Start your own channel with our TH-camr Templates! Whether you are using Adobe Premiere, AfterEffects or Final Cut Pro X... we've got you covered with titles, transitions, lower thirds, endcards and many more! 1.envato.market/EdP9n
I love the delivery of "it's OK, I know I made... enemies." I was expecting him to say "mistakes", but he truly believes in the end, he did nothing wrong.
Yeah I was thinking the same thing - the timing of the delivery was excellent, and if you stop to think about it, it's absolutely bonkers narcissistic and the rhetoric used by an abusive manipulator. "Sorry you felt hurt by what I was trying to do, pussy ass non charlie parker - hopefully next time you'll learn to appreciate that chair I threw at you and not take it the wrong way like a little bitch." is the essence of what he's saying to Andrew, knowing full well Andrew ratted him out - the whole conversation is nothing but manipulation of Andrew's feelings towards Fletcher and himself.
It’s cause he’s a narcissist, he truly can’t believe he has done anything wrong, that’s why he can’t even admit his own student committed suicide when it happens
He made one mistake, though. He didn't find the next Charlie Parker. What he was doing was not a mistake, because it was a mission where the end was supposed to justify the means.
@@pootytang69You're wrong, because Fletcher wants to bring the best out of him trying to push him beyond what's expected. The end justifies the means.
@@futuremovieactor nah fletcher was trying to gaslight him to embarrass him in front of a live audience. he wasnt testing andrew he purely only did it for revenge.
@@shime8083 Except the way Andrew came back after that supports what Fletcher said here: that if he wanted it badly enough, he wouldn't let anything deter him away and he'd put all he could into it. I'm not saying it's right that Fletcher wanted to hurt Andrew by tricking him like that, I'm saying Andrew proved he was as passionate as Fletcher said he should be in the end and that's undeniable.
@@futuremovieactor andrew came back because fletcher manipulated him. i mean why else would he call him out on stage saying that he knew andrew was the reason he got fired. it was all manipulation and i guess if you were in his shoes fletcher would've fooled you too.
@@shime8083 Andrew was off the stage and didn't have to go back. He chose to. Him mouthing "Fuck you" to Fletcher and making Fletcher threaten to gouge out his eyes showed that if Fletcher didn't care about actually making Andrew better, he wouldn't have pushed him in the first place and would've still been bothered by Andrew coming back and denying him the humiliation factor. Fletcher gets off on the power and abuse, but when Andrew showed him he could do it, he was genuinely happy about it too.
Charlie Parker had a cymbol thrown at his head, and became a success Nieman had a chair thrown at his head and became a success The key to success is to have a conductor throw something at your head
I got kicked out of choir cause I had a girl in my room past curfew when we were on a trip and my conductor threw a marker at my head when she heard about it
Jo Jones did NOT, I repeat, did NOT "almost decapitate Charlie Parker with a cymbal". He lightly threw it at his feet, and chuckled a little bit, almost as a joke. It was NOWHERE NEAR as intense as Fletcher is describing. Fletcher is a delusional maniac, rewriting history to fit his own twisted narrative.
@@a4arick106 Some people think this movie is about a guy who, although incredibly mean and often sadistic, genuinely wants to push his students to excellence and greatness and wants them to settle for nothing less. But that's not who Fletcher is at all, and more people should understand that. Andrew was playing absolutely fine all those times Fletcher interrupted him. Fletcher did it because he got rock hard being a sadistic bully and beating up on people.
There's a big difference between depicting an idea and promoting it. I don't think the movie is suggesting that putting your ego over your own happiness is a good thing.
This explains the ending scene. He doesn't get discouraged even though every fiber of his soul is telling him to hide under a rug and never play the drums again. Fletcher realizes that he created the next Charlie Parker in that moment, Neiman finds out at the concert, and with a knowing glance from them both the movie ends. Fucking brilliant film.
It just proved to me that they were equally broken people who deserved each other. Neither of them will be remembered, just as Charlie Parker won't be remembered. How many people under 30 who watched this movie had a frigging clue who Charlie Parker even was? And it's not like we learned anything meaningful about Parker; the story they told wasn't accurate. It's just a stupid lie that people attach their egos to in order to justify themselves to themselves. The hard truth is that these two people are clinging to a genre which left the mainstream more than sixty years ago, and the average person can't name a single song that Charlie Parker ever performed. And between this film and "La La Land", Damian Chazelle could not have done a better job of making himself look like a pretentious one-trick pony.
@@JimmySteller "How many people under 30 who watched this movie had a frigging clue who Charlie Parker even was?" -> well, at least they know who Dixie D'Amelio is, right?
Jo Jones did NOT, I repeat, did NOT "almost decapitate Charlie Parker with a cymbal". He LIGHTLY threw it at his feet, and chuckled a little bit, almost as a joke. It was NOWHERE NEAR as intense as Fletcher is describing. Fletcher is a delusional maniac, rewriting history to fit his own twisted worldview.
It's a dark scene. He's trying to recreate the cymbal throwing event that inspired Parker, and ultimately he succeeds with Andrew. But at what cost? Parker died at, I think, 34, as a lonely, obsessed junkie, and the film hints Andrew will head down that path. Or he could have just been, without Fletcher's influence, an excellent jazz drummer who led a normal life, and gave a shit about his dad, his girlfriend, and other people...
@@alfredoxu7926 Nah dude this movie is so beautifully poetic because of how many ways it can be interpreted. I've always considered Whiplash a dark tale of passion turned obsession, and to me this seen encapsulates Fletcher's manipulative and cold-hearted intentions.
He's talking about Jazz, not popular music. Not being in the mainstream and not pushing it further is not the same. And while we're at it, is there even one artist of any music gerne that actually change the game anymore? The last guy was Cobain, after that I can't remember anyone, the state of modern music now is just like the hair metal years, compressed and fucking dead. And we're not blaming anyone, that's just an observation.
Stop acting like you listen to Jazz. You watched this movie which has LITTLE TO NO JAZZ and all of sudden you're some kind of expert. Impressionable idiot
Justin Hurwitz did most of the scoring... He's not a Jazz artist... I mean if Justin Timberlake did the Sountrack to a Metal movie would he be Metal? The sountrack is just Film composers... Not Jazz musicians...
Peaches You're pussy enough. That's why you will never understand something is worth fighting for, even it makes you go crazy at the end it's still worth it. Different people, different thoughts.
I love this one moment from 0:54 - 1:04, when Andrew congratulates him for preforming in a few festivals, and Fletcher just responds with, “it’s alright”. I think it shows that his standards are just as high for himself as they are for his students. It almost seems like he’s just as hard on himself when pursuing his own career. In his mind, terms like “good job” or “you’ve made it” are nothing more than dead ends to him. So he refuses to settle for less and be content, which is why he politely rejects the compliment.
I think he says it's alright because he wants to be making the next Charlie Parker, not performing at festivals. The fact that he's a hard ass himself goes without saying, nothing notable about that.
i think he’s like ‘it’s alright’ bc he doesn’t get to abuse that group of students like he did the kids at schaffer. being an abuser you can get addicted to treating people poorly, and something tells me when he spoke to the kids at the festival before they went on and played at the end of the film, he was pretending to be a nicer version of himself, which would have eaten him up inside.
I always feel that whatever I do is never good enough, so to be told "good job" is a bit of an insult. The fact is that if you are an artist, you could give it 110% and still not be satisfied with yourself.
In my experience, nine out of ten abusive teachers/supervisors fall back on the "I'm just pushing people" excuse because it has the benefit of both sounding noble and allowing the abusive person not to have to confront his damaged self. Simmons did a great job in this film keeping the abuser guessing to the very end whether Fletcher really is noble or just a damaged sociopath.
Having been through boot camp, I can tell you that the passion of someone who won't let you give up on yourself is a mile marker in personal development. You hate them in the process, but when it's all over, and they have successfully molded you into something you didn't think you were capable of, there is an amazing moment of mutual respect and understanding.
That line at the end. “I actually fucking tried, and that’s more than most people ever do, and I will never apologize for how much I tried.” That hits me hard right there.
Jo Jones did NOT, I repeat, did NOT "almost decapitate Charlie Parker with a cymbal". He LIGHTLY threw it at his feet, and chuckled a little bit, almost as a joke. It was NOWHERE NEAR as intense as Fletcher is describing. Fletcher is a delusional maniac, rewriting history to fit his own twisted narrative.
@@akshaynatu6568 Yet his words remain true. You're exactly the type of folk he's describing. Those who sacrifice all good human qualities for comfort and mediocrity
This for me is the most powerful moment in the film. It made me question the way I work in life. Everyone tells me to "keep it simple". Whiplash has made me wonder if "simple" is just a nice word for unproductive and mediocre
richfictionfighter Naw, man. Simple is different. Thats just a warning not to over-complicate things; you can say that to an engineer or a designer and it's still relevant. Doesn't mean they're not still pushing, being competitive, or falling to the "everyone's a winner" bullshit.
You just fucking nailed it with that comment! The world is filled with stinking mediocrity. With "good enough" and "you tried hard" and "good effort". Such stupidity. Too be superlative at something takes a monumental effort and a cutting through our mountain of bullshit.
Actually, this just shows how broken Fletcher is. The reality is that any alto saxophonist coming out of a conservatory is expected to be able to do what Charlie Parker did, at the very least. Jazz is dying because it's not part of mainstream culture anymore. Nobody's fucking swing dancing or going to beatnik clubs anymore. It's a subculture now just like classical music is. Will it resurface from time to time in mainstream culture? Yeah. It's not something to fucking panic and feel distressed about.
honestly I think it's better that way whenever something becomes mainstream it gets commercialised and simplified so that more people can understand it and buy it. the result is then a dead husk that was produced with only money in mind. I prefer my jazz and classical music to be something only a select few can truly appreciate.
pon33villin and rock n roll is that popular now? that's not even on the radio any more either...what's relevant is the art..the music...the soul....not a freaking music degree...and nobody comes out of a university playing like Parker.... NOBODY...
@@imallergictobullets When drug use and hard living destroys lives, families, health, mental well-being, but propels one “tortured genius” to a short life and a slightly longer legacy... Yeah, totally not up to me to say it’s not worth it.
@@michaeldukes4108 Maybe it’s not your cup of tea, but think of all the wonders of the world produced by tortured geniuses. Maybe they could have been happier, but at what cost to the world at large? Some can only be sustained in the pursuit of greatness, your level of mediocrity isn’t worth the lack of depression. Like I said, worth is subjective, not objective.
Too bad Fletcher lied about the Charlie Parker story. He dropped a cymbal on the floor, basically "gonging" him off. Nowhere near as extreme as this guy.
@Christian Lopez ah yes, nothing like mental and physical abuse to students from someone who is delusional and egocentric. Be doesnt go off of merit, he goes by what will stroke his ego the best
His motivation seems pretty selfish, really. He's looking for HIS "Charlie Parker", but in doing so he is willing to hurt so many people in the process. The means he uses are immoral, abusive, and discouraging for most people. He is a foolish man.
He thinks jazz is dying. If he doesn't do what he does, he's depriving the world of the next great musician. Obviously what he's doing isn't right, but this scene is great because, for me at least, it makes me forget that he's a gigantic asshole
@@miguelsmoviereviews1580 It is a distraction for people who watch it for the first time but once you realise after the fact when he screws over andrew, this (to me, anyways) is one of the darkest scenes in the film. By completely destroying andrews hopes when he embarrassed him on stage, this shows that Fletcher genuinely wanted to see Andrew's hopes and future disappear. But, luckily for Fletcher, Andrew had massive balls to return to play caravan, which essentially gave Fletcher his "Charlie Parker" moment. I think by the film ended they were both in the neutral area which was great
I love how people cherry-pick parts of Fletcher's speech to validate their own illusions about there being a method to his madness even though he's just a raging egomaniac whose methods drove a person to suicide and him having learned absolutely NOTHING from it. Yet here they are, thinking it's OK to mentally and physically abuse someone on the dubious belief that it might lead to success. After all, it worked so well with Sargeant Hartmann and Private Pyle. The worst kind of teacher is the one that doesn't learn anything themselves.
