Whiplash and neglect of plausibility in modern films (epic rant)

[CliffFletcher]

So I watched Whiplash on Netflix this weekend. Critically acclaimed. About jazz, and I'm kinda into jazz. Seemed worth checking out.

Starts off pretty good. Ambitious young drummer competing against his peers. Perfectionist headcase instructor challenges him and gives him an opportunity. Manages to make drumming interesting. Good acting.

Then it starts to fall apart. (SPOILERS)

The guy is goaded into drumming so hard that not only does he get blisters, but his fingers bleed. We're talking blood streaming off his hands onto the drums. I guess the filmmakers aren't confident that they're made drumming dramatic enough, so they have to add this bit of exaggerated cheeze. Uh, okay.



Our protagonist and his two drummer rivals are challenged the crazed perfectionist instructor to drum as fast as they can. The rest of the 30 or so band members have to wait and watch. For hours. Into the wee hours of the morning. If this is the treatment all the musicians are subjected to (and there's no reason to think it should be confined to the drummers), it would take a week simply to rehearse a single song.



But our guy wins out, in spite of the blood flowing from his hands all over the place, and makes the cut for a very important band contest. Of course, he misses his bus transfer, has to rent a car in a panic, and reaches the site of contest with only minutes to spare. Only he forgot his sticks. So back in the car he goes to retrieve them, hysterically telling a bandmate on the phone that he is only minutes away.

Okay, at this point I pause the movie to tell my wife in the other room how ridiculous it's getting. Credulity stretched past breaking point. I say "I expect his next setback will be his apartment building gets taken over by terrorists and he has to fight his way through them to get to a drum rehearsal." What happens next isn't quite that dumb. But it's close.

His car gets t-boned. By a semi.



He crawls out of the wreckage, blood streaming from his face. Then, you guessed it, he reaches back into the car to get his sticks, and runs the rest of the way to the performance. Not a moment too soon, he pushes past one of the alternate drummers and sits at his kit.

Now, this needs some explaining. The band has core members, and alternates. The core play in the live performances. The alternates are there as backup in case they're needed. You can imagine a scenario - maybe the core performer has the flu, or a family emergency. Or, I don't know, HE GETS IN A HORRIFIC COLLISION WITH A SEMI ON THE WAY TO A PERFORMANCE AND IS IN SHOCK AND COVERED IN BLOOD. But no, other than a raised eyebrow from the perfectionist band instructor, he's allowed to push away the two alternates on stage and play the drums.



Of course he's pretty messed up, so he drops his stick (the film makes a big deal out of our hero trying to drum with one hand while painfully stretching to pick up his other stick - that's how desperately the filmmakers are trying to wring every drop of drama out of drumming). The band instructor stops the song in mid performance in front of a dozen or so judges at an extremely important competition, and kicks him out. Then our hero goes berserk and attacks the band instructor.

At this point I'm laughing out loud. Howling.

But the wild implausibility isn't over yet. Our hero is kicked out of school, but joins a former student in filing an anonymous complaint about the band instructor, resulting in that instructor losing his job. Then he runs into the instructor at a small jazz club, where his former tormentor invites our hero to perform with his new band at a very prestigious jazz festival.

And this is where the absurdity reaches a new level. It turns out the instructor knows our hero is the one who filed the complaint, and he has devised his revenge. In front of the luminaries of the American jazz establishment, the band is leading with a song that our hero doesn't know, and that he wasn't provided the sheet music for. Our hero makes a hash out of his drum part while the band leader looks on in triumph.



So let me get this straight; this perfectionist band leader, who values the opinion of the jazz community so highly that he's unwilling to tolerate any mistakes by his proteges on stage, intentionally sabotages the biggest performance of his own career to get revenge on a former student. The mind reels at the stupidity. Predictably, our hero performs a string of killer solos to redeem himself, which his bandmates indulge him in (despite the fact they have never met him before and their own careers depend on this performance).

Now, I'm willing to suspend my disbelief for some genres of movies. Goofy comedies. Over the top, cheesy action films. But this was an Oscar contender. It has something like a 96 per cent approval rating on Rottentomatoes. And it cannot be enjoyed without pretty much shutting off the rational part of your brain.

This has been a long rant. It's not just about this absurd movie. It's about what seems to be the wholesale abandonment of plausibility in today's movies - and I don't mean the mindless popcorn fare, but even prestigious, serious films. It seems to me that filmmakers no longer have confidence that film-goers will go away entertained unless they're bashed over the head repeatedly with a sledgehammer of the most hackneyed and maudlin scenes. And judging by the ratings of movies like Whiplash, they're right.

[OutOfTheCube]

You should watch 'Boyhood'. It's the opposite. Every time you think something 'movie-ish' is going to happen, it doesn't. It's just plain old boring real life things happening, with no drama or tension at all.

