In Defense of Fletcher | Whiplash Analysis

[@dyorgewiltonspassos183]

It's so nice to see different opinions about the same subjects. It's great to gather more knowledge from both sides

[@BabyArms]

By far the best take on the ideas of Whiplash. I know this essay in particular was a real passion project for you.

[@thebarkingyears]

Thanks, man. What about you? What's next on the docket for Baby Arms?

[@BabyArms]

@@thebarkingyears The Batman updated review, then Phone Booth, then the currently unrevealed but maybe kind of obvious last movie of that series, and then I'll be free to do some stuff I've been really wanting to get to. Currently dying to analyze The Others, Lake Mungo, and The Blackcoat's Daughter. But first things first.

[@Josito426]

This is a great video. I think the main problem with the pursuit of greatness is the subjectivity of that greatness. Based on the last scene when fletcher and Andrew are staring at each other and Andrew is waiting for Fletcher’s approval, it becomes clear that Andrews greatness is contingent solely on Fletcher’s opinion. If Andrew would have completed the drum solo then walked off not acknowledging Fletcher it would have shown that he himself has self actualized and considers himself a great. Or if there was a formal competition or placement within a jazz band Andrew achieved due to his final performance then we could say he achieved greatness. But that’s not the case. I think the movie shows us the dangers of following a false god, in this case fletcher. I believe 100% that fletcher believes in what he says and that Andrew believes that what Fletcher says is gray is actually great. But I think they’re both wrong. Even when Fletcher says that we’re depriving the world of talent I don’t that buy that. He constantly refers to the band as “his band” and in the final scene he was ready to derail the bands overall performance to embarrass Andrew. Fletcher isn’t a villain bc of his methods. He’s a villain because he assumes he’s always right.

[@thebarkingyears]

Thanks, Josh, for watching and for the comment! Subjectivity is a word that gets thrown around a lot and I'm not sure that people really understand what it means or how deeply it should affect the way that we speak about things. For instance, they will often use it to mean something like "there is no true answer to this or no opinion more correct than another" as you might say about someone's preference for one color over another. But this ignores how human social groups work. Standards for excellence are never objective because they involve questions of value which empirical reality can never answer. Materialism cannot answer even the most basic question of why it would be better to be on beat rather than off beat. And yet, we still widely recognize standards or we fight over whose standards should be recognized. Greatness is determined by those who have gone furthest in their study of some craft, who have loved it best. Not knowing you personally, I have no idea what things you may have invested your time in, but I suspect that you have those things and that if someone who had invested no time in them attempted to tell you what you should think about those things and how you should evaluate quality within that field, you would not take it very seriously. You might even take offense. Andrew is not seeking Fletcher's approval simply because he is for some reason enamored with Fletcher, but because he takes Fletcher for a reliable guide to the thing that he is seeking: greatness. Anyway, thanks again for the comment and for adding to the discussion!

[@nikolabaric1140]

@@thebarkingyears imo this is the greatest comment critiquing a video with a fair point and the greatest video creator replying with his own perspective of a fair point back in the comment section of a video ive ever seen (and thats not even bc im balls drunk rn)

[@blackjacka.5097]

@@thebarkingyears Did you not puke while typing that? I have never seen someone write so much but say so little at the same time.

[@phasmidjelly1429]

This reminded me of Sean Strickland's interview with Theo Von. He became the UFC middle-weight champion partly because of his traumatic childhood. He channeled all that negative energy into training and became the best in the world. Despite all his success, he claims his worst nightmare is having to relive his own life in its entirety. No amount of success as an adult could ever convince him to relive the abuse from his father. He also mostly stays at home because he's too violent and emotionally unstable to socialize like a normal person. To me, that's the opposite of the Nietzschean ideal. I think the same thing applies to Neiman. He achieved greatness but at what cost? How will his experience with Fletcher impact his future relationships? Would he want to relive his own life?

[@adamiadamiadami]

You're taking the legacy great people leave behind out of the equation, though. I'd absolutely sacrifice my life if it meant I could achieve a type of greatness that'll impact the next generations of people.

[@blackjacka.5097]

@@adamiadamiadami it wouldn't

[@adamiadamiadami]

@@blackjacka.5097 What?

[@mizubiart6230]

I agree… you know, pain is inevitable. But, suffering is not. If you want excellence, you have to stop being a slave to perfection. It creates friction; a flow state is one which poses, in my case a drawing, as a question. A quest. To find that truth, that essence of what you want to say, something that will shoot far beyond your life, like an arrow aiming for the sky.

[@thebarkingyears]

Hi Mizubiart, thanks for watching and for the insightful comment!

[@mizubiart6230]

@@thebarkingyears yeah thanks! If you’re more into some philosophical views on art I suggest the Steven Zapata channel.

[@danhall2458]

Great commentary! I saw this movie years ago and still remember this ending vividly J.K. Simmon’s performance was outstanding. I’m glad he won the Oscar

[@thebarkingyears]

Thanks, Dan. Appreciate that!