Yeah but this is how you achieve greatness. There is no "great" person that isn't somehow mentally unstable. It's just not possible. You want to live a life that's almost always happy, content, and comfortable? Yeah be mediocre, act like you know what you're talking about, never achieve anything more significant than your university degree, and you're there.
@@festivebear9946 You mean the same life of mediocrity you're living right now? Yeah, keep acting like you know what you're talking about and somehow exempt yourself from the very thing you're shunning. At least I know what I want out of life and am happy with that. I may not be a success but I sure as hell know that Fletcher's way is not even remotely the right one, because if your idea of "success" is to become a soulless drone at the hands of a man that mentally and physically abused you, made you give up on all the people that cared about you and destroyed your own sense of self-worth, then I'll gladly live a life of mediocrity and die knowing that I held my head high and didn't bow down to some petty and sadistic bully that tried to hide his petty cruelty behind a veil of wholesomeness. Success is when a man sets his eyes on a goal, no matter how small or trivial, and he manages to achieve that goal of his own will. If that's not good for you, then that's your problem, no one else's.
Fletcher misrepresented the story but he wasn't entirely wrong. Parker was still embarrassed as fuck when Jones gonged him off in front of other people.
@@supereldinho it’s not just success it’s greatness, glory and perfection. And all of those things require sacrifice any man knows true greatness requires you to sacrifice
Deep down when Fletcher said he never truly had a next Charlie Parker it bothered Andrew. Andrew always had the drive and the hunger for being the next genius musician and Fletcher helped Andrew strive for that level of perfection. This scene has a lot more meaning to me than just some quick bonding moment between two characters.
apparently jo jones actually threw the symbol at parkers feet as a symbol to leave the stage, either they changed it to make it seem more extreme for the sake of the movie, or fletcher just twisted the story in order to justify his own poor treatment of his own students.
I understand where Fletcher is coming from with the whole "good job" thing but his methods of teaching were still very abusive and not worth someone losing their life over. Sometimes enough is enough.
Jo Jones did NOT, I repeat, did NOT "almost decapitate Charlie Parker with a cymbal". He LIGHTLY threw it at his feet, and chuckled a little bit, almost as a joke. It was NOWHERE NEAR as intense as Fletcher is describing. Fletcher is a delusional maniac, rewriting history to fit his own twisted narrative.
@@zyzzsdisciples6707 There is literally nothing motivational about you at all. You’re one of those fake motivational quote accounts that post these uninspired messages to sound edgy and unique.
@@zyzzsdisciples6707 You want something actually helpful? None of the teachers like Fletcher hiding their abuse by being “inspirational” can actually do anything to motivate you. The only person who can, is yourself. You wanna heed onto someone like that’s words as gospel? That’s on you.
There are many success stories came out from tragedy, however there are endless success stories came out from encouragement and kindness. Life’s too short man.
My favorite aspect of this scene is the fact it's such immersive dialogue I wanted to step in and debate Fletcher. I've thought about this scene plenty of times and when he says that he doesn't think the real Charlie Parker would be discouraged, I want to push on that point and state that he wouldn't because he's doing it for himself, and because he's doing it for himself, being told he did a good job wouldn't stop him either. The best artists in history are often their own worst critics by nature, and as such to excuse such abusive tendencies as Fletcher demonstrates simply discredits the artist's own drive and sets them up for pain in other areas of their life. This movie's a masterpiece, easily.
Ruthless ambition vs. humanity/self-love is a fascinating dialectic, and serves as the intellectual backbone of this film. The major flaw in Fletcher’s argument is that he isn’t sacrificing as much as his students. Fletcher wants to use the accomplishments of his students to validate himself. I have always felt similarly about the many fat athletics coaches who insist on pushing their athletes past their limits, when they themselves are lazy bastards.
I had a shitty boss once who was a big shot in the industry I work in and he made me feel useless all the time. So I decided to push through day after day, learning and getting better at it, but no matter what I did he always made me feel like I was doing everything wrong. In the end, when I was leaving the company for a better job I heard through the grapevine that he actually looked up to me and thought I was smart and really good at my job. I spent months pushing myself to the limit because I wanted to prove him wrong, and in the end, I had nothing to prove. Was it wrong what he did? Yes, but if it wasn't for his treatment I would have felt content, I wouldn't have learned all the stuff that I learned, I wouldn't have developed so many skills and I probably wouldn't have gotten a better job. This movie touches me deeply because it reminds me of that situation. I disagree with what you're saying, if the expectations are low then you will get mediocre results because people are not going to try to push harder. The thing is, very few people are aware of the potential that they have inside of them, other people need to see it and show them that it's there. And, sadly, there's nothing like shitty situations and shitty treatment to push people into using that potential to their max, because in these situations they realize that they need to put heart and soul into their work otherwise there will be consequences. If you don't think that way then I challenge you to ask yourself, in which situations you took most advantage of your skills and overall potential?
There's actually a recent series of Harvard studies on motivation... It was comparing carrots and sticks (rewards, punishments) as motivators, to no motivators. The studies found that for simple tasks that required no thinking, a.k.a. stuff like bagging coffee, the greater the reward or the punishment, the better the results. BUT for tasks that required even rudimentary thought, either the reward/punishment didn't help, or in some cases it was harmful, and in those cases the greater the rwrd/punishment the worse the result. A study worth checking out, it's cited in a TED Talk called The Puzzle Of Motivation.
Reward/punishment stifles creativity. It's great for getting people to kick a football, run a mile, etc. Terrible for getting someone to think of a cure for cancer. Zero stress environments are much more conducive to creativity and innovation.
Almost anyone can perform simplistic tasks, that's why temporary rewards/punishments (aka. external motivators) work regardless of the presence of internal motivation. Those tasks that require higher level cognition and/or effort to even get mediocre at are much harder to perform adequately when the anticipation of external motivators disrupts the normal dynamics of effortful development of these skills (i.e those that manifest from application of internal motivation).
There’s no universal approach for anyone. Fletcher is 100% wrong. Fletcher heard about the Charlie Parker story sometime in his formative years and decided he was going to find the next Parker by employing the same tactics. But that approach worked for *Parker.* There’s an odd contradiction amongst humans in that we are all alike, yet we are all so very different. One of the greatest heavyweight boxers in history was Mike Tyson. Tyson was a kid from the dangerous ghettos of Brooklyn. He was used to robbing, fighting, and hustling to survive. His mentor didn’t ride on him, he did the opposite. He showed Tyson the 1 thing he always wanted....someone to love and care for him. In his documentary, Tyson talks about how Cus D’Amato mentored him and constantly praised him with compliments and affection. Tyson admits that initially it weirded him out and he even thought Cus might be gay. But looking back he realizes that Cus saw a kid who never had anyone who praised him and he was doing everything he could to build up Tyson’s confidence. By the end, Tyson felt like he could destroy mountains with his fists. Now, I would present to Fletcher, what do you think a 13 year old hoodlum Tyson, who was used to robbing people at gunpoint, would react if you got in his face and called his mother a whore and told him he was a faggot who sucked cock?
What everybody seems to miss is that Fletcher's philosophy is based on a lie. In real life, Jo Jones did not throw a cymbal at Parker's head, he threw at the ground next to him as a way to gong him off. Charlie was indeed disheartened by Jones' reaction and it gave him motivation to practice for months and months, but Jones didn't nearly decapitate him for his mistake. He was basically saying to Charlie "Yeah... that ain't working, kid. Knock it off." Now either Fletcher doesn't know this or he does know it and chooses to overlook it. But Fletcher's methods used in his quest to find the next Charlie Parker don't seem to hold much merit, because the real Charlie Parker was in fact not formed from such methods. And so far all Fletcher seems to have really achieved was a talented student who hanged himself only a few years later.
And it sort of is, depending on your goal. By the end, Fletcher's perspective and tactic worked. He created one of the greats. And he wanted that just as much as the drummer did. For some, who have a sole goal, it can be "inspirational".
Frightens me, especially since they’re all forgotten to time in a century. The real people achieving this greatness above any other isn’t going to be in this comment section arguing about it. It’s good to have that mindset just not for the peak of the pyramid. You’ll never get there.
It's subtle, but I absolutely love the way Andrew says, "yeah.." after Terrence says, "No man, no. Because the next Charlie Parker would never be discouraged." The look on Andrew's face says it all. He already knew the answer to the question.
"I just want to get you to perform up to your level." Translation: "I enjoy making myself feel big by making you feel small." To be fair, Fletcher might actually have good intentions. Nonetheless, I think his methods do more harm than good. Rather than panning for those nuggets, Fletcher immediately pulls out the dynamite. Sure, he may find the mother load but he'll destroy a hell of a lot of real estate in the process.
Some people in the comments clearly don't see a line between abuse and pulling out potential. I wager these lads have never ever ever ever been verbally abused to the point where your heart breaks and you go depressed and broken.
@Steve McQueen depends on the person, when they weren't reaching for the stars in the first place, then good job wouldn't make a difference to them, if they were already reaching, good job isn't gonna slow them down, they want to do better, it's self discipline, not someone else's approval
Abuse victims have higher tolerance for abuse. You don’t think it’s a coincidence that “Vance culture” stems from modern first world countries; complaints from people who’ve been handfed all their lives?
Probably the most chilling little bit in the whole movie, in my opinion, is the way Fletcher just casually engages in a warm conversation with Andrew, despite their last interaction being Andrew attacking Fletcher on stage at the end of a performance. It is a chilling example of how abusers tend to overlook any sort of attack on themselves for the sake of engaging in manipulative tactics with ease. I'm pretty Andrew was disarmed by the way Terrence approached him so seemingly amiably despite there being some obvious very hot air between them.
This scene really shows how complex Fletcher actually is: although he is manipulative and verbally abusive, he still has a bit good intentions since he’s looking for the best musician possible, and because people are afraid to give criticism, it often ends up with the performance being mediocre. On one hand, you would be that guy who says “Yes, Fletcher totally deserved to get fired”, but on another hand when you hear him say “I never had a Charlie Parker. But I tried, I actually fucking tried”, you start to understand him a little. I also just love how he can go from being a cool and polite man to being highly aggressive to being reflective. The best thing I like about Fletcher (and the movie in general) however is that I can relate to the situations. I have had a theatre director and karate instructor who were both like him (to some degree anyway): almost always in an angry mood and often had angry outbursts, constantly cursed, were perfectionists, and seemed to treat their students more like tools. My karate instructor even looked a bit like Fletcher, and my theatre instructor could often look happy and nice to people he knew that were not a part of the production and then become serious and moody whenever he entered the drama room. I even reported my theatre instructor once for being too unreasonable in his statements, and I think some of my fellow students did the same. Despite all of this, they both became soft every time someone did a good job and I have more good memories about them than bad ones, which I probably would not have if Fletcher was my instructor.
+StrasbergProtégé I liked Fletcher through the whole movie. I've met so many proffessors like him. Im not saying its cool to be aggressive, but I feel like movie forced the depiction of him, making craft a terrible and miserable thing for the students that have to commit their whole life to it. Thats not how it works. I've been there and none of the people who work 24/7 would be there if they didnt want to.
StrasbergProtégé actually he's pretty one dimensional. i would have thought he would change a little seeing how Andrew got into a car accident but he actually has zero remorse.
bananian He isn't one-dimensional because on the surface, he's aggressive, manipulative, and verbally abusive, but deep in his core, he's only looking for the best musician possible and has shown a handful of times that he does care about those who excel in jazz. The intrigue however is the standard he sets for what he considers a great musician and his very questionable methods, and that's something every teacher today struggles with; are you supposed to be as pedgogical as possible or are you supposed to be disciplined and bring out the best from your students? Because of Fletcher, there's a recurring question in the film; what is the most important thing? To have fun and enjoy your living or to be the best and sacrifice all the other parts of your life? Plus that Fletcher showed a genuine sadness over his top-student dying (although he didn't know he committed suicide because of him), and in the final drum solo, he at first looked pissed off because he was beaten by Andrew in his own game, but then his subtext revealed "Well, he's reaching my standard, so why not take it?" And of course we have his lines "People wonder why jazz is dying", "I know I've made some enemies", and "I never had a Charlie Parker, but I tried!" I've never seen a movie antagonist like Fletcher before, but he's certainly one of the most human ones.