Ultimately, we go to be entertained, and I found the events of Whiplash, regardless of their plausibility, to be far more entertaining than a realistic alternative.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Okay, at this point, the problem lies with you. This is not your sort of film. I get the sense that you should be watching documentaries exclusively.

Good lord, I can't imagine what your reaction would be to reading Kafka or something.

[Jacks]

Stopped reading after the first few sentences, since I haven't seen the movie. Maybe you should put "spoiler" in the thread title.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by OutOfTheCube

Ultimately, we go to be entertained, and I found the events of Whiplash, regardless of their plausibility, to be far more entertaining than a realistic alternative.

So you'd be onboard with the terrorist sub-plot in Whiplash? I mean, it would entertaining as hell, wouldn't it?

And realism vs entertainment is not a zero-sum game, or a binary state. Movies can be plausible, logical, and entertaining (or plausible, logical, and unentertaining). And there are degrees of realism. I hold serious dramas to a higher standard of character motivation and believability than I do sci-fi action movies or raunchy comedies.

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

Good lord, I can't imagine what your reaction would be to reading Kafka or something.

So Whiplash is meant to be a surreal allegory? At times it was so absurd that it shaded into the surreal. A a drummer staggering bloody from a car crash directly onstage onto a prestigious music competition with nary an eye batted seems pretty surreal to me. But I honestly don't think surreal allegory was the filmmakers' intent. This isn't Luis Bunuel (now there was a surreal filmmaker).

I think we all have limits to our credulity. It's a matter of where those limits lie for each of us. I'm finding my credulity not only stretched but irreparably broken more and more when I watch movies, and I'm suggesting that it's movies that are changing, not me.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by Jacks

Stopped reading after the first few sentences, since I haven't seen the movie. Maybe you should put "spoiler" in the thread title.

I put SPOILER at the point in the post where the spoilers begin. A few sentences in.

[Erick Estrada]

You do realize this was a fictional movie right? I have nothing else to say except it seems the entire point of the movie flew over your head.

[Jacks]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

I put SPOILER at the point in the post where the spoilers begin. A few sentences in.

Oops, didn't get that far.

[Swarly]

Originally Posted by Jacks

Stopped reading after the first few sentences, since I haven't seen the movie. Maybe you should put "spoiler" in the thread title.

Seriously? it's been out for nearly 18 months, on dvd for the last 6 months. How long do we have to use spoiler tags for now?

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

I think we all have limits to our credulity. It's a matter of where those limits lie for each of us. I'm finding my credulity not only stretched for irreparably broken more and more when I watch movies, and I'm suggesting that it's movies that are changing, not me.

Don't you see an issue with lumping "movies" together like you just did? This isn't a doc or anything remotely close, it's not meant to describe what life is like in a music school. It's essentially a play that throws two fairly exaggerated characters at each other to explore aspects of human nature. The exaggeration is just a part of the way the film does its work, it results in a greater emotional impact (or is intended to, at least).

If it didn't work for you that's fine (again I think that's a matter of you not connecting with the material rather than a deficiency in the quality of the material), but to suggest that it was implausible and therefore bad completely misses the point.

No, it's not surrealist, but if this is you reaction to this sort of movie I can't imagine what your reaction to surrealist pieces would be. Unless maybe you're able to accept the premises of certain modes of art, and not others?

[Swarly]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

You do realize this was a fictional movie right? I have nothing else to say except it seems the entire point of the movie flew over your head.

I don't know, I agree with OP here. depending on the type of movie I will suspend my belief in reality but if I were to see a movie that looks real and based in reality then just throws in a few ridiculous over the top plot devices that are in no way reality based it will ruin the experience. Comic book movie, no expectation of reality. Movie about music school drummer, expectation of reality.

One of the things I hate most in movies is when they try to explain the science behind something and get it wrong, thus making the movie unbelievable and a farce. If they didn't explain the science and just glossed over it (no idea way the sun is exploding and we aren't going to put in lame science to explain it, it just is now we have to stop it) the movie becomes much better.

[Daradon]

Originally Posted by OutOfTheCube

You should watch 'Boyhood'. It's the opposite. Every time you think something 'movie-ish' is going to happen, it doesn't. It's just plain old boring real life things happening, with no drama or tension at all.

Ultimately, we go to be entertained, and I found the events of Whiplash, regardless of their plausibility, to be far more entertaining than a realistic alternative.

Agree on Boyhood. There were several moments where they set up something tragic, and then it just never happened. Not that tragic things didn't happen, just that it was very unmovielike. It didn't get tropey, and they didn't feel the need to pile on the tragedy or suspense. I liked that about it.

If Whiplash is how CF explains it to be, I think I would have a problem with it as well, especially because it did get a lot of oscar buzz. If it was billed as an average movie, then yeah, I understand the writing. But I would feel cheated to, billed as it was.

Wanted to check it out, but never did. Guess I will now to see how I feel about it.

[SportsJunky]

I kinda want to see it now. I didn't have much interest before.