[@jeanramos838]

What a well-crafted, nuanced analysis this was. I too always found it perplexing how dehumanizing and simplistic these analysts' depiction of Fletcher was, when he just appears to be a normal guy with unconventional methods and a strong conviction for pursuing perfection I do disagree with one thing: I think there's undeniable parallels to be drawn between Whiplash and the first part of Full Metal Jacket. I'd say walking from a car crash to play drums until you almost pass out is pretty brutal, if not horrifying too

[@thebarkingyears]

Hi, Jean. Thanks for watching and for your comment! That's a fair point. If FMJ had only or mostly taken place in the boot camp, I would agree entirely. It may be that brutality and horror are simply relative, but for me, by the time we get to the scene where the helicopter gunman is murdering random Vietnamese civilians, the two movies have diverged too radically for comparison. Thanks again!

[@blackjacka.5097]

Emotional abuse sure is unconventional

[@ironcross2325]

Incredible analysis! I cannot believe that I actually got to see this video, it almost made me in tears. I know it sounds a bit excessive to cry over an anakysis of a film but this movie truly stuck with me and I have been trying to say the same exact things you said in this video. I never resonated with the mainstream take that Fletcher is simply a narcissistic sociopath and that Whiplash is a message on how we must be wary of those people who aspire to be like him and think like him and that everybody who is willing to make a sacrifice for the sake of greatness is somehow mentally ill and psychotic. The interpretations of Nerdstalgic and Vile Eye truly struck me as those tend to be the most accepted and by this point nearly the only interpretations of the film. And the fact that nearly everybody agreed with them, because their takes are supported by the media simply destroyed my soul because to me that meant that our society has completely abandoned all values that make life worth living- art, sacrifice, determination, ruthlessness in the pursuit of perfection and instead have subscribed to the values of the Last Man, this hypocritical self-deceptive blurred version of empathy, humanism and moral superiority while in reality is nothing but a cope for people who have never and will never achieve anything remarkable in their lives and shy away from greatness because of their own follies and pathologies and instead of facing this fact, they turn their resentment to the greats. A society like that makes life a complete and hopeless suffering and I am so thankful that I got to see your video to proof me that we are not there yet. Thank you for your imput and I confess to you my deepest admirations!

[@thebarkingyears]

Can’t tell you how much I appreciate this comment. Thanks, IC. You’re far from being alone, even if it often feels that way. Thanks for watching

[@speedyazi5029]

The issue and flaw with Fletcher’s is that he causes Andrew to sacrifice so much to basically only have one great focus in life. Andrew, a young boy, is now committed to only one path as he’s burnt any of old bridges. That doesn’t seem like a fair sacrifice at all

[@voxelliptic6592]

@Makuta S-V But isn't this just survivor bias? What about all the people who lost their dream because a coach pushed them so far. I know the movie pushes the idea that those who give up after being brought down harshly would never be great, but I disagree. They might not be able to achieve greatness on such short notice but it can be achieved over a longer period of time. Having a healthy balance between pursuing your favorite hobby and other aspects of life can be the reason why you achieve greatness without having to burn yourself out. It's the slower route, but a route nontheless.

[@blackjacka.5097]

you sound like a boomer, guess everyone should just pick themselves up by the bootstraps

[@Omni-y2k]

Such pathetic yap, I'll address two parts. Even in the religious sense (to some extent) , what makes life worth living is subjective. I know for a fact you can't even live out your own arbitrary "make life worth living is ruthless dedication to perfection", you want that lifestyle? Go to a war torn 3rd world country where ruthlessness is actually required. As for sacrifice that's arbitrary too. Prove that art, sacrifice, and ruthless pursuit of perfection is a monolith goal for humanity before spouting off, nobody says that sacrifice is a bad thing but there's a difference between sacrifice and abuse.

[@autonomous8108]

I remember my dad getting me this movie when I was 16. From the first time I watched it, to this day, it's one of my favorite movies. I absolutely fell in love with the message of the movie, and it wasn't until I watched it with my gf, that I realized this movie can be perceived in such a different way. From my perspective it's essentially "how far are you willing to be pushed to achieve ur dreams" but others see it as just a movie about an abusive teacher, and a victimized student.

[@BJ52091]

Those who see the theme of the movie - Arete - and are inspired, should be the majority in a functional civilization. The sniveling weak "Last Man" types who just can't or won't see it as anything more than a concrete depiction of an abusive (waaaah) teacher and a victimized student, should be the minority. Excellence should be standard.

[@br8745]

​@BJ52091 You might want to check out Ecclessiaties 1:2. There is more to life than arbitrary ideals of "excellence".