When it comes to music, you really just have to grind out the parts you know while the instructor is really only to tell you what to do in parts that you are not sure of, s/he can only show you the door, you have to walk through it.
bananian But there's always a standard in art. If it wasn't, people would have been satisfied with everything they saw no matter how poorly executed it was, and this certainly isn't the case with the reality we live in. Fletcher makes the viewer wonder how far somebody's willing to go and sacrifice in order to reach the standard and what is the most important thing out of prestige and having fun
Unfortunately the part where Fletcher is wrong is about whether or not there is a line. Not all great Jazz musicians have a story like Charlie Parker and by crossing the line he IS discouraging potentially great musicians, just like the one that killed themselves and not to mention Andrew who almost died in a car accident because of Fletcher, Fletcher's Charlie Parker almost never was because of Fletchers pressure was so great that Andrew almost ended up a smear on the side of the road. Andrew didn't succeed because of Fletcher even though both may believe so, he succeeded in spite of him. His dad had been telling him music wasnt worth it and he wasnt going to be anything long before Fletcher showed up I don't see anyone giving his dad credit for making him into what he was at the end. No one made Andrew great save Andrew's own passion.
I really like how Fletcher goes “hey I get it, I know I made… (and we think he’s gonna say mistakes) enemies”. Which just lines up with his character and Andrew’s perception of him so well
I couldn't help myself but think when he calls "good job" the most dangerous phrase in the english language, that that phrase never caused somebody to die at 34 from a heroin overdose...that seemed a little contradictory to me
How do we know that if the “good job” incident never happened he wouldn’t have ended up the same way. Working hard and an heroin overdose don’t have a lot in common. I guess you can argue that heroin was an escape from his music career or something like that but hindsight is always 20/20
Nor Norranun Exactly so. But in that case I feel its disrespectful to try and say that he has some great purpose besides molding the next great for his personal legacy by crafting a system of near pathological codependency and slaves to his approval.
Jakira Kumahata some people are too weak to achieve something, of course being hard on them isn't nice and bla bla, but that's how the world is. Perfection requires sacrifises
HDTVGamePlay This kind of sacrifice is not the only way to success. Give me a legitimate study that this kind of abusive dictatorian teacher is the best way to improve your skills. Why? Because I can only find studies that show otherwise. Btw, the anecdote of Charlie Parker simply wasn't true.
As soon as a girl dumps you, or a family member or a friend betrays you ,you will realize that pursuing greatness was better than being a fucking nice dude.
I've found myself wondering that a few times. I've given so much of myself to others and get completely fucked over. Now I realize that being a good guy has done nothing for me.
This movie teaches something big about discouragement. That no matter how hard you fail, you need to alway keep trying. This is something you find alot of in the military. It's what creates soldiers that are the highest caliber.
art isn't the military. It thrives on personal creativity and independence. Not drill sergeants. Despite how boomers love to complain art has gotten mediocre, it really hasn't. We've got more talented artists now than ever before. The only mediocrity that comes from art that is harmful are those monetized by faceless private corporations whose only desire is to do the bare minimum toe exercise maximum profitability. This is why Indie films and art house pictures, where the minds behind them have more creative control, have much more exemplary writing than a generic action Blockbuster riddled with studio mandates.
@Christian Lopez I agree discipline is necessary but it isn't they key which ultimately unlocks the creative minds of the future. Being devoted to your passion is a given if you're to make great art but that's just the first step. As long as people still convinced that they must actively hurt themselves to accomplish their goals is a harmful ideology and destroys the art world more than buids it. What I personally have a problem with is the industry. Even though what's popular has changed in the grand scheme of things it was never about merit but marketability, and we've been shifting to that more and more lately. To the point where the genre of making film with the intent of being artful has become niche in the form of arthouse. It's fucking tragic that we've got more talented artists than ever but are constantly being overlooked due to the new popular business model which continues to pedal the myth that art is dead, when it's actually just not popular anymore. At least true art isn't
It's a half myth I guess you could say. Jo Jones did throw a cymbal at Charlie Parker, but it was at his feet after Parker was losing tempo and Jones was kind of losing patience, and it was tell Parker that his time was over. There was no "nearly decapitated him" as this movie suggests, but Parker got the message the same way. And then... He practiced... and he practiced, as Fletcher says. But the cymbal throwing at head, that's wrong.
a few words to people seeking to improve at anything: my mentor was hard on me as a growing artist, but he never personally attacked me. it was always about my art, he always pushed me to challenge my weaknesses head on. whenever I felt bad about a piece and someone said "good job," I saw through their shit. I learned to listen to that voice bitching at me for not being good enough, but I also listened to the voice that said I earned a compliment when credit was due. it's bullshit to say that all of the true gods of any field suffer through insane abuse to get there. maybe some do, and it worked for them. that's fine. but others are uplifted and discover who they are through healthy criticism and encouragement, and succeed that way. this scene tries too hard to suggest that only the first one works. if you're scared of honest criticism, toughen up. growth doesn't come without pain. if you're letting others stomp you into the dirt, have some more self-respect. you're not your teacher's little bitch, you're their student. at the end of the day it's about being real with yourself. that's priority 1.
The fact that he criticized your art and not you is interesting. That's kind of what this film is trying to show with Fletcher's methods: is he attacking the person or their ability?
I may not agree with his methods but I do understand his point of having determination & commitment instead of lowering your standards. Take James Cameron & his perfectionism with filmmaking, or Gordon Ramsay with his cooking. Achieving your highest point of success is going to be extremely rough but if you care enough, you know it will be worth it in the end.
I hated Fletcher for most of this film, but right here, this is the scene where I started to understand him. By the end of it, I actually started to empathize with how he felt. I didn't quite like him until the ending, but this scene was really the turning point for me.
I was wondering the whole time when the rug was gonna get pulled out from under my feet or.... Andrews. Throughout the movie he takes Neiman to the side to have a quiet friendly chat to build him up. Then completely demolishes him during performances and that moment does come with the "I know it was you" But ultimately Andrew rises to the situation and plays his heart out
John Woodland i got him straight away because he is pretty much Gordon Ramsay and Ramsay says the exact same thing. He wanted to push people to be at their best.
i did too, but rewatching i realised it was still fucked up. One of your students literally kills himself and you're gonna continue with your method just to try and get another good musician? I dont know...
Wish i had a teachers/coaches like Fletcher. Maybe not as extreme but someone who actually criticized me even when i did good. I had my share of ''you are good'' and ''good enough'' in life but in all cases i knew i couldve done better (be it at school, or my music lessons or basketball or whatever). The best performances i did was after rare occasions when i was criticized. I dont mind getting yelled at. After each critic i wouldnt sleep at night and i would constantly think about it, how i am not as good as i thought but every time i would got back up and practice my ass off only to do something better than ever. Sadly not many teachers understand this concept, that negative feedback usually gives better results.
If you knew you could have done better, why did you need someone else to tell you that before trying harder next time? Motivation can also come from within.
@Christian Lopez he was following an example that didnt exist though. He wanted to create the next Charlie parker but has warped the story which, in turn, changed where he would set the line. Jo Jones never threw the cymbal at Parkers head but on the ground in frustration. You may think theres no difference but there is. Fletcher is shown in the movie tossing things at his students head, clearly trying to replicate that. But that version only exists in his head. Not only that but he went too far. There is a line you can't cross when both improving and helping someone improve. Apply his methods to weight lifting and he just pushes down the dumbbell onto his spot partner because he thinks the partner is not doing well enough. You think that will help him improve or will it end up damaging the partners body? Chances are the latter as improving, while tough, has to be done with ease as well. The same is said of the mind
@Christian Lopez But you also know when to take it easy and look back and appreciate where you came from. And judging from what the director said, Neiman wouldn't live a good life afterward. Consider what he went through and lost to gain the appreciation of a man who wanted to replicate a path that never existed. Pushing yourself is good and I will always say improve yourself. But when that crosses the line and starts to hurt you, learn to let it go and live.
@Christian Lopez And that's a great message. But don't think that because Fletcher said it. Fletcher, as I said, followed a warped example that drove people to hurt and kill themselves. Thats not how any instructor should act. Once people start feeling bullied and abused, you've crossed a line. He deserved to be fired and yet he didn't see an issue with his methods despite how damaging they were. Improving is good. But abusive behaviour is not the way to go with it.
This scene is also meant to excuse Fletcher causing the death of a student through his abuse. All monsters absolve themselves by making excuses. Fletcher's reasoning here is almost identical to one of the villains of The Last Ship, who absolved herself of the crimes against humanity she committed (including murdering the infected for fuel at a power plant and attempting to harvest a pregnant woman's baby for a shot at a cure) by trying to justify her actions as "noble." Fletcher's BS in this scene is the same way. It's obvious he hasn't lost any sleep over causing the death of a student. That's the kind of person who should stay the hell away from a classroom.
It's a nice bit of mythology - that you need to push someone beyond their limits to get greatness. Yet many Jazz musicians had minimal formal training and no one pushing them except themselves. Think of some of the biggest names in Jazz and you'd struggle to name a Fletcher character who was pushing them. Who pushed Buddy Rich or Louie Bellson or Gene Krupa? (Answer - they did...)
I thought jazz was dying because popular music shifted over the years. Rock n' Roll became the bane of jazz's existence. Then rap/alternative did the same for rock, then dubstep/electronic did the same for that, and so on. Music has evolved into some sort of carnivorous food chain.
I love movies like this.. where right and wrong are not so clearly delineated. When you see potential greatness in people, it is your duty to push them? And if you push them, where do you draw the line to not push beyond? Or is the only option to keep pushing to see if they will crack and be left behind with the others, or push through and become the greatness you can envision? An if no one pushes, then where does greatness come from? Is self-motivation enough to achieve greatness, or is it a product of yourself and your environment? All these questions you are left with, and in some ways it gives you a glimpse into the complexities of humanity.
It's not really that complicated. "No pain, No gain". It only seems complex to lazy people who want things easy. "The more the arrow is pulled back, the further it goes".
Well, I'm coming from a realistic perspective.. not everyone can be a "Charlie Parker." And even based on statistical norms, everything is based on a bell-shaped curve. Not everyone's IQ can be over 100. Not everyone's capacity to endure psychological pressure can be excellent. Everyone can work hard and needs to work hard, and I agree with "no pain, no gain." But reality stands that just because you work hard doesn't mean we will achieve the same outcome. Also how we achieve our best may be variable. It may work best to scream at a person to motivate them, while for another it will only depress them and it's counterproductive. I just think if the intent is to actually help people become their best, we need to understand what can actually help them, not just apply the same template to diverse individuals.
llangel314ll Then those people should go to a mediocre school and not the BEST one. If you think you are not great then don't try to be, you will get disappointed. Certain levels of Success aren't for everybody. Working hard on one thing and not working hard on other things wont achieve it. If you enter a situation with your mind state, you are already on the decline from being the best. This movie is about being THE BEST, not settling. Not everyone is built like a tank, mentally, and emotionally. The weak,They don't qualify. It's that simple. There are plenty of "regular" jobs out there for "regular" people to shoot for.
I could agree with that - if you're aiming to be the best, then you need to be realistic and expect yourself and others to push you. Though if we're strictly talking about this movie, then I would question why Fletcher didn't push everyone as much as he did Andrew. The best schools don't just accept one person, they accept a whole array of many talented people. But if you're competing with the best, then the reality is 99% of people who aren't weak, aren't average, and aren't regular, will simply not be the best. Not sure if that means 99% of those people should have applied for mediocre schools though.
llangel314ll Because this movie was ABOUT Andrew. It was HIS story. So they focused more on him. Never EXPECT others to push you. That's a loser's way of thinking. Only you can push you, even if someone else try, you could always quit. Listen. It seems you have already made your choice in life, you are just trying to find others to settle with you (Misery loves company). So go write a bunch about why you aren't where you need to be and point fingers to everyone. It's your life. Nobody cares what you become, but you.
