Snap Judgment: "Whiplash"

Hey guys,

Last weekend, Husband and I online-"rented" "Whiplash" (2014).  We were pretty pumped about it given the immensely positive reception it's gotten, and it came to us via some credible recommendations.

Third snap judgment: commence!!

Snap judgment: great acting, but really overrated.

Leading with the good:

• J.K. Simmons: really great!

The role I most remember J.K. Simmons in is the very sweet if a bit clueless dad in "Juno" (2007).  For something of a tonal change, he takes a fun, terrifying, intense turn as Fletcher, a brutally exacting, emotionally abusive teacher in "Whiplash."  He's as mesmerizing to watch as he is frightening.  That's largely because he performs the everloving fuck out of this role, and it's great.  

It's also because, as an audience member, you're experiencing the kind of fear-instilled watchfulness someone experiences when they're in an abusive relationship of any kind.  In that position, you learn fast that if you're not watching the person carefully, walking on eggshells, and carefully sensing every subtle shift in their mood, you could get a chair thrown at you and never see it coming.

So well done, sir.  (I guess?)

• Miles Teller: pretty great, but Jesus christ have you heard of MacGuffins??

I'm not as familiar with Teller's previous work, but it's very convincing that he is fully set on becoming a famous jazz drummer as Andrew.  Andrew pays immense, frankly absurd costs in pursuit of his aim.

I believe you, but whyyyy

The thing is, this character has basically zero back story, and I have a hard time caring if he's successful when I don't know why his goal means so much to him.  In an early scene, Fletcher all but points out this movie centers on a giant MacGuffin when he observes that Andrew doesn't have any musicians in his immediate family.  It's almost as if the scene was put in the movie to make sure the audience notices that the main character's merciless drive for success is, as far as we can tell, rootless.

• Pretty much copying the opening scene from "The Social Network" (2010): but in a less satisfying manner!

Additionally making it difficult for me to care about Andrew: he's kind of a jackass.  For example: he breaks up with his sweet, probably-too-good-for-him girlfriend in a super shitty, cocky, egotistical manner, telling her that she's basically standing in the way of greatness by dating him.  Even though as far as we can tell she just wants to hang out with him sometimes.

Okay.

1) OH MY GOD dude get over yourself.

2) Run, girl.  RUN.

So it's not that I'm shedding any tears over the end of that relationship other than tears of relief for that poor girl.  But the thing is, the scene feels so ripped off from another movie about a socially callous narcissist...

Seem familiar?

...and that scene happens to end much more satisfyingly:

So there's that.

• Reiterating for at least the fifth time in recent memory the now-tropey character study of the soulless male psychopath: meh!

I might have enjoyed "Whiplash" more if it wasn't tiresomely reminiscent of several other recent films, most of which have admittedly received significant acclaim.  

Sidenote: I'm starting to wonder about the psyche of the average film critic if they find narratives about characters like these so appealing.

Anyway, although some films using this trope are definitely more skillful and interesting than others,

oh

God

enough

I blame you, "Drive."  But I would.

already.

• Can I please just have a plot that makes sense: apparently not! (Spoilers ahoy!)

There are several important moments in "Whiplash" that just ring false.  Andrew has a meal with his family? random family and friends? that is so randomly hostile as to be absurd.

Later, Andrew gets in a car accident--for what's one of the truest shocks in the movie, to be fair--and STILL drags himself onstage and attempts to perform in a major competition, only to tackle Fletcher after he tries to end the performance because Andrew is so freaking bloodily concussed and possibly bleeding internally that he can't play.

Nope.

Finally, after Andrew gets Fletcher fired through dubious legal action, he runs into Fletcher by chance, enabling Fletcher to set a massive trap for Andrew by getting him to perform at Carnegie Hall with Fletcher's new jazz ensemble and intentionally not telling Andrew what the first song of the performance is, so Andrew heroically botches the performance of that song.

Nope.  Nope nope nope.

Fucking please.  Given everything we've seen of Fletcher, there is no goddamned way EVER that perfectionistic, bloodthirsty, megalomaniac of a dude would throw a performance he was conducting at CARNEGIE FREAKING HALL just to settle the score with some ex-student.  No.  Just no.  Rewrite that bullshit part of the script and try again, because no.

And then... they're cool at the end?  They have a little Sam and Frodo moment?  Are we serious.  Are we actually serious?

I need to stop because I just can't with this nonsense.

Additionally, a public service announcement: any directors in the universe, please take note that constant unmitigated tension does NOT constitute a coherent, intelligible emotional story arc.  98 minutes of undifferentiated anxiety does not make for a pleasant movie-watching experience (especially when you didn't think you were signing up for a horror movie), and it certainly doesn't make us feel like we were just a part of something that told a story about people who have changed.  And last time I checked, that's kind of a prerequisite of any real story, isn't it?  That someone, ANYONE, changes, at least a little?

Ugh.

With all my very apparent frustration, I still think it's a movie worth watching if for nothing other than the performances.

So, final movie score: 3

{Heart}