[@Doornenstroom]

i think fletcher is a compelling character because i disagree with the man so much about everything, and in that he reminds me of my old trumpet teacher who was a hardass in some similar ways. i learned a lot from her, and in some ways i mightve needed her hard attitude to get more out of myself. but ive also come to regard her views on music as limiting. she has given me a very solid basis to work from, but i do not owe my creativity and voice to her, many of the things i do now are deviations from her lessons. i do not really like using the term subjective because it gets so often interpreted, but even regarded as objectively as possible music is multifaceted. nobody is saying every musician is as good as any other, but when it comes to talking about who, for example, is the best trumpet player ever there are multiple answers possible. when i think of what makes a great musician, i consider so many different aspects of musicianship. and even if there ever were a perfect musician, i still would want to listen to other voices from time to time. fletcher's pursuit of excellence makes music feel significantly more lonely to me. i think that is why a lot of musicians have called whiplash a sport's movie, there is a lack of community and cooperation, everybody is so damn serious about music, that they do not even seem to appreciate what an absolute joy it actually is to make music together with some very talented musicians. the joy of making music is why i do it, why i want to be in community with musicians of various backgrounds and skills, hear their voices, and see how mine goes together with theirs. in whiplash i only see occasional glimpses of people having fun with it. it is a strange attitude to music to me, but i also get how one can end up there. that is what makes fletcher compelling to me, because i do get him, but i think he is misguided in his pursuit, and thinking about why i feel that way does get me to think about what i want and get from music. in music we can be both excellent and kind.

[@br8745]

1000 times this! I played percussion elementary through high school, and while I was a fairly average player, I had great teachers and played with great players. Great musicians are led by passion, and great teachers work to educate and "pull out" talent and identity from their students. Being a "hardass" is often restrictive and counterintuitive in creating great art, which inherently lacks an objective standard.

[@SamuelGrahamDoesTCGs]

This was a truly fascinating analysis. Well done!

[@thebarkingyears]

Thanks for watching, Sam. Glad you liked it!

[@harrypotterdragongames5742]

This NEEDS more views

[@BabyArms]

Hard agree. All of The Barking Years's videos do.

[@SoloDoloh]

amazing video. got this on my recommended and the quality is on par with any channel i’ve watched. keep it up my man ❤

[@thebarkingyears]

Thanks for watching, Noah. And for the kind words. I’m glad you enjoyed it

[@GOTIFILMS]

This needs way more views wtf. Great job dude !!!

[@thebarkingyears]

Thanks for watching and for the kind words!

[@vivechjorviani5440]

16:19 My question is this? What spirit is it that posses man to take such extremes of passion and how can one fully embrace it, produce it within themselves if only. How can one chase a passion as if it was a charge in war?

[@chrishenderson9130]

As a musician, I can only say that you have it backward. The passion to be great is already inside you, and this makes you make the charge up the hill...

[@MisterBones2910]

The comparison with Full Metal Jacket seem more apt if you assume the person who made it meant only the first act. There's a reason military men celebrate R. Lee Ermey's drill instructor character and men who "do not pack the gear to serve in our beloved corps" see him one-dimensionally like Fletcher's critics see him. On top of being a criticism of the "McNamara's Morons" debacle the Parris Island story is more or less an illustration of what happens when this didactic style goes wrong, or as I'd put it "goes horribly right." Private Leonard Lawrence really was almost the ideal marine by the end of it and in the book the drill instructor dies feeling proud of him, even personally having put him up for commendations and awards at graduation. I think this is where they got the "dehumanization" angle too, as that was a theme of The Short Timers/Full Metal Jacket because they were soldiers who were being trained not just to fight in a war but to kill, which as it turns out are totally different things given all the research that's been done on the subject since the first World War.

[@serendipitoussimon7927]

Someone had to say it, I’m glad you decided to finally step up

[@thebarkingyears]

Thanks for the kind words Simon. I’m glad you enjoyed it.

[@MageBurger]

Pain and suffering in the process of art or even in pursuit of a dream has to be quite a blurry subject in itself. I think Whiplash is less asking “would you endure pain for a dream” and more of “now that we’re showing you the pain in pursuit of a dream, are you okay with the dreamer going through it?” For any dream, the pains suffered are as unknown as the outcomes. Elitism and gatekeeping only exist because of people knowing how the world has once reacted to pursuits of goals. It’s a safety measure to protect a greatness that people find valuable. But just like any safety measure, it only functions from the anticipated threats it was designed for. Without having gone through the art process, one won’t know the threats against them. Fears of mediocrity and its consequences (staining an artistic medium with harmful trash for instance) may be overblown threats, or fully justified depending on context, but again, it’s only experience that gives the right truth to the right people. Fletcher has likely had many, many batches of classes while, as you said, being a teacher at the most prestigious music school ever in that world. His repeated experiences guided by his beliefs led to his teaching style. Andrew, the young adult still new to the world by contrast depends on Fletcher to accommodate his lack of experience in pursuit of being the worlds greatest drummer. I believe the Incredibles has its own small word on this subject too, though slightly different. Bob Parr lived through a time of superhero glory and then decline due to his actions. He had a time of greatness and wanted that for his son Dash who he knew had talent, but felt the old school system and wider societal threat against superheroes was essentially insulting Dash’s actual talents by forcing him to accept mediocrity. However, Bob’s experience of thinking he lost his family made him reframe his perceptions of greatness. Sure, him and his family get to live out the superhero dream defeating the Omnidroid, but also he’s a lot more okay with just being with his family in the end in contrast to him being fed up living a non-superhero life at the beginning of the post-superhero-shutdown era.