This is the scene in that splits audience down the middle: but not in the sense of "love it" or "hate it." You could look at this scene as just an example of Fletcher's delusions. Yes, the next great musician is a noble cause, but is it worth the death of a student? Of course not. However, if music has impacted your life in such a phenomenal way as it has with mine, this scene takes on a more personal tone. That line - "The next Charlie Parker wouldn't get discouraged," that has become a missions statement. Whenever I look at my life, and realize there's a bunch of crap in it, I also think that if I were to play it safe right now, roll over and have society pat me on the stomach like a good dog - I would be doing a disservice to the art form that has kept me sane in times of struggle. This isn't about a passion, this a need like water or food. With this scene, if one doesn't have that mindset, one is not going to "get" fletcher. I LOVE THIS MOVIE!!
The Owl- Eyes I understand Fletcher's reasonings but I feel like he went a bit too far, it's not worth someone losing their life over. Andrew thinks that there should be a line, and I agree more with him even though I understand where Fletcher's coming from.
scifinerd17 no he doesn’t think there should be a line, he just asked if there should be. Its clear by the end that he actually agrees with Fletcher, since he doesnt get discouraged by Fletcher’s sabotage of him and comes back to play his finale solo.
This movie is brilliant because it doesn’t tell you who is right or wrong. The austere and abusive training style will no doubt destroy a lot of people, but it can also sometimes awaken the inner potential of a select few whose talent may otherwise have remained dormant forever. Is it worth tearing apart thousands of kids in the hope that a couple of them will emerge as geniuses? Maybe, maybe not. Different people will have different answers on this one.
The best way to mentor a person depends on that person, and it is up to a good teacher to recognize the best way to mentor that person. But if someone does a mediocre job, the mentor should say so, but no one should throw cymbals or abuse anyone.
This is why I love the character of Fletcher. He isn't just some mad asshole that tortures his students he is a guy that strives for perfection in a world that has learned to accept the mediocre. And it's not for his own ego it's for his love and dedication for the craft. You saw it at the end of the movie when Andrew started playing. At first he was pissed at Andrew but then as he saw him play as he saw him reach new heights he started seeing Andrew as an equal and was actually proud of him. But let me make this clear he is still a major dick and i dont approve of his methods in any way,shape or form but i understand his conviction and reason. When i graduated elementary school my grades were horrible. I didnt get into a good middle school. I dont know how its done in other countries but in the Netherlands middle schools and highschools are divided into ranks based on difficulty. there are six ranks. I was in a middle that ranked second to last. I knew no good carreer would follow this route so i said F it all and committed myself 100% to my study. I rejected accepting mediocrity. With the years i got into better and better schools because my grades got better and better. The path i took was longer than most but i stand here today in my third year of college studying pharmaceuticals one of the best colleges in this country. A place no1 had imagined i would ever achieve. So again i dont approve of his methods but i understand and respect his drive for perfection and rejection of mediocrity.
You are so right but we all are so mediocre because we don't push ourselves to absolute limits. I guess not everybody is capable of that..I am surely not :( !!
Wow, didn't know you have school divisions in Netherlands .. Here in Brazil to enter on a federal public university for example you make a test with 180 questions( about math, chemistry, biology, geo, sociology, portuguese, literature, arts, physics, history). Imagine 5 million people doing this. You must study really hard here to pass.
It's true that you need to push yourself into greatness and constructive criticism is needed, but several types of extreme abuse is never necessary. They say pressure can turn coal into diamonds, but in reality it just crushes it.
I would never have learned to play a single chord if the people who taught me weren't so aggressive about it. Every time I made a mistake and got yelled at made me realise how much I really wanted to learn to play. It encouraged me to take practice seriously and to truly enjoy playing
*Year 2053* ''Otherwise we're depriving the world from the next Charlie Parker or the next Andrew Neiman. Did I ever tell you the story of how Andrew Neiman became Andrew Neiman?'' ''Terrence Fletcher hurled a chair at him.'' ''Exactly. Now Andrew's a young kid, very good on the drums. Andrew being the nervous wreck he is, completely messes up on the tempo during a repetition. And Fletcher nearly demolished him for it. That night, Andrew cried himself to sleep. But the next morning, what does he do? He practices, and he practices, and he practices with one goal in mind; To never let anyone down on his ambition to become a musician. Around a year later, he meets up with his teacher. His teacher wanted revenge for their past hiatus, therefore giving him the wrong music sheets after inviting Andrew to play on stage in front of hundreds of people. Andrew embarrassed himself completely. But when he was about to stand up and walk away, he went back on those drumkits and played one of the best motherfucking solos the world has ever heard. Now imagine if Fletcher went to Andrew and told ''Alright, listen kid. The tempo's a bit weak. We got to work on that. You're doing great, good job.'', Andrew would think ''Yeah, practice makes perfect, sure, I guess I did a pretty good job.''. The end. No bird. That, to me, is an absolute nightmare. I guess that's what the world wants now... No wonder why jazz has died. There are no two words more harmful in the English language than 'Good job'. Fletcher told Andrew that exact same thing years ago.'' ''Are you sure there's no line? A line where, once passed, can never be crossed again? The limit? Discouraging Andrew Neiman from becoming Andrew Neiman?'' ''No. Because the next Andrew Neiman would never be discouraged. You know, Jason, the truth is I never had an Andrew Neiman. But I actually fucking tried to find the next Andrew Neiman. And that's more than most people would ever do.''
Fletcher is the type of person that only wants and tries to get things done. He doesn’t understand all the things in the world. He only lived in his unsatisfied dream and therefore he idealizes jazz. He might look like a very tough and important guy, but he is just some lonely child that had to grow up without someone keeping his progress, he never let himself appreciate his skills.
Fletcher doesn’t care about the art of the music and doesn’t care about making the next best artist, he only cares about making himself look a perfect conductor. He is a narcissist and he manipulates and gaslights his orchestra to work with on the basis they will make great music for people and they will be the next great artist. He is deliberately manipulating Neiman in this scene to stay with him.
He said the next Charlie Parker would never be discouraged. So that also means if he would’ve heard the words “good job” that wouldn’t of discouraged him either. Fletchers thought process is flawed. Greatness ultimately comes within the person them self and what sacrifices they are willing to make. Andrew wanted to become great, because he wanted it.
there are many great people out there who reached goals nobody ever achieved, just by motivation they created themselves. looking up to your heroes is often enough to get the will to go through hard work.
Start your own channel with our TH-camr Templates! Whether you are using Adobe Premiere, AfterEffects or Final Cut Pro X... we've got you covered with titles, transitions, lower thirds, endcards and many more!
1.envato.market/EdP9n
I love the delivery of "it's OK, I know I made... enemies." I was expecting him to say "mistakes", but he truly believes in the end, he did nothing wrong.
Yeah I was thinking the same thing - the timing of the delivery was excellent, and if you stop to think about it, it's absolutely bonkers narcissistic and the rhetoric used by an abusive manipulator.
"Sorry you felt hurt by what I was trying to do, pussy ass non charlie parker - hopefully next time you'll learn to appreciate that chair I threw at you and not take it the wrong way like a little bitch." is the essence of what he's saying to Andrew, knowing full well Andrew ratted him out - the whole conversation is nothing but manipulation of Andrew's feelings towards Fletcher and himself.
It’s cause he’s a narcissist, he truly can’t believe he has done anything wrong, that’s why he can’t even admit his own student committed suicide when it happens
@@sam-ht6qvabout what??? 😂
He made one mistake, though. He didn't find the next Charlie Parker. What he was doing was not a mistake, because it was a mission where the end was supposed to justify the means.
@@pootytang69You're wrong, because Fletcher wants to bring the best out of him trying to push him beyond what's expected. The end justifies the means.
It's crazy how Fletcher has this conversation knowing that Neiman ratted him out.
He wanted revenge, but at the same time, he wanted to explain himself too. Just another way in which Fletcher was testing Andrew.
@@futuremovieactor nah fletcher was trying to gaslight him to embarrass him in front of a live audience. he wasnt testing andrew he purely only did it for revenge.
@@shime8083 Except the way Andrew came back after that supports what Fletcher said here: that if he wanted it badly enough, he wouldn't let anything deter him away and he'd put all he could into it. I'm not saying it's right that Fletcher wanted to hurt Andrew by tricking him like that, I'm saying Andrew proved he was as passionate as Fletcher said he should be in the end and that's undeniable.
@@futuremovieactor andrew came back because fletcher manipulated him. i mean why else would he call him out on stage saying that he knew andrew was the reason he got fired. it was all manipulation and i guess if you were in his shoes fletcher would've fooled you too.
@@shime8083 Andrew was off the stage and didn't have to go back. He chose to. Him mouthing "Fuck you" to Fletcher and making Fletcher threaten to gouge out his eyes showed that if Fletcher didn't care about actually making Andrew better, he wouldn't have pushed him in the first place and would've still been bothered by Andrew coming back and denying him the humiliation factor. Fletcher gets off on the power and abuse, but when Andrew showed him he could do it, he was genuinely happy about it too.
I think I see why he got the Oscar.
That's childish
+Richard Rios Jr. GAYYYY
+Blake Rios my cousin has the same name as you
+Richard Rios Jr. What if i told you, that is your cousin...
XD
+GamerFrenzyBlog nah we just seem to have the same last name 😘 (no homo)
"You see I'm not a monster, I'm just ahead of the curve"
*WGRHEHWRE ISSHSE HIHEHEHHSSHGEHEE*
Lol 🤣
Why so serious?!
Something a monster said
First sign of a monster is not admitting you are one
You know the story of Peter Parker?
Yeah, J Jonah threw a violin at his head.
Oh my God.
He played him like a damn fiddle!
Ajay Bala was that true, which movie?
Don't you mean he threw a camera at him?
I understood that reference.
Charlie Parker had a cymbol thrown at his head, and became a success
Nieman had a chair thrown at his head and became a success
The key to success is to have a conductor throw something at your head
Now we know what stopped Thanos' jazz dream
BorealisJames
*Thanos:* “You should have aimed for the head 😢”
Parker never had a symbol thrown at his head
I want to be a writer. Someone throw a typewriter at my head
I got kicked out of choir cause I had a girl in my room past curfew when we were on a trip and my conductor threw a marker at my head when she heard about it
"I tried more than most people ever try."
"Good job."
*”Listen here you piece of shit...”*
🤣
Terence Fletcher is one hell of a film character.
His motivations and the means he takes to his ends are incredible.
Jo Jones did NOT, I repeat, did NOT "almost decapitate Charlie Parker with a cymbal". He lightly threw it at his feet, and chuckled a little bit, almost as a joke. It was NOWHERE NEAR as intense as Fletcher is describing. Fletcher is a delusional maniac, rewriting history to fit his own twisted narrative.
@@akshaynatu6568 isn't that what makes Fletcher a character in this?
@@akshaynatu6568 You don't say
@@PrinceFloof Well, not many people know the cymbal story is a total lie, dude.
@@a4arick106 Some people think this movie is about a guy who, although incredibly mean and often sadistic, genuinely wants to push his students to excellence and greatness and wants them to settle for nothing less. But that's not who Fletcher is at all, and more people should understand that. Andrew was playing absolutely fine all those times Fletcher interrupted him. Fletcher did it because he got rock hard being a sadistic bully and beating up on people.
There are too many who sacrifice their humanity for greatness, and not enough who achieve greatness because of their humanity.
Awesome. ..thanks
I look at the history of man and mankind is defined by those (rare few) who achieved greatness, not because of their humanity but in spite of it.
This movie completely lacks humanity.
fancy words with no meaning
There's a big difference between depicting an idea and promoting it. I don't think the movie is suggesting that putting your ego over your own happiness is a good thing.
