AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHH YOU STUPID FUCKING NIGGER
>SIEG HEIL BABY>SIEG FUCKING HEIL
I think the perfect response would be rape. like corner him and start pumping his ass, "not quite your tempo? how about this tempo? *huff huff* do you enjoy this tempo?"
>>200690702Fletcher slurs on gays, Jews, and the Irish, but he never slurs on blacks. I guess it wouldn't make much sense if you idolize artists like John Coltrane and Billie Holiday.
Was it autism?
>>200690702stupid movie.
>>200691423It's my favorite movie of all time, which part did you find stupid?
>>200690702LET ME SEE YOUR N-BOMB FACE
>>200691760It's a fine film, and one that reveals more on repeated viewings.
Extremely stupid and toxic movie. People who like it are the same people who can't get enough of Andrew Tate and Dan Pena screaming at them and insulting them, thinking it somehow makes them better than other people.
>>200691249based bully obsesser
>>200691760The whole thing. Fletcher's dumb goes unchallenged throughout the movie, i.e. the screenwriter implicitly endorses it, which is stupid. You don't actually need to be screamed at and have chairs thrown at you to become good at a subject. Most of the greats in all subjects never experienced anything like this. The only thing it does is traumatize people and stifles their growth.
THIS DEAD MUSIC GENRE THAT ONLY HAS AN AUDIENCE IN THE LARGEST OF COASTAL CITIES IN THE RICHEST AND MOST PRIVILEGED NEIGHBORHOODS IN THOSE CITIES IS SERIOUS BUSINESS! ALL OF YOU HAVE ALREADY BEEN REPLACED BY MACHINES AND COMPUTERS AND HAVE ZERO PROSPECTS FORM MAKING EVEN A LIVEABLE WAGE LET ALONE ONE THAT COULD LET YOU REPAY THE STUDENT DEBT INCURRED FROM ATTENDING THIS ACADEMY BUT YOU MUST TREAT THIS SERIOUSLY TO THE POINT OF PHYSICALLY HARMING YOURSELVES BECAUSE THIS TOTALLY MATTERS AAAAAA
>>200693010kek broken little boy
>>200692952The entire movie is a critique of Neiman's self-abusive motivation to achieve. Fletcher is the embodiment of this way of thinking -- compelling, impressive, seductive, but also monstrous. Chazelle described Whiplash as a horror movie.
>>200693075The ending looked very much like an endorsement of this way of thinking.
>>200693010People who play in symphony orchestras make a lot of money. Or at least that's what the marching school band teacher told us.
>>200693010I genuinely don't understand why live music exists when audio equipment is so good these days. Even if you want to watch the players perform the music, you can watch the video (which I suspect nobody actually does, since they don't actually care to look at the performance for more than a few minutes, only the actual music matters when they listen to the youtube video). Also in both cases you're sitting and not moving. You cannot approach the players and disturb them for your own amusement. So in all important respects the experiences are the same but for some reason people pay a lot more money to have one rather the other.
>>200693118I suggest rewatching the film or even reading the screenplay. I don't say that in a sassy way -- just try watching it with fresh eyes. It's a really rich film and it doesn't hand you everything on a plate.La La Land also explores a lot of the same themes as Whiplash -- something that's interesting about the spec script for La La Land is how many character elements were edited out of La La Land and found their way into Whiplash. Spec script Sebastian is a lot more like Neiman than the Sebastian who makes his way into the final film. Like Neiman, he pushes himself to achieve to the point of self-abuse; he's described as dressing indiscriminately and eating poorly, much like Neiman does. The spec script for La La Land gives us something sort of like Whiplash but with a happy ending, in which the character starts to treat himself better but without giving up on his dream of musical achievement. I think most people missed how thematically similar La La Land is to Whiplash just because one film appears dark and intense while the other one appears bright and cheerful.
>>200690702>posted 2 hours agoJanny quit?
>>200693281I already watched it at least 2 times and remember well what happened during it. Explain what you think I specifically missed in the film that's relevant to the discussion. Telling me to rewatch it is unhelpful.
>>200693199>I genuinely don't understand why live music exists when audio equipment is so good these days.because playing music is fun
>>200693603But you don't pay to play music. You pay to sit still in your chair and watch/listen to others do it. I've been to a few live symphonies and have always left not getting it.
>>200693627>But you don't pay to play music. But other people do. And they enjoy it.
>>200693199>t. has never been to a cool jazz club>>200693442The entire film is about the self-abusive approach to achievement and how self-loathing and a lust for achievement can unexpectedly go hand-in-hand. The repeated image of Neiman's fingers bleeding as he plays is an illustration of this -- for him, self-abuse and the pursuit of excellence go together. More than that, I think the character sees self-harm not just as a byproduct of pursuing greatness, but also as a way of reassuring himself of his own seriousness and his own worthiness of greatness. Neiman doesn't care much for his physical appearance; he has no social life; the screenplay establishes that he doesn't eat well. When he is threatened with replacement in the studio band by Connolly, his response is to sabotage his dating relationship with Nicole.In the screenplay and in deleted scenes, Fletcher is more humanized. This is something Chazelle intentionally chose to cut out of the film in editing. The Fletcher we see in the film is intentionally portrayed as monstrous, inhuman -- the embodiment of the idea that pain=gain. He's the voice in Neiman's head that tells him that he's not good enough, that he doesn't deserve success or satisfaction until he pushes himself to greater depths of self-ruin. Neiman is by his nature incapable of pushing back against Fletcher's arguments because they are the arguments that Neiman makes to himself. (Think of the scene toward the end of the film where Neiman asks Fletcher if he might not go "too far" and discourage a future Charlie Parker -- he's incapable of really arguing the point.)