[@RandomPerson-sf9vd]

Regarding The Vile Eyes description of Fletcher. Vile does not crate that he is a purely evil sadistic sociopath, rather it’s implied that Fletcher has tunnel vision, that he is so single-mindedly focused on absolute perfection that all else is sacrificed.

[@iqnill]

If there are no others, the reason to hate Fletcher is his "pursuit of excellence" while he himself plays the most boring, predictable and not even suited for a lavatory form of jazz.

[@IvanTheHeathen]

I appreciate the thoughtfulness and maturity of the reflections that you present in this video, and I agree with them almost entirely. There is one slight nuance separating my view from yours, however (or perhaps not; perhaps you agree with what I'm about to write here but didn't say so because you were focused on defending Fletcher from unjust and uncomprehending attacks). At some point during the scene in the jazz club (I'm going from memory here), Andrew, speaking about the extreme nature of Fletcher's methods, asks, "Yeah, but is there a line?" And Fletcher responds to this question with a flat-out, "No." But surely, there _is_ a line somewhere. Suppose that some students didn't want to be Fletcher's students anymore because they didn't share Fletcher's value system, didn't have an all-consuming desire to achieve greatness, and tried to simply walk away from him. And suppose that Fletcher had grabbed those who had tried this, chained them to the wall and forced them to keep playing. Surely, _that_ would be crossing the line, no? Of course, to Fletcher's credit, he never does anything like this, and everything in the movie leads me to think that Fletcher would always allow anyone to leave who truly wanted to leave. To my mind, that's what ultimately lays waste to the, "Fletcher is a manipulative sociopath" claim. He isn't, and you're right about him. Fletcher just really cares about achieving greatness. He wants to find the real men from among the worms. Where I'm going with this however, is that, even though I agree with you that there is something noble about Fletcher's authenticity, I don't think authenticity alone is enough. You don't have to be one of the Last Men to see that it's perfectly possible to be an absolutely authentic piece of shit. We shouldn't make a cult out of authenticity, since, in the final analysis, it's a rather poor substitute for real values. Fletcher's tragedy is that, in his spirit, he's a deeply religious man who feels the need to devote himself totally to something, but he lives in a culture that doesn't acknowledge the place of God in the way that it should. If Fletcher had lived in the Middle Ages, he would have gone into a monastery, performed some extraordinary feats of ascetic endurance and received ecstatic visions of God. Instead, he's stuck being a mere passionate music teacher. "Art for art's sake" is one of the things you get when religion goes away but the religious urge remains and cries out to be satisfied. When one comes to see Fletcher-style fanatical commitments to "excellence" for what they are - desperate attempts to fill the God-shaped holes in our lives - they become rather pathetic. After all, who _really_ cares if you happen to become an excellent jazz drummer? What is that in comparison to the Light That Shines Forever? I'm not saying that one should never pursue excellence. What I am saying is that excellence, properly understood, is a means of glorifying God. If we forget that, all that will remain will be a kind of sick, desperate and pathetic play-acting that is scarcely distinguishable from narcissism. After all, why is it important that Andrew becomes a great jazz drummer? So that people will say how cool he is? And why is _that_ important? You can't be a "law unto yourself" and pursue greatness based on your own internal vision, unless that internal vision is rooted in a deeper center. Fletcher and Andrew are trying to grope around for that center in a world where the center is gone. And the danger of this is that you can lose sight of morality. After all, if there is no God, then _we_ can become God. And if we are God, if we are our own law, then what's ultimately wrong with driving a former student to suicide? If art becomes your religion, then no sacrifice is too great for it. That sounds noble - until it isn't. I agree that most analysis that one sees of Fletcher is lazy and superficial, but I ultimately see him as a caricature of himself rather than a truly great man. Broadly speaking, there are two kinds of people in this world: the people for whom, as you put it, "only the moon will do," and everyone else. Fletcher's problem is that he can't bring himself to acknowledge the fact that he can't exist without the latter kind of person to set the tone for him. If everyone were like Fletcher, society wouldn't be able to exist. We need a large class of people who will change diapers, do laundry and take out the garbage so that a small group of people like Fletcher can get together and do their thing. And frankly, that large class needs to consist of people who will be satisfied with mediocrity. That isn't romantic, but it's the truth. The normies can exist without Fletcher; but Fletcher can't exist without the normies. Of course, Fletcher might counter that without people like him, the world wouldn't be worth living in - and maybe that's true. But that's precisely why both need to know their place and acknowledge the importance of the other. There's ultimately no "right" answer to this question. Those who purse excellence are not really "better" than those who don't, because each needs the other; both have to exist in a constant dynamic tension together in order for a culture to emerge. I see the real meaning of _Whiplash_ in how it points out the consequences of forgetting this fact. By the way, one of my favorite movies revolves around this theme. You may have already seen it. If you haven't, I can't recommend it highly enough, and as a new subscriber, I would love to hear your thoughts on it. The movie is _My Dinner With Andre._