This explains the ending scene. He doesn't get discouraged even though every fiber of his soul is telling him to hide under a rug and never play the drums again. Fletcher realizes that he created the next Charlie Parker in that moment, Neiman finds out at the concert, and with a knowing glance from them both the movie ends. Fucking brilliant film.
It just proved to me that they were equally broken people who deserved each other. Neither of them will be remembered, just as Charlie Parker won't be remembered. How many people under 30 who watched this movie had a frigging clue who Charlie Parker even was? And it's not like we learned anything meaningful about Parker; the story they told wasn't accurate. It's just a stupid lie that people attach their egos to in order to justify themselves to themselves. The hard truth is that these two people are clinging to a genre which left the mainstream more than sixty years ago, and the average person can't name a single song that Charlie Parker ever performed.
And between this film and "La La Land", Damian Chazelle could not have done a better job of making himself look like a pretentious one-trick pony.
@@JimmySteller "How many people under 30 who watched this movie had a frigging clue who Charlie Parker even was?" -> well, at least they know who Dixie D'Amelio is, right?
Jo Jones did NOT, I repeat, did NOT "almost decapitate Charlie Parker with a cymbal". He LIGHTLY threw it at his feet, and chuckled a little bit, almost as a joke. It was NOWHERE NEAR as intense as Fletcher is describing. Fletcher is a delusional maniac, rewriting history to fit his own twisted worldview.
@@JimmySteller resume: i'm a snowflake and i don't like jazz. I prefer crappy soulless pop music
Probably the worst music film I’ve ever seen.
There are no two words in the English language more damaging than 'good job...' Hey, Fletch - try 'trust me.'
or fuck me
Or "watch this"
or "dirty Sanchez"
"Mars bar."
"I do"
It's a dark scene. He's trying to recreate the cymbal throwing event that inspired Parker, and ultimately he succeeds with Andrew. But at what cost? Parker died at, I think, 34, as a lonely, obsessed junkie, and the film hints Andrew will head down that path. Or he could have just been, without Fletcher's influence, an excellent jazz drummer who led a normal life, and gave a shit about his dad, his girlfriend, and other people...
you completely missed the point.
@@alfredoxu7926 Nah dude this movie is so beautifully poetic because of how many ways it can be interpreted. I've always considered Whiplash a dark tale of passion turned obsession, and to me this seen encapsulates Fletcher's manipulative and cold-hearted intentions.
that's the moral question the movie asks... and doesn't answer and instead kept open for thought.
Not all great people die at 34. The implication that Parker's personal issues was a by product of him pursuing greatness is absurd.
He never would have been excellent.
I love the term "Starbucks Jazz" it pretty well describes the state of jazz today
He's talking about Jazz, not popular music. Not being in the mainstream and not pushing it further is not the same. And while we're at it, is there even one artist of any music gerne that actually change the game anymore? The last guy was Cobain, after that I can't remember anyone, the state of modern music now is just like the hair metal years, compressed and fucking dead. And we're not blaming anyone, that's just an observation.
RIP world since 2000
Stop acting like you listen to Jazz. You watched this movie which has LITTLE TO NO JAZZ and all of sudden you're some kind of expert. Impressionable idiot
Nuri Abdi the soundtrack is almost all jazz though, and is about jazz. Idiot
Justin Hurwitz did most of the scoring... He's not a Jazz artist... I mean if Justin Timberlake did the Sountrack to a Metal movie would he be Metal? The sountrack is just Film composers... Not Jazz musicians...
Those 2 belong together, both mad
and both cool. no pussies allowed
Both narrow minded individuals looking to be superior. That's dedication.
sums up the movie!
Peaches
You're pussy enough.
That's why you will never understand something is worth fighting for, even it makes you go crazy at the end it's still worth it.
Different people, different thoughts.
They are from slytherin thats why 😂
I love this one moment from 0:54 - 1:04, when Andrew congratulates him for preforming in a few festivals, and Fletcher just responds with, “it’s alright”. I think it shows that his standards are just as high for himself as they are for his students.
It almost seems like he’s just as hard on himself when pursuing his own career. In his mind, terms like “good job” or “you’ve made it” are nothing more than dead ends to him. So he refuses to settle for less and be content, which is why he politely rejects the compliment.
He's certainly not a hypocrite, we can give him that much.
I think he says it's alright because he wants to be making the next Charlie Parker, not performing at festivals. The fact that he's a hard ass himself goes without saying, nothing notable about that.
I got the impression he was taught music in a similar fashion to how he teaches his students. Cycle of abuse.
i think he’s like ‘it’s alright’ bc he doesn’t get to abuse that group of students like he did the kids at schaffer. being an abuser you can get addicted to treating people poorly, and something tells me when he spoke to the kids at the festival before they went on and played at the end of the film, he was pretending to be a nicer version of himself, which would have eaten him up inside.
I remember my band teacher throwing a marker at my head in 8th grade once. Still waiting to be the greatest clarinetist of all time.
Hope you're doing well man
man mine was just relentless
good job
Good job
I always feel that whatever I do is never good enough, so to be told "good job" is a bit of an insult. The fact is that if you are an artist, you could give it 110% and still not be satisfied with yourself.
In my experience, nine out of ten abusive teachers/supervisors fall back on the "I'm just pushing people" excuse because it has the benefit of both sounding noble and allowing the abusive person not to have to confront his damaged self. Simmons did a great job in this film keeping the abuser guessing to the very end whether Fletcher really is noble or just a damaged sociopath.
I think Fletcher is telling the truth because he seems to be kind to Andrew outside of class
I think it's a bit of both, I do believe he wants to bring out the best in his players but his methods are definitely extreme.
Having been through boot camp, I can tell you that the passion of someone who won't let you give up on yourself is a mile marker in personal development. You hate them in the process, but when it's all over, and they have successfully molded you into something you didn't think you were capable of, there is an amazing moment of mutual respect and understanding.
@@F.R.E.D.D2986Yeah, there's a reason why abusers seem "kind" at times.
That line at the end.
“I actually fucking tried, and that’s more than most people ever do, and I will never apologize for how much I tried.”
That hits me hard right there.
Jo Jones did NOT, I repeat, did NOT "almost decapitate Charlie Parker with a cymbal". He LIGHTLY threw it at his feet, and chuckled a little bit, almost as a joke. It was NOWHERE NEAR as intense as Fletcher is describing. Fletcher is a delusional maniac, rewriting history to fit his own twisted narrative.
@Akshay Natu Nobody cares
He said "how I tried," not "how much I tried." Changes the meaning.
@@akshaynatu6568 Yet his words remain true. You're exactly the type of folk he's describing. Those who sacrifice all good human qualities for comfort and mediocrity
@@evilgangstervcr5814 Then why the hell did you even reply, douch?
This for me is the most powerful moment in the film. It made me question the way I work in life. Everyone tells me to "keep it simple". Whiplash has made me wonder if "simple" is just a nice word for unproductive and mediocre
richfictionfighter Damn straight.
richfictionfighter Naw, man. Simple is different. Thats just a warning not to over-complicate things; you can say that to an engineer or a designer and it's still relevant. Doesn't mean they're not still pushing, being competitive, or falling to the "everyone's a winner" bullshit.
+richfictionfighter
Exactly
You just fucking nailed it with that comment! The world is filled with stinking mediocrity. With "good enough" and "you tried hard" and "good effort". Such stupidity. Too be superlative at something takes a monumental effort and a cutting through our mountain of bullshit.
They could've ended the film with this conversation and it still would've been a masterpiece
Neiman had a more meaningful conversation with Fletcher at the dinner table than his own family.
This guy should learn Mandarin and teach at a chinese conservatory lol
His methods would be perfectly accepted
"Asian"
you mean hymies
hello stereotyping nitwit
@john m Cool racism bro
@@Siegfried5846 at that point he's just kinda stereotyping, like one of those people who instantly think chinese when you bring up asian
Actually, this just shows how broken Fletcher is. The reality is that any alto saxophonist coming out of a conservatory is expected to be able to do what Charlie Parker did, at the very least. Jazz is dying because it's not part of mainstream culture anymore. Nobody's fucking swing dancing or going to beatnik clubs anymore. It's a subculture now just like classical music is. Will it resurface from time to time in mainstream culture? Yeah. It's not something to fucking panic and feel distressed about.
honestly I think it's better that way
whenever something becomes mainstream it gets commercialised and simplified so that more people can understand it and buy it.
the result is then a dead husk that was produced with only money in mind.
I prefer my jazz and classical music to be something only a select few can truly appreciate.
wolffe93 Why?
pon33villin cause most ppl are stupid
All people are stupid.
pon33villin and rock n roll is that popular now? that's not even on the radio any more either...what's relevant is the art..the music...the soul....not a freaking music degree...and nobody comes out of a university playing like Parker.... NOBODY...
I want to be like charlie parker, a heroin addict, depressed musician who died before he could even reach the age of 35
Greatness comes with a price.
@@jadchahhal1748 Often not worth it.
@@michaeldukes4108 Worth is subjective. It's not for you to decide what greatness is worth.
@@imallergictobullets When drug use and hard living destroys lives, families, health, mental well-being, but propels one “tortured genius” to a short life and a slightly longer legacy... Yeah, totally not up to me to say it’s not worth it.
@@michaeldukes4108 Maybe it’s not your cup of tea, but think of all the wonders of the world produced by tortured geniuses. Maybe they could have been happier, but at what cost to the world at large? Some can only be sustained in the pursuit of greatness, your level of mediocrity isn’t worth the lack of depression. Like I said, worth is subjective, not objective.
best movie of 2014 for me
DELETE YOUR TH-cam ACCOUNT NOW! YOU SHOULD BE ASHAMED OF YOURSELF
+Blake Rios no see kids in Africa could of ate that account
Richard Rios Jr.
+carmelo monaco Transformers Age of Extinction was the better
What about Birdman?
Too bad Fletcher lied about the Charlie Parker story.
He dropped a cymbal on the floor, basically "gonging" him off. Nowhere near as extreme as this guy.
AdamG1983 I see you watched the video by a jazz musician
Of course. He twisted the truth to fit his own agenda, just as he wrote soulless, bastardised jazz.
He prioritised suffering over anything else.
This does not make me think of fletcher to be any less of an evil person
I don’t believe the point is to justify Fletcher’s actions but rather contextualize why he is the way he is.
Incognito Rapscallion yeah that’s clear to me now. It’s bizarre how much you change between the ages of 17 and 20 lol
@@incognitorapscallion6504 Even if it contextualizes them, it shows he is distorted, believing that abuse is the only route to achieving greatness.
J Coles Oh, agreed! I’m just saying it provides explanation for his distortion.
@Christian Lopez ah yes, nothing like mental and physical abuse to students from someone who is delusional and egocentric. Be doesnt go off of merit, he goes by what will stroke his ego the best
Fletcher is the Gordon Ramsay of music.
_Shawarmaman _ More like the Gunnery Sergeant Hartman of Music.
At least Ramsay does not hit his students
@@burritotortellini5985 That was exactly my reaction.
@@burritotortellini5985 LET ME SEE YOUR TEMPO FACE!!
More like the John Kreese of Music.
His motivation seems pretty selfish, really. He's looking for HIS "Charlie Parker", but in doing so he is willing to hurt so many people in the process. The means he uses are immoral, abusive, and discouraging for most people. He is a foolish man.
No. hes drawing andrew in to screw him. Did you watch the movie?
He thinks jazz is dying. If he doesn't do what he does, he's depriving the world of the next great musician. Obviously what he's doing isn't right, but this scene is great because, for me at least, it makes me forget that he's a gigantic asshole
@@miguelsmoviereviews1580 exactly
@@miguelsmoviereviews1580 It is a distraction for people who watch it for the first time but once you realise after the fact when he screws over andrew, this (to me, anyways) is one of the darkest scenes in the film. By completely destroying andrews hopes when he embarrassed him on stage, this shows that Fletcher genuinely wanted to see Andrew's hopes and future disappear. But, luckily for Fletcher, Andrew had massive balls to return to play caravan, which essentially gave Fletcher his "Charlie Parker" moment. I think by the film ended they were both in the neutral area which was great
I love how people cherry-pick parts of Fletcher's speech to validate their own illusions about there being a method to his madness even though he's just a raging egomaniac whose methods drove a person to suicide and him having learned absolutely NOTHING from it. Yet here they are, thinking it's OK to mentally and physically abuse someone on the dubious belief that it might lead to success. After all, it worked so well with Sargeant Hartmann and Private Pyle.