[Rhettzky]

For an epic rant this was pretty weak.

[Daradon]

Originally Posted by Rhettzky

For an epic rant this was pretty weak.

But it was plausible!

[Mike F]

I can be one to lose interest in a movie or TV series over implausibility, so won't casually throw stones at the OP. However, I disagree with many of the criticisms.

Lets start with the general premise of the movie: there's a maniacal band conductor who genuinely believes that pushing prodigies to the breaking point is the only way to foster true generational genius. Next, there's a drum prodigy who will do anything to become the next genius, and he believes the conductor is the guy who will take him there. No problems with that.

On to your criticisms:

1. Does extreme practice lead to blisters that can rupture and bleed? I don't know. Probably not to the extent in the movie, but I'll grant the director some artistic license to get the point across about the extreme, self-destructive obsessiveness with which the kid is practicing.

2. The rehearsal sessions - would they lead to inevitable failure of the band to get anywhere? Yes, probably, if every rehearsal was like that. But we certainly don't see every rehearsal, so I think it's completely plausible that the conductor "wastes" some rehearsals where he thinks a kid needs to be pushed, while others go much more smoothly. He also may not push those who he thinks have no spark of genius nearly as hard as those he does.

3. The Competition - I'm fine with everything other than the kid walking away from the car crash. The kid's panic and insistence on playing in the competition is realistic and consistent with the story given his personality and his having just had his spot as lead drummer seriously challenged. Would the conductor have let him play? He had no idea he'd just been in a car crash, and just saw him as disheveled and a bit bloody. A stretch, but not a deal breaker IMO.

4. The Revenge - I bought it completely. The conductor's dream wasn't to lead a band of adults, it was to foster the next genius. I have no doubt the professional band was a poor consolation after being fired from his dream job, and didn't find it implausible at all that he would throw one competition to screw the career of the kid who cost him his job.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

Don't you see an issue with lumping "movies" together like you just did?

I've stated a couple times that my expectations of plausibility depend on what kind of movie I'm seeing. I expected Whiplash to be a serious drama, a genre that tends towards psychological realism. It turned out to be an over-the-top sports movie, which expects the audience to suspend disbelief and cheer the outrageously contrived obstacles put in the way of the hero before the inevitable triumph.

And outside realism, there is still dramatic truth. Characters have motivations. They are expected to behave according to those motivations. I just didn't buy a perfectionist band-leader sabotaging not one crucial live performance, but two, in order to humiliate a student. For me, that goes deep into irrational, moustache-twirling, cardboard villainy. Which is okay for action thrillers and sports movies, but not what I expect from an acclaimed serious drama.

Originally Posted by Daradon

Agree on Boyhood. There were several moments where they set up something tragic, and then it just never happened. Not that tragic things didn't happen, just that it was very unmovielike. It didn't get tropey, and they didn't feel the need to pile on the tragedy or suspense. I liked that about it.

I like to think I can discern and appreciate human drama without the narrative sledgehammers of AGONY, HATE, and REVENGE slamming me in the face every 10 minutes. And that's what to me is the bigger problem. By the end of Whiplash, I wouldn't have been surprised if the bandleader broke into the drummer's apartment, murdered his father, and attempted to rape his girlfriend at knife-point. That's how over-the-top it becomes trying to ramp up the conflict.

Originally Posted by Daradon

If Whiplash is how CF explains it to be, I think I would have a problem with it as well, especially because it did get a lot of oscar buzz. If it was billed as an average movie, then yeah, I understand the writing. But I would feel cheated to, billed as it was.

Yeah, definitely a case of disappointed expectations. And I didn't even that high of expectations.

[AcGold]

As a musician I'd say Whiplash wasn't that bad in terms of believability, musicians have pushed themselves that far in the past for their goals. Flea of red hot chili peppers would be bleeding profusely from his hands during a show and he'd put glue on the cuts, Eddie Van Halen would lock himself in his room for 6 hours to practice no exceptions. Dave Mustaine recovered from near full paralysis of his playing arm and multiple neck/throat surgeries, James Hetfield was nearly burned to death. Music being such a competitive and emotional field makes it inherently prone to strong personalities and displays of extreme fortitude.

Dave Grohl's guitar

Spoiler!

Zakk Wylde mid performance

Spoiler!

Beethoven's dad Johann treated him like a slave and would beat him if he didn't practice enough, Whiplash imo isn't that far fetched. A tyrannical bandleader looking for perfection? Seems like that's the norm, not the exception. I'm sure Hetfield would have chosen bloody handed drum playing over burnt to a crisp.

[V]

Just think of all the drummers that were willing to risk certain death just for the chance to play with Spinal Tap.

[The Yen Man]

Lol, reading the title, I honestly thought it was a rant about movies not depicting car crashes accurately and how people can climb out of serious car accidents without suffering the effects of any whiplash type injuries.