[@thebarkingyears]

What an astonishingly high-quality comment. Thank you, truly. It's such a refreshing change from the usual. I've never seen Fletcher as a great man, precisely, as much as a man pursuing greatness, and I think that (similar to what you said), when carried far enough, all great desires point towards the one ultimate object: the divine, what Horkheimer(?) called the Absolute Other. I do however disagree that Fletcher cannot exist without the normies. Maybe he would not exist in the same way; maybe the trappings of his existence would differ; maybe he would not be in pursuit of the same goal, but he would still possess that same longing for the transcendent. I wouldn't call the Fletchers of the world superior people either, but I do think he represents a superior mode of existence. I'm a great admirer of Kierkegaard, who was, in turn, a great critic of lukewarm existence, and I think this is correct. I think that what binds the Fletchers to the normies is a kind of noblesse oblige, but the Fletcher can never abandon his guiding star because the crowd demands it. Thanks again for the delightful comment. I hope you'll continue to share your thoughts. And I will absolutely be looking into that film recommendation.

[@IvanTheHeathen]

​@@thebarkingyears -- Thank you. You have an excellent channel here, and I plan to watch your review of _Beau is Afraid_ after I've actually watched the movie. I suppose I should explain in some more detail what I mean when I say that the Fletchers of the world really can't exist without the normies. It isn't just that there need to be people who will take care of the mundane aspects of sustaining civilization while the Fletchers of the world pursue greatness (playing jazz doesn't make food grow or cause buildings to clean themselves), although there obviously do need to be such people. What I said is true even in a direct genetic sense. Talented people are those with outlier phenotypes. In a genius, a number of such outlier phenotypes will appear all at once, making him extremely unusual. But every trait has at least some genetic component. At least some of the variance that we observe in that trait comes down to genetic variance. In all traits, there's also an observable regression to the mean as we pass from generation to generation. If two people with extremely high IQs have children, those children will also have high IQs, though they will probably not be as impressive as their parents. One simply needs to look at the children of eminent scientists to see that it's almost unheard of for a truly brilliant person to have children who go on to become as eminent as he was. Albert Einstein's son Hans Albert was a well-respected engineer, but his contributions did not even come close to matching those of his father. This is only one example. The opposite phenomenon also occurs: that is, if two people with below-average IQs have children, their children will probably be smarter than they are. This kind of regression to the mean happens for two reasons. First, for any trait, there are many more of those who cluster around the average than there are outliers, and so, if outliers want to have children, they'll probably have to do so with people who are at least closer to the average than they are. Since half of a child's genes come from each parent, that already skews things quite a bit toward the average. The second reason is that no trait is perfectly heritable. Even in highly heritable traits like height or IQ, there are environmental influences that come into play. And the general environment in a society tends to be set by its average people. Hence, more pull toward the mean. Let's say a man with an IQ of 150 has children with a woman who has an IQ of 135 (a not unlikely scenario, since men tend to predominate that the extreme ranges of IQ, and the disparity tilts further in favor of men the higher up one goes; brilliant men will almost certainly have to marry down when it comes to IQ because there just wouldn't be enough women to go around otherwise). A simple genetic average of the two parents predicts children with IQs of about 142.5, but IQ is only about 0.8 heritable. The remaining environmental influence will come from normies. Hence, the children's IQs will probably be something more like 140 - that is, closer to the mother than the father. Repeat this process several times, and you'll inch closer and closer to the mean. Of course, the flip side of this is that anomalies do happen. The above numbers are only the statistically most likely outcomes. There are many geniuses who have been born to completely average parents, and when these freak events occur, the process described above resets. Statistically, people with genius-level intelligence are most likely to have both parents and children who, while intelligent, are just not on their level. The pull of the normie exists even genetically. When I say that the Fletchers of the world cannot exist without normies, I mean that quite literally, in a basic, materialistic sense - that is, _they literally could not exist without the gene pool that is set and populated predominantly by normie genes that are combined and recombined in various ways in each person._ This is where the Fletchers of the world come from. We don't know anything about Fletcher's parents, but it's a safe bet that they were either total normies or at least much more normie-like than Fletcher himself is. That's certainly true of Andrew's parents. I don't say these things in an effort to urge the Fletchers of the world to abandon their guiding stars and follow the herd. They shouldn't do that, in my view. Rather, what they should do is resist the temptation to spit on the normies. They should have the humility to recognize that these people made them, down to their very genetic material. And beyond genetics, there are countless boring, mundane tasks which, from a socioeconomic perspective, are necessary to sustain civilization. Fletcher wouldn't be Fetcher if he had to take out the garbage or pave roads. And yet, someone needs to do these things. If no one did, Fletcher wouldn't be able to pursue his art. I don't believe that the Fletchers of the world should deny their inner voices in favor of the crowd. And I also don't think that the crowd should throw stones at the Fletchers of the world. What I favor is a kind of reasoned detente between the two sides, but that can only be possible once each properly understands and respects the other. The crowd should let the genius be himself and let him do his work, which, in the end, will only enrich them. And the genius should resist the temptation to spit on the crowd and treat it with contempt. Yes, the crowd's values are not his values, but the world needs the crowd all the same. _He, the genius, needs the crowd._ The genius should let the crowd work in the background to sustain civilization so that he can eat and so that other geniuses will be able to follow him. Now, maybe this kind of detente is impossible. Perhaps the crowd wouldn't truly be the crowd if it could recognize the genius and leave him alone. And perhaps the outlier's temptation to sit on his perch and spit on those below him when he sees them acting like worms is simply overwhelming. But we should try. Civilization needs us to try. Since you mention Kierkegaard, I confess that I am not sure what to think of him. He was obviously deeply in love with Regine Olsen, but he pushed her aside. From one angle, that act may be seen as a kind of heroic self-sacrifice. From another, it is foolish and gratuitously masochistic. It seems clear that Kierkegaard believed that he could not be married and pursue his vocation. He worried that his wife (and children) would demand his attention and affection, and thus would limit the amount of time he could devote to writing - and perhaps he was correct. But there are some women who have ways of bringing reserves of energy out of men that those men didn't know they had. A good woman can make a man much stronger, and any man who has known such a woman understands what I'm talking about. The Bible is not wrong when it says that the price of a good wife is far above rubies. Regine Olsen may have been such a woman. We don't know much about her, as she seems to have been a rather private person, but we know that she retained a fondness for Kierkegaard long after their break, and there may be more than a simple wistful attachment to "the one that got away" sitting behind that. We can never know such things with certainty, but Kierkegaard's decision to reject her may well have made him _less_ productive in the long run. His unceasing anxiety over his decision and his rather short life appear to testify to this. She was his muse, and if her _absence_ was able to inspire so much, what could her _presence_ have done? Anyway, I hope that clarifies where I'm coming from. And please do watch _My Dinner With Andre_ if you haven't already seen it.