>>200690702GOONING OR EDGING?
>>200693838Charlie Parker's biography as presented in the film (irl he wasn't nearly beheaded by a cymbal) gives us another lens into how Neiman views the pursuit of greatness -- Parker died young of a drug overdose and did not enjoy the fruits of a full life. There are a thousand other biographies of great jazz musicians that Neiman might choose as his own pattern for greatness, but he chose a story that unites abuse, self-abuse, and early death with achievement. This reflects the character's self-abusive nature.The film has the wisdom to allow the viewer to make up his mind whether he likes all this or not, but I think it's clear from the film alone that the writer/director doesn't look at Neiman's self-destruction as admirable and that he doesn't consider the ending a happy one.Here's what Chazelle had to say about his intentions:>Chazelle is of the opinion that Fletcher will always maintain he won the psychological battle, while “Andrew will be a sad, empty shell of a person and will die in his 30s of a drug overdose.”
>>200693442The cuck's dad's reaction to that ending scene you think is so triumphant.t. different anon
>>200693866>>200693838I've interacted and observed so many self-abusive delusional idiots who think that any achievement requires abuse, shouting, bullying etc. and I know they all love this movie because they feel that it agrees with them. After watching this movie, I also thought that it agreed with them, which is why I dislike the movie. From everything you wrote, I still don't see how the movie can be interpreted as being unambiguously against this kind of mentality. > The Fletcher we see in the film is intentionally portrayed as monstrous, inhuman -- the embodiment of the idea that pain=gainNot completely monstrous. His conversation with the sibling before the concert showed he can be soft.
>>200691249You wanna fuck JK Simmons?
>>200694061What reaction?
>>200694126 It's a virtue of the film that it captures the self-abusive high-achiever's mindset so well that self-abusive high-achievers (or wannabes) see themselves in it.>Not completely monstrous. His conversation with the sibling before the concert showed he can be soft.I think that little interlude functions mostly to contrast with the moment that comes right after it, when Fletcher pivots directly from being seemingly warm and personable to shouting, "LISTEN UP, COCKSUCKERS!" It's unnerving (and/or funny) that the character is able to put on an amiable mask and then take it off again so readily.But I see where you're coming from. I think there's room for reasonable disagreement about what that scene shows us.
>>200694133you don't?
>>200694271Compare what we get in the film to these excerpts from the screenplay:>Fletcher steps outside. It’s drizzling a bit. He slowly unfolds an umbrella. Passes by a few other FACULTY MEMBERS on his way to the sidewalk. Keeps walking.>Fletcher is seated, squished in between commuters, towered>over by other travelers. Looks diminutive in this setting...>Fletcher reaches a nondescript high-rise. With his folded-up umbrella, his head hanging low, and the careful delicacy with which he opens the door, he looks here like nothing so much as a quiet, everyday man...>Fletcher sets the table for dinner. He has nice porcelain plates, and a glass of red wine. But the meal? A frozen ready- made steak and vegetables. On the wall, a photo. In it, a younger Fletcher, and a WOMAN, and a NINE-YEAR-OLD GIRL. All smiles...>Silence. Fletcher finishes his meal. Puts the dishes away. Sits>down on a couch. Still alone.>The apartment, like his office, is small but elegant. Pictures of icons on the walls. Monk. Holiday. Coltrane...>Fletcher reaches into a stack of LP’s: Chopin, Ravel... Pulls one out with the most delicate touch, as though he were handling a newborn. Sets it on a record player by his side.>A scratch, a hiss, and then -->-- FLETCHER’S SONG. Melancholy, lovelorn...>Fletcher just sits and listens, barely moves -- but you can tell the music now playing means everything to him...This, among other things, is what persuades me Chazelle intentionally dehumanized the character we see onscreen. He intentionally does away with this vulnerable characterization that attempts to make Fletcher's motivations relatable to us. The Fletcher we get, minus this sort of material, is purely the avatar of a certain concept of achievement.
>>200690702I have a theory that Fletcher was a nazi and he didn't like Neiman because Naiman's a jew
>>200694061Poor old Jim. He just wanted to protect his son.Some interesting excerpts from the screenplay:>Andrew spots a 53-year-old man seated near the front. This is his dad -- JIM. Mild-mannered, soft-spoken, average in every respect. Has the eyes of a former dreamer.And:>Just then a MOVIEGOER squeezes into the row to head to a seat further down -- and bumps against Jim and his bucket of popcorn.>JIM NEYMAN>Sorry.>The Moviegoer doesn’t say a word. Andrew watches. Takes it in.
PLEASE SIR MAY I BANG MY DRUM
>>200690702>>200692298Fletcher was the little half brother of Sergeant Hartman.Different mother, same bastard of a father.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?si=C_642PtftWjpy-Ao&v=oJsRL2nuE30
>>200693010Personally this heightens the film, shows the competitive nature of man in any kind of expression (Faustian spirit the kids call it). Some compare Whiplash to a sports movie, but the difference is most of these sports are more widespread and there's a latent possibility of hitting it big or leaving an imprint on a bunch of people beyond the immediate goal. The truth is, in a good 90% of disciplines varied like fronton, speedrunning or graffiti painting, all the greats will die amateurs and forgotten by everyone not invested in the thing. Nonetheless there'll always be people pushing themselves to their limits because they have a need to push that envelope (or dunk on everyone else). The director picked a perfect topic where it had enough prestige to draw viewers in (who wants to see the GOAT of axe-throwing) but in enough decay to make them question what makes someone that obsessed with an ultimately useless endeavor. He will never be placed along with the 40s and 50s musicians nor will he reach their mainstream status, he cannot revive jazz to a second golden era. But he still carries on.
>>200693075>>200693281
