OK. So I know I'm way late to the party on this, as they say, and it's been a while since I've posted anything here, and I know that I am not the first person to express this thought, but having finally watched the movie "Whiplash," I just wanted to vent a bit, because I have to say, as so many other have before, it's absolutely terrible in terms of the message it says about how to truly make music. Part of me wonders if I waited so long to see it because I knew inherently from the trailers that something was very wrong. Who knows.
Don't get me wrong, the acting is incredible. I mean, wow! Amazing performances. Really. And the sound track is absolutely unreal. So well played I don't even know how or where to begin to describe it.
But the message, after all the truly remarkable performances, about what makes a musician truly a musician is just, I am sorry, about the worst thing I can imagine.
Now, let me be absolutely clear. I have only watched the film one time. It is possible that I missed something. And perhaps the ending is supposed to be some kind of metaphor for earning another person's genuine respect, but even then, I'm sorry, it's bad. It's just wrong. I'll try to be as succinct as I can in my explanation - something I am generally not good at.
First, let's talk drumming. Endless shots of the student working to play faster. Self imposed physical (as well as emotional) abuse and suffering all for the completely non musical goal of more notes in less time. As far as I can tell the words "Feel" and "Groove" do not appear even once in the script. Certainly not in a musical context. And that is rather concerning to me. I don't care what the style, or what the person's background, any substantive conversation - or lecture - or in the style of this movie, screaming abusive mandate, that relates to drumming has to ultimately deal with feel and groove. Has to. 'Cuz, simply, if it doesn't feel good, and if it doesn't groove, it's not music, it's just time. And that is not the same thing. Moving on...
Music is about Joy. Pure and simple. Not necessarily fun. Joy. Those are not interchangeable. The entire atmosphere in that rehearsal hall was entirely without Joy. This does not mean no sadness or mournful quality to the Music when called for, it means that at it's heart, regardless of the style or compositional intent of the piece, if there is no Joy the result can only be sterile. Just because a piece comes from a place of great sadness, does not mean that it is without Joy. Just one example, a traditional New Orleans funeral. Absolute sadness. Total grief. The coming to terms with the most disheartening of realities. And yet...there is Joy. Joy in the celebration of the life. Joy in the remembrance. Joy in the cherishing of the memories and the pain and the sorrow and the guilt and whatever else there might be. Why? Because in the end, after all is said and done, what it's really about is the Joy of Love. Even at it's worst - coming from a place a pure hate - Lord, I despise that word and the notion of it, but I digress - it is still cathartic. And in that catharsis, in that process, at the end of it, there is still Joy. In fact all that is left is Joy. Anyway, another rant for another time...
But in that rehearsal hall, there was never any Joy. There was no true life in the music. Notes and rhythms are not inherently music. In this case there was sound. Not music. The sound you hear from that ensemble - yes the soundtrack of the movie is amazing! - but in reality, that group never makes music that sounds like that. Never. Not possible. I am not even certain that anything that resemble makes can truly be called music based on they way they are made to work. Not in rehearsal, and certainly not in competition.
And why in the world is the ultimate goal the competition? I don't care what it might lead to, you cannot be Musical and competitive at the same time. I've talked about this before, so I'll spare you all from that rant here, but those two are inherently at odds against each other. Always. Competition, by definition. breeds conformity. Conformity destroys Creativity. And without Creativity there is no Music.
And this idea that in the end the student stands up for himself by essentially "bullying the bully" so he was ultimately victorious, is absurd. And therein is the heart of what concerns me most about the message of this movie. Anyone who is not a musician is getting a terribly unmusical message about what makes a successful musician. "Bleed for the part." "Want it more than anything." "Stop at nothing" etc. Come on. What a load of crap.
Work hard? Absolutely. In fact, work so hard that your definition of that term changes each time you think you're working as hard as you can, so that you are always pushing yourself to go beyond your self-proclaimed and perceived Creative limits. Even so far as to lose yourself and your soul, as it were, to the Art? Sure! Go for it. Really. But to lose it to things nonmusical? Pointless. Worse, in fact. Creatively destructive.
The movie essentially ends with the notion that whoever can be the most arrogant wins in music. Not so. The goal should never have been to "show the teacher" (or really anyone else, for that matter) "I can do this! I'm the best." It should be to show yourself. Music lies within. At least at its start. From there it can connect to what is outside. It can even, from within, receive what's coming from the outside. But if it's not present on the inside, then it really doesn't matter what's coming in. You won't receive it. And the whole of the movie's ending is all about the ultimately nonmusical, superficial outside, not what's really within. That last scene was not about self-assuradness. Not about overcoming something. It was about proving to someone who absolutely did not deserve it, that the student was in fact "good enough." And it was absolutely not a pure motivation for the student. If it was, the student would never have relinquished control of the moment as he clearly did with the single stroke drumroll (fast-slow-fast). Once that happened it was all absolutely about arrogance. Not being a musician. I am not saying that he should have retained control over the moment purely for the sale of control. That would be arrogant. I am saying that when he gave up the control to that teacher, in that circumstance, he was allowing that teacher to define who he was musically. Sad. Tragic, in fact, in my view.
And, sorry, the idea that at that point the teacher and student were on the same level (or even not the same level) so that was a moment of collaboration, is terribly flawed logic. There was no evidence ever in the film that the teacher was even capable a truly respecting his students. Or anyone it would seem. No, that was not collaboration at the end, that was acquiescence. That was the student giving in to the teacher. A teacher who did not deserve it. Not that any true teacher would even want it.
I suppose there is some merit in the idea that it was about how the student was rising above his past experiences and forgiving the teacher, becoming truly the better person, but it just doesn't feel that likely to me. What seemed more likely was that the student was still grasping for the approval of someone who just should not matter. Who clearly does not deserve, under any circumstance, to matter. You wanna forgive the teacher? OK. That's fine. But to give that teacher any kind of power over what defines you Musically? No. Not even a little bit. If nothing else, the student knowing the lie that was told about the former student dying in a car accident pretty much closes the door on all that. But, who knows, maybe I'm wrong. It wouldn't be the first time.
Now, after all the ranting I just did about it, I do reserve the right to later change my mind about "Whiplash," so here's hoping I've got it all wrong. Seriously, I hope I do. Like I said, I am not saying it's a bad movie. Honestly, I really loved it. I LOVE THIS MOVIE! The acting, the soundtrack, all of that element are beyond reproach. But the musician in me, sorry, not so much.
No comments:
Post a Comment