[@caldo7697]

I believe Fletcher shouldn't be analyzed as a human being, but more of a concept. When he said "the next Charlie Parker would never be discouraged" by the treatment he gave Nieman, I think he showcases how he is, metaphorically, a personification of Neiman's own perfectionism. Therefore, Fletcher acts near non-human, due to his sociopathy and lack of empathy, but in my opinion that's because, in the context of the movie, he was never supposed to resemble a human being, but more of a raw and strong feeling, the sense of never being enough and never reaching the quality he seeks. This movie is too deep man, and I love it for that.

[@RealFactsForYou24]

Just discovered your channel after watching your Good Time review and when I saw this I couldn’t wait to watch it! Whiplash is one of my favorite movies as well!

[@thebarkingyears]

It's so good! Thanks for watching! I hope you enjoyed it!

[@emiliobrentani7456]

Wonderful critique, it's a shame you don't have more subscribers; I hope that changes soon. Keep up the great work!

[@thebarkingyears]

Thank you for the kind words and for watching! I’m glad you enjoyed it!

[@kodyk124]

Quickly becoming addicted to your channel. Really love your analysis and the values you espouse.

[@kodyk124]

Holy shit I just finished this video and it was so powerful. Thank you for doing what you do.

[@thebarkingyears]

Thanks, man. I appreciate it. It's awesome when somebody gets it.

[@_theaxiom]

I loved the movie because of fletcher, he is the embodiment of pressure creates diamonds. In the end that was the main character becoming a diamond, he achieved what he wanted. He was the one who came back to fletcher anyway. I showed the path of legends.

[@tomasjanco7355]

I never even dreamed of considering Fletcher to be a villain. That viewpoint is despicable and efeminate.

[@lukaszspychaj9210]

You are evil

[@WorthlessWinner]

I don't care about excellence, but if you're in the top school in the world for something, you probably should

[@chriz9959]

i had coaches like fletcher when i was a youth hockey player. their methods were on the edge of tolerable and some of the kids folded or stopped playing. but the ones who stayed became very good players. I personally went through this grind and experienced moments and won championships that I will remember for the rest of my life and that still make me smile today. I certainly haven't lost my humanity, or had my spirit killed in any way. What I'm saying is that in this game there are those who do it (Fletcher) and those who endure it.. (Neiman)

[@AnyThingWorx]

any and all defense of Fletcher stops when you take the two seconds out of your day to realize that he drove a student to suicide.

[@Urg4nm0m]

The reason critics feel that way about Fletcher is because they are the type of people that failed when face to face with their Fletcher

[@JessCorey]

Absolutely phenomenal analysis, especially in regards to agency and the act of suicide. I would even apply that to drug use and any other malady that afflicts modern human beings outside of genetic defects or unfortunate diagnoses this applies. I suffer from episodic depression, depression is something that can creep up but it is my responsibility to do what I can to lessen the chance, and most days I succeed. On other days, I do not which is rare. I deeply appreciate your direct approach to mental health and suicide, some people commit suicide but do so due to mental health issues. There is no shame in that. However, some are completely clearheaded when they commit the act and you are absolutely right. They need to own it. Personal responsibility these days is a rare animal. I unfortunately am a member of the generation in which personal responsibility is often forced on outside parties rather than looking within. Thank you for this awesome contribution to the web.

