiding to nothing way of watching films really.

Also what does it even matter how a film will be received in 10 years? We're in the here and now, just watch the films and form your own opinion. I don't know why we constantly have to put arbitrary qualifiers on what constitutes a great film. I loved Whiplash because it moved and thrilled me while giving a good deal to think about it. It's a real testament to how score, editing, cinematography and performances can lead to a truly great cinema experience too.

Also such is the total subjectivity of this discussion that I actually prefer Whiplash to some of the masterpieces listed in this thread.

FloatingVoter

I wanted Birdman to win....guess what ? I've got ten years of amateur and professional acting / extra-ing in the background. I've been paid for spear carrying and done the acting for laughs. So Birdman ticked boxes.
If you did the same behind a drumkit or in a band with a drumkit then I get where you're coming from.
For the general populace, neither will change the orbits of planets. Both are great flicks.

adox

FloatingVoter wrote: »

I wanted Birdman to win....guess what ? I've got ten years of amateur and professional acting / extra-ing in the background. I've been paid for spear carrying and done the acting for laughs. So Birdman ticked boxes.
If you did the same behind a drumkit or in a band with a drumkit then I get where you're coming from.
For the general populace, neither will change the orbits of planets. Both are great flicks.

But dig beneath the surface and Whiplash isn't really about drumming at all.

GAAman

adox wrote: »

But dig beneath the surface and Whiplash isn't really about drumming at all.

It's basically

Moby Dick

e_e

Got the blu-ray and have watched it twice since once with the excellent commentary (could listen to JK Simmons for hours). The director said something during it that stuck with me, saying the film could be viewed as a metaphor for drug addiction and it kinda works.

There is definitely a bit of a dealer/addict dynamic going on between Fletcher and Neiman. Also notice how

after Neiman tackles Fletcher the style of the film becomes more sober in the third act with none of the crazy editing as he's given up what's been making him so erratic and obsessed the whole time. Then that final drum solo is like Neiman's final high as the style of the film really ramps up and things become really dizzying before an abrupt fade to black as things reach their peak. Fits in with the discussions about Charlie Parker dying young full of heroin too.

shazzerman

e_e wrote: »

Got the blu-ray and have watched it twice since once with the excellent commentary (could listen to JK Simmons for hours). The director said something during it that stuck with me, saying the film could be viewed as a metaphor for drug addiction and it kinda works.

There is definitely a bit of a dealer/addict dynamic going on between Fletcher and Neiman. Also notice how

after Neiman tackles Fletcher the style of the film becomes more sober in the third act with none of the crazy editing as he's given up what's been making him so erratic and obsessed the whole time. Then that final drum solo is like Neiman's final high as the style of the film really ramps up and things become really dizzying before an abrupt fade to black as things reach their peak. Fits in with the discussions about Charlie Parker dying young full of heroin too.

Good analysis.

titan18

Not sure when it was added but this is now on Canadian Netflix. Just watched it again, and still fantastic. Maybe not the same rush as watching that ending the first time, but still one of the best films I've ever seen

bnt

Just finished watching Whiplash, and it's got me all annoyed, but for the right reasons, if that makes sense. A Rant now follows. How valid my annoyance is depends on how true-to-life the film is: the writer/director says he based it on his own experiences but "pushed it further". I've heard the stories about Buddy Rich, for example, who would sometimes fire his whole Big Band and rehire them the next morning.

As a musician, I have a problem with Jazz: not all Jazz, but the specific form of Big Band Jazz that appears in the film. The script specifically mentions the Lincoln Center scene and Wynton Marsalis, and I don't think that's a coincidence. Marsalis bears some of the blame for the state of Jazz today: a fossil with no soul. (I'm not making this up - see this for one more critique of many.)

The idea of musicians as interchangeable cogs in a machine is a plot point - drummers swapping in and out of the drum chair, all playing the same standard kit set up the same way. Want to move a cymbal to a better position? Nope. You get a new chart, and are expected to play it well straight away and perfectly the next day. No chance to put any of yourself in to the music. The chart says a tempo of 215BPM, you'd better it play at 215BPM, like a human metronome. We hear about Sean Casey, a graduate of Fletcher's class who moves up to the first chair in Marsalis' band - the pinnacle of Big Band Jazz achievement - then commits suicide.

I haven't read all the reviews, so I don't know if others see it as a critique of this kind of Jazz as a spectator sport. I was expecting Andrew to take some performance-enhancing drugs at one point, just so he could bash that ride cymbal a little bit faster. The difference between that style of fossilised Jazz and Music is the difference between Typing and Writing.

It's good when a film annoys me - it means it has actually gotten through to me, even if the message I received isn't necessarily the one the director was trying to send. I think we're supposed to feel some sympathy for / empathy with Terence Fletcher (JK Simmons) by the end, but I've got nothing. The character is an absolute horror of a human being, who only seems to be bothered by the loss of his teaching position because of how it came about (the lawsuit), but has learned nothing. He still thinks he can justify his passive-aggressive behaviour as excusable by his pedantic perfectionism. Music doesn't kill people: people kill people. :cool:

PS: I didn't say anything about the ending, which was deliberately ambiguous, but my thoughts are generally in line with what squonk said above. Andrew got his five minutes in the sun, definitely showboating. The critics & jazz musos in the audience probably wouldn't hire him on the basis of what he did, since it comes off as undisciplined, but then Andrew, by this point, doesn't want that anyway. The ray of hope I see comes from a magazing clipping we see on a wall, which reads (paraphrased) "anyone who plays Rock is no longer a musician". With that kind of elitist crap in the air at that college, I hope Andrew soon gets exposed to The Who, Led Zeppelin, Rush, The Police, and other bands with great rocking drummers. Maybe then he'll actually get to enjoy music for music's sake.

Kirby

Late to the party. Several years late in fact. Not sure how I missed this one but watched it last night and thought it was great.

Not a fan of drumming. When the BPM is that high it sounds more like noise than music to me and I haven't changed my opinion on that but it doesn't matter as it could have been any instrument centre stage.

Simmons is bloody brilliant. I can see why he won so many awards and accolades.

This movie was certainly my tempo.

CatFromHue

Simmons was great, Teller was pretty good too which seems to be over looked a bit.

It's a funny film when you think about it as there aren't that many films were nearly all the cast are quite unlikeable.

Melissa Benoist's character, the girlfriend, is the only actual likeable character imo.

El Duda

This is probably in my top 5 of the last decade or so. Exhilerating would be the most apt word to describe it.

CatFromHue

For me it's much better than Birdman, which won Best Picture at The Oscars.

Bridman, while cinematographically and acting wise very good, I just couldn't get into and found by the end I was bored by it.

Going into the final parts of Whiplash I'd no idea what was going to happen and when I thought it was over there was so much more still to come.