The worst kind of teacher is the one that doesn't learn anything themselves.
yet one of the many reasons you should not base your philosophy or world views on movies
Yeah but this is how you achieve greatness. There is no "great" person that isn't somehow mentally unstable. It's just not possible. You want to live a life that's almost always happy, content, and comfortable? Yeah be mediocre, act like you know what you're talking about, never achieve anything more significant than your university degree, and you're there.
@@festivebear9946 You mean the same life of mediocrity you're living right now? Yeah, keep acting like you know what you're talking about and somehow exempt yourself from the very thing you're shunning. At least I know what I want out of life and am happy with that.
I may not be a success but I sure as hell know that Fletcher's way is not even remotely the right one, because if your idea of "success" is to become a soulless drone at the hands of a man that mentally and physically abused you, made you give up on all the people that cared about you and destroyed your own sense of self-worth, then I'll gladly live a life of mediocrity and die knowing that I held my head high and didn't bow down to some petty and sadistic bully that tried to hide his petty cruelty behind a veil of wholesomeness.
Success is when a man sets his eyes on a goal, no matter how small or trivial, and he manages to achieve that goal of his own will. If that's not good for you, then that's your problem, no one else's.
Fletcher misrepresented the story but he wasn't entirely wrong. Parker was still embarrassed as fuck when Jones gonged him off in front of other people.
@@supereldinho it’s not just success it’s greatness, glory and perfection. And all of those things require sacrifice any man knows true greatness requires you to sacrifice
"Other wise we're depriving the world of the next Louie Armstrong..The next Peter Parker"
"What?"
"Hmm?"
Because it's Jonah Jameson with Mr Fantastic
Meta!
People forget this is Tenzin, or don't care about Avatar/Legend of Korra. But in the words of Spider-Ham "you got a problem with cartoons?"
Lmaoooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
Omni-Man. :)
Andrew should have responded to "I tried" with "good job"
Deep down when Fletcher said he never truly had a next Charlie Parker it bothered Andrew. Andrew always had the drive and the hunger for being the next genius musician and Fletcher helped Andrew strive for that level of perfection. This scene has a lot more meaning to me than just some quick bonding moment between two characters.
"because the next Charlie Parker would never be discouraged" is my favorite quote in this whole speech
apparently jo jones actually threw the symbol at parkers feet as a symbol to leave the stage, either they changed it to make it seem more extreme for the sake of the movie, or fletcher just twisted the story in order to justify his own poor treatment of his own students.
I understand where Fletcher is coming from with the whole "good job" thing but his methods of teaching were still very abusive and not worth someone losing their life over. Sometimes enough is enough.
Jo Jones did NOT, I repeat, did NOT "almost decapitate Charlie Parker with a cymbal". He LIGHTLY threw it at his feet, and chuckled a little bit, almost as a joke. It was NOWHERE NEAR as intense as Fletcher is describing. Fletcher is a delusional maniac, rewriting history to fit his own twisted narrative.
Yeah. Insults and verbal abuse are not the only alternative to “good job” ; there is such a thing as “constructive criticism”
And for the past five years you have woken up and thought that to yourself, and because of that thought you will never be what you could be
@@zyzzsdisciples6707 There is literally nothing motivational about you at all. You’re one of those fake motivational quote accounts that post these uninspired messages to sound edgy and unique.
@@zyzzsdisciples6707 You want something actually helpful? None of the teachers like Fletcher hiding their abuse by being “inspirational” can actually do anything to motivate you. The only person who can, is yourself. You wanna heed onto someone like that’s words as gospel? That’s on you.
One of the best films of the decade
There are no six words in the English language more hilarious than "Can you pay me in advance?" - J J Jameson
I had a boss decades ago who always said "good job" no matter how cut rate your work was, and even then I knew it was harmful.
There are many success stories came out from tragedy, however there are endless success stories came out from encouragement and kindness.
Life’s too short man.
My favorite aspect of this scene is the fact it's such immersive dialogue I wanted to step in and debate Fletcher. I've thought about this scene plenty of times and when he says that he doesn't think the real Charlie Parker would be discouraged, I want to push on that point and state that he wouldn't because he's doing it for himself, and because he's doing it for himself, being told he did a good job wouldn't stop him either. The best artists in history are often their own worst critics by nature, and as such to excuse such abusive tendencies as Fletcher demonstrates simply discredits the artist's own drive and sets them up for pain in other areas of their life.
This movie's a masterpiece, easily.
Ruthless ambition vs. humanity/self-love is a fascinating dialectic, and serves as the intellectual backbone of this film. The major flaw in Fletcher’s argument is that he isn’t sacrificing as much as his students. Fletcher wants to use the accomplishments of his students to validate himself. I have always felt similarly about the many fat athletics coaches who insist on pushing their athletes past their limits, when they themselves are lazy bastards.
I had a shitty boss once who was a big shot in the industry I work in and he made me feel useless all the time. So I decided to push through day after day, learning and getting better at it, but no matter what I did he always made me feel like I was doing everything wrong. In the end, when I was leaving the company for a better job I heard through the grapevine that he actually looked up to me and thought I was smart and really good at my job. I spent months pushing myself to the limit because I wanted to prove him wrong, and in the end, I had nothing to prove. Was it wrong what he did? Yes, but if it wasn't for his treatment I would have felt content, I wouldn't have learned all the stuff that I learned, I wouldn't have developed so many skills and I probably wouldn't have gotten a better job.
This movie touches me deeply because it reminds me of that situation. I disagree with what you're saying, if the expectations are low then you will get mediocre results because people are not going to try to push harder. The thing is, very few people are aware of the potential that they have inside of them, other people need to see it and show them that it's there. And, sadly, there's nothing like shitty situations and shitty treatment to push people into using that potential to their max, because in these situations they realize that they need to put heart and soul into their work otherwise there will be consequences. If you don't think that way then I challenge you to ask yourself, in which situations you took most advantage of your skills and overall potential?
There's actually a recent series of Harvard studies on motivation... It was comparing carrots and sticks (rewards, punishments) as motivators, to no motivators. The studies found that for simple tasks that required no thinking, a.k.a. stuff like bagging coffee, the greater the reward or the punishment, the better the results. BUT for tasks that required even rudimentary thought, either the reward/punishment didn't help, or in some cases it was harmful, and in those cases the greater the rwrd/punishment the worse the result. A study worth checking out, it's cited in a TED Talk called The Puzzle Of Motivation.
Reward/punishment stifles creativity. It's great for getting people to kick a football, run a mile, etc. Terrible for getting someone to think of a cure for cancer. Zero stress environments are much more conducive to creativity and innovation.
Almost anyone can perform simplistic tasks, that's why temporary rewards/punishments (aka. external motivators) work regardless of the presence of internal motivation. Those tasks that require higher level cognition and/or effort to even get mediocre at are much harder to perform adequately when the anticipation of external motivators disrupts the normal dynamics of effortful development of these skills (i.e those that manifest from application of internal motivation).
Inaki Pertierra exactly! I agree strongly
There’s no universal approach for anyone. Fletcher is 100% wrong. Fletcher heard about the Charlie Parker story sometime in his formative years and decided he was going to find the next Parker by employing the same tactics. But that approach worked for *Parker.* There’s an odd contradiction amongst humans in that we are all alike, yet we are all so very different.
One of the greatest heavyweight boxers in history was Mike Tyson. Tyson was a kid from the dangerous ghettos of Brooklyn. He was used to robbing, fighting, and hustling to survive. His mentor didn’t ride on him, he did the opposite. He showed Tyson the 1 thing he always wanted....someone to love and care for him. In his documentary, Tyson talks about how Cus D’Amato mentored him and constantly praised him with compliments and affection. Tyson admits that initially it weirded him out and he even thought Cus might be gay. But looking back he realizes that Cus saw a kid who never had anyone who praised him and he was doing everything he could to build up Tyson’s confidence.
By the end, Tyson felt like he could destroy mountains with his fists.
Now, I would present to Fletcher, what do you think a 13 year old hoodlum Tyson, who was used to robbing people at gunpoint, would react if you got in his face and called his mother a whore and told him he was a faggot who sucked cock?
Thank you.
the cinematography is top notch
He’s shot like Brando in AN the darkness brings the kid in
What everybody seems to miss is that Fletcher's philosophy is based on a lie.
In real life, Jo Jones did not throw a cymbal at Parker's head, he threw at the ground next to him as a way to gong him off.
Charlie was indeed disheartened by Jones' reaction and it gave him motivation to practice for months and months, but Jones didn't nearly decapitate him for his mistake. He was basically saying to Charlie "Yeah... that ain't working, kid. Knock it off."
Now either Fletcher doesn't know this or he does know it and chooses to overlook it. But Fletcher's methods used in his quest to find the next Charlie Parker don't seem to hold much merit, because the real Charlie Parker was in fact not formed from such methods. And so far all Fletcher seems to have really achieved was a talented student who hanged himself only a few years later.
I think trying so hard to create a Charlie Parker is the primary reason he never had one.
Firelord House Interesting thought. Or that there could never truly be another Charlie Parker
@@joewhitehead3 The worst thing an artist in any discipline can do to themselves is trying to be the next someone instead of being themselves.
Didn’t you watch the whole movie?
To think there's people who unironically, genuinely see this scene as "inspirational"
They need help.
@@alessandroofthemediterraneanBoth you and the original commenter have mediocre souls.
I find the whole movie to be inspirational. You're never going to be great at something by putting in mediocre work
And it sort of is, depending on your goal. By the end, Fletcher's perspective and tactic worked. He created one of the greats. And he wanted that just as much as the drummer did. For some, who have a sole goal, it can be "inspirational".
Frightens me, especially since they’re all forgotten to time in a century. The real people achieving this greatness above any other isn’t going to be in this comment section arguing about it. It’s good to have that mindset just not for the peak of the pyramid. You’ll never get there.
It's subtle, but I absolutely love the way Andrew says, "yeah.." after Terrence says, "No man, no. Because the next Charlie Parker would never be discouraged." The look on Andrew's face says it all. He already knew the answer to the question.
"I just want to get you to perform up to your level." Translation: "I enjoy making myself feel big by making you feel small."
To be fair, Fletcher might actually have good intentions. Nonetheless, I think his methods do more harm than good. Rather than panning for those nuggets, Fletcher immediately pulls out the dynamite. Sure, he may find the mother load but he'll destroy a hell of a lot of real estate in the process.
No man can accept being shouted at like that. I'm surprised he had any players left by the time he was fired.
So the last time he saw Fletcher he tackled him on stage in a bloody mess and now they are good buddies remembering the old days
Some people in the comments clearly don't see a line between abuse and pulling out potential.
I wager these lads have never ever ever ever been verbally abused to the point where your heart breaks and you go depressed and broken.
Agreed. But Simmons isnt wrong here.
@Steve McQueen depends on the person, when they weren't reaching for the stars in the first place, then good job wouldn't make a difference to them, if they were already reaching, good job isn't gonna slow them down, they want to do better, it's self discipline, not someone else's approval
boo hoo
Have you considered, maybe it’s the other way around?
Abuse victims have higher tolerance for abuse. You don’t think it’s a coincidence that “Vance culture” stems from modern first world countries; complaints from people who’ve been handfed all their lives?
Probably the most chilling little bit in the whole movie, in my opinion, is the way Fletcher just casually engages in a warm conversation with Andrew, despite their last interaction being Andrew attacking Fletcher on stage at the end of a performance. It is a chilling example of how abusers tend to overlook any sort of attack on themselves for the sake of engaging in manipulative tactics with ease. I'm pretty Andrew was disarmed by the way Terrence approached him so seemingly amiably despite there being some obvious very hot air between them.