[@thebarkingyears]

Hi Jess. Thanks for the comment and your honesty. As someone who struggled with the same issues for many years, let me say: keep fighting the good fight, my friend.

[@WorthlessWinner]

Roughly 100% of the maladies that afflict modern human beings are due to genetic defects, so.....

[@TheMajorHunter]

Awesome analysis, I think it somewhat plays down the harm someone like Fletcher can do, but I'm glad it defends Fletcher as a character, that's so rare to see! As a character, Fletcher is a complex antagonist, a human being with his own needs, his own views, his own beliefs in what the world is and how his world should run, which are own valid in their own way. To dismiss him as a plain cartoon villain is just hand-waving to remove the valid parts of his views, to shy away from something that on the surface looks repugnant, and worst of all, it is straight-up insulting to Damien Chazelle's writing. Fletcher is the center of the movie, and to dismiss him as a simple narcissist is to dismiss Whiplash as a whole, and worst of all, dismisses an incredibly well-written character that Damien Chazelle deserves all the praise for.

[@Greenchair2828]

Make a video about ex machina

[@thebarkingyears]

That one's not on the list yet, but maybe someday!

[@ttlane195]

Try having a teacher like this irl and then watch the movie lol. Your perspective will change.

[@WakeUpUniverse66]

This is not a story of abuse, Neeman would have been nothing if not for Fletcher. Neeman never saw himself as a victim. Shit Neeman realizing he wasn't a victim is legit a plot point. Fletcher turned Coal into a Diamond. and that requires pressure. Not to mention the movie is to show the ferocity of the drive of greatness, pretty much a twisted up Hero's Journey.

[@lukaszspychaj9210]

That is just your own headcanon lmao, please tell me how the movie tells us that "Neeman would have been nothing if not for Fletcher"

[@WakeUpUniverse66]

Where would he have gotten the opportunity to perform? In real life people with the most talent aren't always the ones who get the spotlight. Also Neeman did not have the skill but the raw talent, he need that harsh training to bring out the side of him. Its bittersweet and that's the conundrum the movie leaves you with. Or maybe instead of saying "Headcanon" you learn to see things beyond a surface level. Ya'know show don't tell but I guess its too much to expect people in YT comment to know the basics of story telling.@@lukaszspychaj9210

[@noahluzier2067]

Finally, somebody gets it. Thanks fella.

[@Ghoulonoid]

The man in the hallway probably couldn't have been Sean Casey. Fletcher says "someone from Casey's year" reported him, which would imply that Sean Casey was somewhere around Andrew's age. Obviously, its a school and hypothetically Casey could have been any age upon entering, but everyone else we see in Fletcher's group seems to be around the same age generally. The man in the hallway seems to be a bit older, particularly if he's found the time for a family. I personally feel everything to do with Casey is the weakest part of the film. We never see Casey, never learn anything about him, never get any of the details. There's just nothing to go on one way or the other. I don't feel like the movie even needed Casey as part of its moral question, it seems like Casey is purely a plot device to get Fletcher fired in the middle. Its possible Casey is actually "Elmer Fudd" from the beginning but I don't really think that's the case either.

[@ryansoper1805]

Spot on analysis. Great job

[@universome511]

There are no seven words more harmful then don't forget to like, comment and subscribe

[@reallymakesyouthink]

I've never thought Fletcher was that bad either. I've heard a lot of people say, "I had a coach like this when I was a kid...." Yeah someone like this shouldn't be coaching kids but Andrew and his peers are not children. They are young adults wanting to be the best and they've joined his band because it's the best. It's the best because of Fletcher. It's like wanting to be a Navy Seal then complaining about how hard the training is.

[@Greenchair2828]

Good video 👍

[@TheZalor]

Finally, a good take on Whiplash. Thanks for posting this

[@thebarkingyears]

Glad you liked it!

[@nash_6908]

What did you study in college, philosophy. Man you should be paid big bucks to be a movie critic. Like I am definitely one of your biggest fans ..... well biggest fan not paying but its refreshing. You actually stand for something when you critic. Most people these days are soft, naive, and afraid to show bias in critiquing. Those critiquing itself comes from bias. You can never get rid of bias.

[@chunkysalsa6264]

I like this take on the character, and it has some good points. But I still think Fletcher is a bad person and a bad teacher. You can have his attitude and teaching style without going to far. Emotionally abusing students is never okay. The movie very strongly implied that he was the one to drive Sean to suicide, and if that weren't the case it would weaken the message. Even if Fletcher means well, the ends don't justify the means.

[@BogartWestern]

Finally, some truly honest analysis. Great videos.

[@thebarkingyears]

I appreciate that! Thanks for watching!

[@dyorgewiltonspassos183]

Could I link this video in the comments of my own? Just to provide another opinion to the people that watched my video?

