‘Whiplash’ is a Plea for You to Stop Being Soft

I recently rewatched one of my all-time favorite movies, Whiplash. But this time, the film’s message hit home for me. Below is my reflection.


Towards the end of the 2014 film Whiplash, Andrew Neyman and Terence Fletcher sit across from each other at a jazz bar in New York to answer one question: can you go too far in the pursuit of perfection? Neyman (played by Miles Teller) is a young, determined jazz drummer and Fletcher (played by J.K. Simmons), is his famed yet abusive instructor. Throughout his mission to craft Neyman into a star percussionist, Fletcher resorts to mocking, slapping, and even hurling a chair at Neyman out of frustration during their rehearsal sessions.

But the film isn’t about Fletcher’s disturbing teaching style, nor is it about the dramatic narrative culminating in Neyman’s ultimate triumph. The purpose of Whiplash is to resurrect the often-ignored truth that the creation of genius comes at a substantial cost.

The 21st century has created a Nerf-like environment for young professionals: anything flies, I’m okay, you’re okay, feeling trumps logic, give me the most for the least amount of effort. Whiplash shatters this ideology in the most flamboyant way possible.

whiplash_f3Andrew Neyman forgoes friends, family, and a girlfriend in his quest for mastery. He drums until his fingers bleed. His teacher’s idea of mental training is to crush his psyche by calling him “worthless,” “faggot,” and “retard.” This teaching method is like killing a fly with a wrecking ball: you accomplish the job, but you cause a lot of unnecessary harm along the way.

Fletcher’s savagery shouldn’t be taken literally, though. Whiplash’s director Damien Chazelle, who has established a reputation as a masterful storyteller, even stated in an interview that the movie “takes it to a level that I do not condone.” Instead, Fletcher should be viewed as the personification of the cruelty and ridicule that all artists face in their creative pursuits.

Neyman’s willingness to endure this constant upbraiding is a plea for us to cultivate the kind of hardness and grit required to produce greatness. His character embodies the message that if you’re sincere about refining some craft, there are going to be aspects of it that are humbling, damaging, even terrifying. This realization is common among elite athletes, and it’s no wonder Whiplash resonated with some of today’s best.

When asked about Whiplash during an interview with Chuck Klosterman,

Image via B/R Kicks (@br_kicks)
Image via B/R Kicks (@br_kicks)

Kobe Bryant said, “Of course. That’s me.” Cleveland Cavaliers’ guard Kyrie Irving even wrote “Whiplash” on his shoes  with a silver sharpie during the 2015 NBA playoffs (right). Whether you think identifying oneself with a provocative film is morally unacceptable or writing on your sneakers is superstitious is irrelevant.

It’s the mentality that matters.

At the jazz bar, Fletcher looks Neyman in the eye and tells him, “There are no two words in the English language more harmful than ‘good job.’” If there’s anything to take away from Whiplash, it’s this.

“But is there a line?” Neyman asks. “Maybe you go too far and discourage the next Charlie Parker.” The New Yorker movie critic Richard Brody provides some helpful commentary on this dialogue, noting that “a real artist won’t be lulled into self-satisfaction by ‘good job’ because a real artist is hard on himself, curious to learn…and to push themselves ahead.” The point is that the next Charlie Parker would never be discouraged. The talent he possesses is already present within him. All he can do is develop it, no matter how uncomfortable that may be.

The obstinacy and perfectionism portrayed by Fletcher mitigate the toxic effects of ego, yet pop culture wants to shy away from this rigidity. I’ve seen coaches hand out participation trophies and teachers change their corrective ink from red to blue in order to navigate around kids’ feelings at the cost of their potential. This is why Whiplash is valuable: it’s raw, uncut, and devoid of fluff – never leaving the viewer unclear about its purpose.

“Anyone can conduct…I was there to push people beyond what was expected of them,” says Fletcher. This push is something that Fletcher deems an absolute necessity. Otherwise, the world may be deprived of its next great musician.

Fletcher goes on to reference the story of Charlie Parker having a cymbal thrown at him after playing out of tune early in his career. The 16-year-old

Image via William Gottlieb/Redferns
Image via William Gottlieb/Redferns

was laughed off the stage, and nearly cried himself to sleep that night. But he vowed to practice relentlessly with one goal in mind: to never be laughed at again.

One would be hard-pressed to find a story like Parker’s in 2017. Instead of using negativity as fuel, teachers hold back their criticisms: “It’s okay, good try!” How am I to improve from that? This is a tragedy that the film confronts, whether the viewer wants to realize it or not.

Whiplash illustrates, with great lucidity, that artistic mastery is not the result of coddling. It is deliberately cultivated through hours of repetition and objective criticism. And although the film pushes the boundaries of taste with its aggressive dialogue and abuse, the viewer need not condone Fletcher’s actions to internalize the message: true greatness is agonizing.


Dominic Vaiana studies writing and media strategy at Xavier University.  His personal articles, essays, interviews, and book recommendations are sent in his monthly newsletter.


References

Brody, Richard. “Getting Jazz Right in the Movies.” The New Yorker, 13 Oct. 2014.

Fordham, John. “A teenage Charlie Parker has a cymbal thrown at him.” The Guardian. 16 June 2011.

Kiernan, Tony. “Whiplash: Terence Fletcher The Insults.” YouTube. 18 Feb. 2015.

Klosterman, Chuck. “Kobe Bryant Will Always Be an All-Star of Talking.” GQ, 17 Feb. 2015.