Sublime acting. This film is a masterpiece.
This scene really shows how complex Fletcher actually is: although he is manipulative and verbally abusive, he still has a bit good intentions since he’s looking for the best musician possible, and because people are afraid to give criticism, it often ends up with the performance being mediocre. On one hand, you would be that guy who says “Yes, Fletcher totally deserved to get fired”, but on another hand when you hear him say “I never had a Charlie Parker. But I tried, I actually fucking tried”, you start to understand him a little. I also just love how he can go from being a cool and polite man to being highly aggressive to being reflective.
The best thing I like about Fletcher (and the movie in general) however is that I can relate to the situations. I have had a theatre director and karate instructor who were both like him (to some degree anyway): almost always in an angry mood and often had angry outbursts, constantly cursed, were perfectionists, and seemed to treat their students more like tools. My karate instructor even looked a bit like Fletcher, and my theatre instructor could often look happy and nice to people he knew that were not a part of the production and then become serious and moody whenever he entered the drama room. I even reported my theatre instructor once for being too unreasonable in his statements, and I think some of my fellow students did the same. Despite all of this, they both became soft every time someone did a good job and I have more good memories about them than bad ones, which I probably would not have if Fletcher was my instructor.
+StrasbergProtégé I liked Fletcher through the whole movie. I've met so many proffessors like him. Im not saying its cool to be aggressive, but I feel like movie forced the depiction of him, making craft a terrible and miserable thing for the students that have to commit their whole life to it. Thats not how it works. I've been there and none of the people who work 24/7 would be there if they didnt want to.
StrasbergProtégé
actually he's pretty one dimensional. i would have thought he would change a little seeing how Andrew got into a car accident but he actually has zero remorse.
bananian
He isn't one-dimensional because on the surface, he's aggressive, manipulative, and verbally abusive, but deep in his core, he's only looking for the best musician possible and has shown a handful of times that he does care about those who excel in jazz. The intrigue however is the standard he sets for what he considers a great musician and his very questionable methods, and that's something every teacher today struggles with; are you supposed to be as pedgogical as possible or are you supposed to be disciplined and bring out the best from your students?
Because of Fletcher, there's a recurring question in the film; what is the most important thing? To have fun and enjoy your living or to be the best and sacrifice all the other parts of your life?
Plus that Fletcher showed a genuine sadness over his top-student dying (although he didn't know he committed suicide because of him), and in the final drum solo, he at first looked pissed off because he was beaten by Andrew in his own game, but then his subtext revealed "Well, he's reaching my standard, so why not take it?"
And of course we have his lines "People wonder why jazz is dying", "I know I've made some enemies", and "I never had a Charlie Parker, but I tried!"
I've never seen a movie antagonist like Fletcher before, but he's certainly one of the most human ones.
When it comes to music, you really just have to grind out the parts you know while the instructor is really only to tell you what to do in parts that you are not sure of, s/he can only show you the door, you have to walk through it.
bananian
But there's always a standard in art. If it wasn't, people would have been satisfied with everything they saw no matter how poorly executed it was, and this certainly isn't the case with the reality we live in. Fletcher makes the viewer wonder how far somebody's willing to go and sacrifice in order to reach the standard and what is the most important thing out of prestige and having fun
Unfortunately the part where Fletcher is wrong is about whether or not there is a line. Not all great Jazz musicians have a story like Charlie Parker and by crossing the line he IS discouraging potentially great musicians, just like the one that killed themselves and not to mention Andrew who almost died in a car accident because of Fletcher, Fletcher's Charlie Parker almost never was because of Fletchers pressure was so great that Andrew almost ended up a smear on the side of the road. Andrew didn't succeed because of Fletcher even though both may believe so, he succeeded in spite of him. His dad had been telling him music wasnt worth it and he wasnt going to be anything long before Fletcher showed up I don't see anyone giving his dad credit for making him into what he was at the end. No one made Andrew great save Andrew's own passion.
I really like how Fletcher goes “hey I get it, I know I made… (and we think he’s gonna say mistakes) enemies”. Which just lines up with his character and Andrew’s perception of him so well
I couldn't help myself but think when he calls "good job" the most dangerous phrase in the english language, that that phrase never caused somebody to die at 34 from a heroin overdose...that seemed a little contradictory to me
How do we know that if the “good job” incident never happened he wouldn’t have ended up the same way. Working hard and an heroin overdose don’t have a lot in common. I guess you can argue that heroin was an escape from his music career or something like that but hindsight is always 20/20
"You see, I am not really a monster, I am just ahead of the curve". That line would have suited this scene pitch perfectly.
I'm sure your admirable search for the next great musician will be of great comfort to the suicide victim's friends and family.
Nor Norranun Exactly so. But in that case I feel its disrespectful to try and say that he has some great purpose besides molding the next great for his personal legacy by crafting a system of near pathological codependency and slaves to his approval.
Jakira Kumahata some people are too weak to achieve something, of course being hard on them isn't nice and bla bla, but that's how the world is. Perfection requires sacrifises
HDTVGamePlay You're absolutely correct. And I'm sure that sacrifice was definitely worth a really good drummer.
HDTVGamePlay This kind of sacrifice is not the only way to success. Give me a legitimate study that this kind of abusive dictatorian teacher is the best way to improve your skills. Why? Because I can only find studies that show otherwise. Btw, the anecdote of Charlie Parker simply wasn't true.
And yeah, the greatest musicians are not the most technically great. They are usually the most intellectually creative kind of great.
As soon as a girl dumps you, or a family member or a friend betrays you ,you will realize that pursuing greatness was better than being a fucking nice dude.
I've found myself wondering that a few times. I've given so much of myself to others and get completely fucked over. Now I realize that being a good guy has done nothing for me.
This movie teaches something big about discouragement. That no matter how hard you fail, you need to alway keep trying.
This is something you find alot of in the military. It's what creates soldiers that are the highest caliber.
GeneralZoot underrated comment
art isn't the military. It thrives on personal creativity and independence. Not drill sergeants. Despite how boomers love to complain art has gotten mediocre, it really hasn't. We've got more talented artists now than ever before. The only mediocrity that comes from art that is harmful are those monetized by faceless private corporations whose only desire is to do the bare minimum toe exercise maximum profitability. This is why Indie films and art house pictures, where the minds behind them have more creative control, have much more exemplary writing than a generic action Blockbuster riddled with studio mandates.
@Christian Lopez I agree discipline is necessary but it isn't they key which ultimately unlocks the creative minds of the future. Being devoted to your passion is a given if you're to make great art but that's just the first step. As long as people still convinced that they must actively hurt themselves to accomplish their goals is a harmful ideology and destroys the art world more than buids it. What I personally have a problem with is the industry. Even though what's popular has changed in the grand scheme of things it was never about merit but marketability, and we've been shifting to that more and more lately. To the point where the genre of making film with the intent of being artful has become niche in the form of arthouse. It's fucking tragic that we've got more talented artists than ever but are constantly being overlooked due to the new popular business model which continues to pedal the myth that art is dead, when it's actually just not popular anymore. At least true art isn't
There’s a big difference between a soldier and an artist.
when you fail hard in the military you die lol. Unless you're in a peace-time military and "greatness" in measured in EPRs
"Any fucking moron can wave his arms and keep people in tempo" - JK Simmons.
A lot of great artists die because of individuals like Fletcher
That’s aight we get great music win win
Isn't the Charlie Parker story a myth and it's just Fletcher trying to justify his psychotic, abusive behavior?
It's a half myth I guess you could say. Jo Jones did throw a cymbal at Charlie Parker, but it was at his feet after Parker was losing tempo and Jones was kind of losing patience, and it was tell Parker that his time was over. There was no "nearly decapitated him" as this movie suggests, but Parker got the message the same way. And then... He practiced... and he practiced, as Fletcher says. But the cymbal throwing at head, that's wrong.
Wait is this movie based on a true story ?
@@barcaforever5074 no just inspired from swan lake and full metal jacket.
@@barcaforever5074 its not actually true but the Director had a simillar teacher.thats how he got the idea
I’m pretty sure Fletcher made that story up to justify his abusive behavior
Brilliant performance by J.K. Simmons who is a fantastic actor but a nod has to be given to the top notch writing .
We all knew teachers like this man. So much passion for teaching, so little understanding of pedagogy ;)
a few words to people seeking to improve at anything:
my mentor was hard on me as a growing artist, but he never personally attacked me. it was always about my art, he always pushed me to challenge my weaknesses head on. whenever I felt bad about a piece and someone said "good job," I saw through their shit. I learned to listen to that voice bitching at me for not being good enough, but I also listened to the voice that said I earned a compliment when credit was due.
it's bullshit to say that all of the true gods of any field suffer through insane abuse to get there. maybe some do, and it worked for them. that's fine. but others are uplifted and discover who they are through healthy criticism and encouragement, and succeed that way. this scene tries too hard to suggest that only the first one works.
if you're scared of honest criticism, toughen up. growth doesn't come without pain. if you're letting others stomp you into the dirt, have some more self-respect. you're not your teacher's little bitch, you're their student.
at the end of the day it's about being real with yourself. that's priority 1.
The fact that he criticized your art and not you is interesting. That's kind of what this film is trying to show with Fletcher's methods: is he attacking the person or their ability?
@@Guigley What Fletcher did was abuse.
I may not agree with his methods but I do understand his point of having determination & commitment instead of lowering your standards. Take James Cameron & his perfectionism with filmmaking, or Gordon Ramsay with his cooking. Achieving your highest point of success is going to be extremely rough but if you care enough, you know it will be worth it in the end.
I hated Fletcher for most of this film, but right here, this is the scene where I started to understand him. By the end of it, I actually started to empathize with how he felt. I didn't quite like him until the ending, but this scene was really the turning point for me.
I was wondering the whole time when the rug was gonna get pulled out from under my feet or.... Andrews. Throughout the movie he takes Neiman to the side to have a quiet friendly chat to build him up. Then completely demolishes him during performances and that moment does come with the "I know it was you" But ultimately Andrew rises to the situation and plays his heart out
John Woodland i always liked the character cause he was a badass, but you can only truly understand his rhetoric until this scene,
John Woodland i like him
John Woodland
i got him straight away because he is pretty much Gordon Ramsay and Ramsay says the exact same thing. He wanted to push people to be at their best.
i did too, but rewatching i realised it was still fucked up. One of your students literally kills himself and you're gonna continue with your method just to try and get another good musician? I dont know...
Wish i had a teachers/coaches like Fletcher. Maybe not as extreme but someone who actually criticized me even when i did good. I had my share of ''you are good'' and ''good enough'' in life but in all cases i knew i couldve done better (be it at school, or my music lessons or basketball or whatever). The best performances i did was after rare occasions when i was criticized. I dont mind getting yelled at. After each critic i wouldnt sleep at night and i would constantly think about it, how i am not as good as i thought but every time i would got back up and practice my ass off only to do something better than ever. Sadly not many teachers understand this concept, that negative feedback usually gives better results.
If you knew you could have done better, why did you need someone else to tell you that before trying harder next time? Motivation can also come from within.
It's more meaningful to be criticized by someone you look up to in your craft, imo I guess.
He’s very manipulative. Lol
@Christian Lopez shut the fuck up
@Christian Lopez he was following an example that didnt exist though.
He wanted to create the next Charlie parker but has warped the story which, in turn, changed where he would set the line.
Jo Jones never threw the cymbal at Parkers head but on the ground in frustration. You may think theres no difference but there is. Fletcher is shown in the movie tossing things at his students head, clearly trying to replicate that. But that version only exists in his head.
Not only that but he went too far. There is a line you can't cross when both improving and helping someone improve. Apply his methods to weight lifting and he just pushes down the dumbbell onto his spot partner because he thinks the partner is not doing well enough. You think that will help him improve or will it end up damaging the partners body? Chances are the latter as improving, while tough, has to be done with ease as well. The same is said of the mind
@Christian Lopez But you also know when to take it easy and look back and appreciate where you came from.
And judging from what the director said, Neiman wouldn't live a good life afterward. Consider what he went through and lost to gain the appreciation of a man who wanted to replicate a path that never existed.
Pushing yourself is good and I will always say improve yourself. But when that crosses the line and starts to hurt you, learn to let it go and live.
@Christian Lopez And that's a great message. But don't think that because Fletcher said it.
Fletcher, as I said, followed a warped example that drove people to hurt and kill themselves. Thats not how any instructor should act. Once people start feeling bullied and abused, you've crossed a line. He deserved to be fired and yet he didn't see an issue with his methods despite how damaging they were.
Improving is good. But abusive behaviour is not the way to go with it.
what I learn from this scene is that the world can't push for greatness no more, the only one who can push for greatness is each individual person.
This scene is also meant to excuse Fletcher causing the death of a student through his abuse. All monsters absolve themselves by making excuses. Fletcher's reasoning here is almost identical to one of the villains of The Last Ship, who absolved herself of the crimes against humanity she committed (including murdering the infected for fuel at a power plant and attempting to harvest a pregnant woman's baby for a shot at a cure) by trying to justify her actions as "noble." Fletcher's BS in this scene is the same way. It's obvious he hasn't lost any sleep over causing the death of a student. That's the kind of person who should stay the hell away from a classroom.
His response to Fletcher's "I tried" should've just been a dry "Good job". Wham!
It's a nice bit of mythology - that you need to push someone beyond their limits to get greatness. Yet many Jazz musicians had minimal formal training and no one pushing them except themselves. Think of some of the biggest names in Jazz and you'd struggle to name a Fletcher character who was pushing them. Who pushed Buddy Rich or Louie Bellson or Gene Krupa? (Answer - they did...)
I don't know why I laughed so hard when Fletcher said, "Tanner joined pre-med"
It’s always the bar scenes in movies with this type of dialogue that makes the movie
I was 12 years old when I watched this movie. This scene was so thought-provoking to me and made me reflect on how I do everything in my life
I thought jazz was dying because popular music shifted over the years. Rock n' Roll became the bane of jazz's existence. Then rap/alternative did the same for rock, then dubstep/electronic did the same for that, and so on. Music has evolved into some sort of carnivorous food chain.
I love movies like this.. where right and wrong are not so clearly delineated. When you see potential greatness in people, it is your duty to push them? And if you push them, where do you draw the line to not push beyond? Or is the only option to keep pushing to see if they will crack and be left behind with the others, or push through and become the greatness you can envision? An if no one pushes, then where does greatness come from? Is self-motivation enough to achieve greatness, or is it a product of yourself and your environment? All these questions you are left with, and in some ways it gives you a glimpse into the complexities of humanity.
It's not really that complicated. "No pain, No gain". It only seems complex to lazy people who want things easy. "The more the arrow is pulled back, the further it goes".
Well, I'm coming from a realistic perspective.. not everyone can be a "Charlie Parker." And even based on statistical norms, everything is based on a bell-shaped curve. Not everyone's IQ can be over 100. Not everyone's capacity to endure psychological pressure can be excellent. Everyone can work hard and needs to work hard, and I agree with "no pain, no gain." But reality stands that just because you work hard doesn't mean we will achieve the same outcome. Also how we achieve our best may be variable. It may work best to scream at a person to motivate them, while for another it will only depress them and it's counterproductive. I just think if the intent is to actually help people become their best, we need to understand what can actually help them, not just apply the same template to diverse individuals.
llangel314ll Then those people should go to a mediocre school and not the BEST one. If you think you are not great then don't try to be, you will get disappointed. Certain levels of Success aren't for everybody. Working hard on one thing and not working hard on other things wont achieve it. If you enter a situation with your mind state, you are already on the decline from being the best. This movie is about being THE BEST, not settling. Not everyone is built like a tank, mentally, and emotionally. The weak,They don't qualify. It's that simple. There are plenty of "regular" jobs out there for "regular" people to shoot for.
I could agree with that - if you're aiming to be the best, then you need to be realistic and expect yourself and others to push you. Though if we're strictly talking about this movie, then I would question why Fletcher didn't push everyone as much as he did Andrew. The best schools don't just accept one person, they accept a whole array of many talented people. But if you're competing with the best, then the reality is 99% of people who aren't weak, aren't average, and aren't regular, will simply not be the best. Not sure if that means 99% of those people should have applied for mediocre schools though.
llangel314ll Because this movie was ABOUT Andrew. It was HIS story. So they focused more on him. Never EXPECT others to push you. That's a loser's way of thinking. Only you can push you, even if someone else try, you could always quit. Listen. It seems you have already made your choice in life, you are just trying to find others to settle with you (Misery loves company). So go write a bunch about why you aren't where you need to be and point fingers to everyone. It's your life. Nobody cares what you become, but you.
You can push someone beyond what's expected of them without resorting to scare tactics. You just have to be as good a teacher as this guy is an actor.
I really want to know where Fletcher's mentality truly came from. How did his parents treat him jesus.
This is the scene in that splits audience down the middle: but not in the sense of "love it" or "hate it." You could look at this scene as just an example of Fletcher's delusions. Yes, the next great musician is a noble cause, but is it worth the death of a student? Of course not. However, if music has impacted your life in such a phenomenal way as it has with mine, this scene takes on a more personal tone. That line - "The next Charlie Parker wouldn't get discouraged," that has become a missions statement. Whenever I look at my life, and realize there's a bunch of crap in it, I also think that if I were to play it safe right now, roll over and have society pat me on the stomach like a good dog - I would be doing a disservice to the art form that has kept me sane in times of struggle. This isn't about a passion, this a need like water or food. With this scene, if one doesn't have that mindset, one is not going to "get" fletcher. I LOVE THIS MOVIE!!
The Owl- Eyes I understand Fletcher's reasonings but I feel like he went a bit too far, it's not worth someone losing their life over. Andrew thinks that there should be a line, and I agree more with him even though I understand where Fletcher's coming from.
scifinerd17 no he doesn’t think there should be a line, he just asked if there should be. Its clear by the end that he actually agrees with Fletcher, since he doesnt get discouraged by Fletcher’s sabotage of him and comes back to play his finale solo.
Really well said.
This movie is brilliant because it doesn’t tell you who is right or wrong. The austere and abusive training style will no doubt destroy a lot of people, but it can also sometimes awaken the inner potential of a select few whose talent may otherwise have remained dormant forever. Is it worth tearing apart thousands of kids in the hope that a couple of them will emerge as geniuses? Maybe, maybe not. Different people will have different answers on this one.
"The truth is I..... never really had a Charlie Parker"
damn, he did sean casey dirty.
this scene inspired me to do my best at things i do.great movie
People act like this movie is healthy and that its good he continued to drum, he literally signed his soul off to the devil.
When J. K. Simmons won the Oscar, someone said to him: "Good Job".
The best way to mentor a person depends on that person, and it is up to a good teacher to recognize the best way to mentor that person. But if someone does a mediocre job, the mentor should say so, but no one should throw cymbals or abuse anyone.
I would rather have those who try too hard and take it too far then those who don't try at all.
1:19 "by throwing chairs at their heads and almost killing them."
This is why I love the character of Fletcher. He isn't just some mad asshole that tortures his students he is a guy that strives for perfection in a world that has learned to accept the mediocre.
And it's not for his own ego it's for his love and dedication for the craft.
You saw it at the end of the movie when Andrew started playing.
At first he was pissed at Andrew but then as he saw him play as he saw him reach new heights he started seeing Andrew as an equal and was actually proud of him.
But let me make this clear he is still a major dick and i dont approve of his methods in any way,shape or form but i understand his conviction and reason.
When i graduated elementary school my grades were horrible. I didnt get into a good middle school.
I dont know how its done in other countries but in the Netherlands middle schools and highschools are divided into ranks based on difficulty. there are six ranks.
I was in a middle that ranked second to last. I knew no good carreer would follow this route so i said F it all and committed myself 100% to my study. I rejected accepting mediocrity.
With the years i got into better and better schools because my grades got better and better.
The path i took was longer than most but i stand here today in my third year of college studying pharmaceuticals one of the best colleges in this country. A place no1 had imagined i would ever achieve.
So again i dont approve of his methods but i understand and respect his drive for perfection and rejection of mediocrity.
You are so correct.
You are so right but we all are so mediocre because we don't push ourselves to absolute limits. I guess not everybody is capable of that..I am surely not :( !!
Wow, didn't know you have school divisions in Netherlands ..
Here in Brazil to enter on a federal public university for example you make a test with 180 questions( about math, chemistry, biology, geo, sociology, portuguese, literature, arts, physics, history).
Imagine 5 million people doing this. You must study really hard here to pass.
It's true that you need to push yourself into greatness and constructive criticism is needed, but several types of extreme abuse is never necessary. They say pressure can turn coal into diamonds, but in reality it just crushes it.
You could tell that fletcher was steaming when drew asked if he quit
I would never have learned to play a single chord if the people who taught me weren't so aggressive about it. Every time I made a mistake and got yelled at made me realise how much I really wanted to learn to play. It encouraged me to take practice seriously and to truly enjoy playing
Watching this again it’s painful to watch realizing Fletcher was pretending to be nice.
*Year 2053*
''Otherwise we're depriving the world from the next Charlie Parker or the next Andrew Neiman. Did I ever tell you the story of how Andrew Neiman became Andrew Neiman?''
''Terrence Fletcher hurled a chair at him.''
''Exactly. Now Andrew's a young kid, very good on the drums. Andrew being the nervous wreck he is, completely messes up on the tempo during a repetition. And Fletcher nearly demolished him for it. That night, Andrew cried himself to sleep. But the next morning, what does he do? He practices, and he practices, and he practices with one goal in mind; To never let anyone down on his ambition to become a musician.
Around a year later, he meets up with his teacher. His teacher wanted revenge for their past hiatus, therefore giving him the wrong music sheets after inviting Andrew to play on stage in front of hundreds of people. Andrew embarrassed himself completely. But when he was about to stand up and walk away, he went back on those drumkits and played one of the best motherfucking solos the world has ever heard.
Now imagine if Fletcher went to Andrew and told ''Alright, listen kid. The tempo's a bit weak. We got to work on that. You're doing great, good job.'', Andrew would think ''Yeah, practice makes perfect, sure, I guess I did a pretty good job.''. The end. No bird. That, to me, is an absolute nightmare. I guess that's what the world wants now... No wonder why jazz has died.
There are no two words more harmful in the English language than 'Good job'. Fletcher told Andrew that exact same thing years ago.''
''Are you sure there's no line? A line where, once passed, can never be crossed again? The limit? Discouraging Andrew Neiman from becoming Andrew Neiman?''
''No. Because the next Andrew Neiman would never be discouraged. You know, Jason, the truth is I never had an Andrew Neiman. But I actually fucking tried to find the next Andrew Neiman. And that's more than most people would ever do.''
This is so good
If you succeed in life without ever coming across a guy like fletcher, your journey hasn't even started yet and you can still get alot happier.
Fletcher is the type of person that only wants and tries to get things done. He doesn’t understand all the things in the world. He only lived in his unsatisfied dream and therefore he idealizes jazz. He might look like a very tough and important guy, but he is just some lonely child that had to grow up without someone keeping his progress, he never let himself appreciate his skills.
Fletcher doesn’t care about the art of the music and doesn’t care about making the next best artist, he only cares about making himself look a perfect conductor.
He is a narcissist and he manipulates and gaslights his orchestra to work with on the basis they will make great music for people and they will be the next great artist. He is deliberately manipulating Neiman in this scene to stay with him.
He said the next Charlie Parker would never be discouraged. So that also means if he would’ve heard the words “good job” that wouldn’t of discouraged him either. Fletchers thought process is flawed. Greatness ultimately comes within the person them self and what sacrifices they are willing to make. Andrew wanted to become great, because he wanted it.
there are many great people out there who reached goals nobody ever achieved, just by motivation they created themselves. looking up to your heroes is often enough to get the will to go through hard work.