McKenna, Sean. “The Perfection of Storytelling in Season One of True Detective.” SeKenna.

McMenamin, Dave. “Kyrie and Cavs learning what greatness requires.” ESPN, 13 May 2015.

Robinson, Tasha. “Damien Chazelle on what is and isn’t ambiguous about Whiplash.” The Dissolve, 15 Oct. 2014.

Rotte, Sarah. “Love for La La Land.” Sarah Rotte, 30 Jan. 2017.

Tired of Fake News? A News Diet is Your Solution

The Guardian published an article in 2013 titled “News is bad for you – and giving up reading it will make you happier.” After spouting off ten dangers of news, the only solution the writer offered, as she touted her 4-year break from news, was to stop consuming it altogether.

This binary attitude toward news consumption is an oversimplification, and a dangerous one at that. Granted, modern journalism (if you even want to call it that) has its problems, namely the recent fake news controversies. But genuine reportage is one of the great gifts of democracy, and we’d be foolish to rid ourselves entirely of it.

The solution is not a news purge – a news diet is. But what exactly does that entail?

Just as a diet to lose weight requires deliberate decisions about food intake, a media diet requires that we be deliberate about both the type and amount of news we consume. For most, this means no more news from Twitter and Facebook.

FakeNews_Lemann_WP-1200

When it comes to deciding what we read, watch, and listen to, it’s tough not to indulge in the endless buffet of links. We inundate ourselves with more and more “news” and share our findings under the assumption that we’re becoming more informed, but are we?

Our modern shift from scarcity to abundance in news often causes us to become overwhelmed, even anxious. Barry Schwartz, a sociology professor at Swarthmore College, calls this the “paradox of choice:” though modern Americans have more freedom and autonomy than any society in history, we don’t see any psychological benefits.

The dizziness that comes from this unbridled freedom paired with countless fear appeals creates a toxic combination. We’re so saturated with polarized information that we yearn to return to the comforting, simplistic baby talk of childhood where feeling trumps logic and complexity is ignored. Some may argue Donald Trump took advantage of this in his recent campaign.

This is where the news diet becomes imperative: choose quality over quantity, even if it costs a few bucks.

Without buying news, or at least subscribing to it, we lose context. Those free-floating articles you see online today are crafted to survive the gauntlet of social media on their own. We’re so numb to information that headlines must be exaggerated, graphic, or divisive in order draw attention and encourage sharing. In fact, the primary factor that determines an article’s virality is how angry it makes the reader.

But real news isn’t viral by nature. It’s neutral, multifaceted, and frankly boring. Writers for the New York Times understand this. Writers for Young Conservatives and Teen Vogue might too, but they don’t care. Their sole purpose is to drive controversy that confirms their audience’s identity. This is why we need to eradicate such options from our media diet.

On the other hand, established newspapers have an incentive to produce quality work, not pageviews. If they don’t, their subscriptions dry up and they’ll go out of business. The Times doesn’t need to battle for name recognition, so they aren’t forced to fabricate stories to attract readers.

Generally, articles on complex topics such as war and foreign policy will fail to spread or generate ad revenue because they’re not sexy. Additionally, such hard journalism is expensive and difficult to produce. The publisher must pay a reporter for a long-term reporting effort, which may not even generate a story.

So we turn to Facebook where our news consists of borderline fiction.

We don’t pay for news, yet we’re all aghast that the quality declines. If Apple suddenly began giving away defective products, would we hunker down and deal with it? If I know my own generation well enough, we’d either demand better products or take our business elsewhere.

Unfortunately, we don’t apply the same logic when reading the news.

Our only hope is a disciplined news diet: no notifications, no aimless clicking. Find a copy of the Times or get The Wall Street Journal sent to your inbox. It might hurt initially to stop the constant flow of information, but less news enables us think rather than regurgitate.

As Publilius Syrus said, “Better to be ignorant of a matter than half know it.”


Dominic Vaiana studies writing and media strategy at Xavier University.  His personal articles, essays, interviews, and book recommendations are sent in his monthly newsletter.cropped-img_0679-1.jpeg

For those who hated 2016, I made a list of 16 things you should consider

No real introduction is necessary here. 2016, specifically the last week, was full of trivial complaints and regrets. This list should help to put things into perspective.

1. You were able to get out of bed and walk.

2. You’re able to read this, unlike 12% of the world that is illiterate.

3. You’re able to read this on a phone or computer that millions wish they could also have.

4. You had access to the Internet, which allowed you to connect and learn in ways that others did not.

5. You were able to vote for your public officials and representatives.

6. You were able to freely voice your opinions on social media without fear of punishment.

7. You didn’t have to worry about whether your water was drinkable.

8. You didn’t have a shortage of food.

9. You had the ability to travel much of the world with no restrictions.

10. Your country was not attacked.

11. You had a roof over your head, unlike the half-million homeless people in America.

12. If you got sick, chances are you got adequate treatment unlike the millions of Americans without health insurance.

13. You had access to books and other forms of education that much of the world did not.

14. You had the freedom to practice any form of religion, something many people in this world will never experience.

15. You had enough or possibly excessive amounts of clothes and shoes.

16. There was somebody, somewhere that loved and cared about you.


Dominic Vaiana studies writing and media strategy at Xavier University.  His personal articles, essays, interviews, and book recommendations are sent in his monthly newsletter.

cropped-img_0679-1.jpeg