[@thebarkingyears]

Hi Dyorge! Certainly!

[@harrypotterdragongames5742]

I don't know what whiplash is bt still watched the whole video

[@thebarkingyears]

Ha, I appreciate it, buddy. Thanks for watching.

[@Yamari1Clips]

both of the characters are horrible people

[@jeremyotero4575]

Safe Mediocre,,,, Exactly Bravely said................This is why i love this movie,,,, theres too much of this now a days... There needs to be better value established,, why not? we have everything now to achieve excelllence,,, the modern age has all the tools for someone to aspire and provide great quality, and someting special,,, Isnt that why we fought all those wars, and sacrificed lives in the past to finally have an environment to do Great ART, or create someting extra ordinary? Too much concern for ones Comfort like you said,,,,, and then what? answer me that.

[@phosphenexx3288]

I think you would have a different perspective on the film if you were a musician. There’s many errors here.

[@thebarkingyears]

Oh? Errors such as?

[@phosphenexx3288]

@@thebarkingyears well for just one example: the mentality fletcher encourages is that we have to treat music like a sport. This rubs me especially as a jazz musician the wrong way because it’s a very free art form. There’s even a scene where Andrews cousin says “isn’t music subjective” and Andrew says “no”. This is the absolute worst mentality a jazz musician can have. In classical where there’s no improvisation perhaps u can reach “perfection” by performing a piece exactly as the composer envisioned. There is no perfection in jazz because of the element of improvisation and because it’s still a growing breathing art form. I can tell u are not a musician because u agree with the message of fletcher. It even shows further in your video that you think the Shaffer conservatory is supposed to be the movie version of juliard. Juliard is a prestigious CLASSICAL academy. The real world equivalent would be berklee college of music. Just keep in mind jazz is the most human form of music because of improvisation. By definition improvisation cannot be “perfect”. It’s an entire genre of music born from subverting expectations and not following rules.

[@svo47]

@@phosphenexx3288but jazz ppl can play standards perfectly. Or not. Rules in jazz do exist and if you want to improvise, musicial should know them by heart, not by eyes. Because otherwise its not "breaking the rules of genre" - its being plainly ignorant of them. And there is something inside you - which inform you about perfect/good/sh... grade of sound you are hearing. And no amout of "Hes a spessial jazz musician only for cats" bs would not cover it )))

[@thebarkingyears]

@@phosphenexx3288 Hi phosphenexx, thanks for the comment, and sorry for my late response. Let’s check out these arguments you’ve provided. You claim that you know that Shaffer is meant to be Berklee because you’re a musician and you can tell that I’m not a musician because I don’t agree with you. You’re right. I’m not a musician, apart from the fact that I’ve played music for many, many years…but I haven’t studied music…well, I haven’t studied it in a university program. But what I did study was philosophy, which probably is a big part of why I can tell you that this argument is an example of the argumentum ad vercundiam (appeal to authority) fallacy. This fallacy is repeated every time you used your status as a musician to make an argument. What your experience as a musician should have supplied you with are the arguments and evidence to show me why you’re right, not a title to simply claim correctness. Let’s take what we know from the film about Shaffer. Shaffer is a conservatory in NY; it is regarded as the best music school in the world; and it has a jazz program. Not one of these details is inconsistent with a description of Julliard. Julliard is in NY; Berklee is not. Julliard is widely held to be the best music school in the world. Berklee is not. Julliard may be associated with classical music, but it has a highly reputable jazz program directed by none other than Marsalis himself as well as jazz ensembles for students. If the only descriptive detail about Shaffer had been someone saying it was the best place in the country to study jazz specifically, then you’d have room to debate, but no one made that claim. Moving on to your other point about “perfection” and subjectivity in jazz. -First of all, a small point of etiquette: if you put quotation marks around a word, you are signaling to the reader that YOU did not choose that word, but your interlocutor did. However, I did not use that word. YOU used it, while putting quotation marks around it to make it appear as if I had. This means that you are arguing with a ghost, as I never made the claim that you are attempting to rebut. I don’t think perfection is achievable in jazz because I don’t think it is achievable anywhere; it is an ideal. I would however say that there are standards. And the entire music world appears to agree with me. If they did not, then how would they choose who to admit to their schools? How would they choose winners in competition? How would they choose which musician occupies which chair? The answer is very obvious. Secondly, about improvisation, while claiming that something is more “human” because it involves improvisation is extremely debatable, improvisation in jazz only works because of all the people who are NOT improvising. If everyone in a jazz band decides to improvise at the same time, what you have is not jazz, but chaos. So what we find is that there actually ARE rules, even in jazz and even if the fun of jazz is in bending some rules on occasion. Anyway, thanks again for the comment and for watching my vid!

[@BJ52091]

You had might as well claim that you would have a different persepctive on The Fountainhead if you were an architect. Look past the concrete percepts of the plot and events; glean the larger abstract theme; address that.

[@epmeats]

Very interesting video! I love these kinds of movies because they can be interpreted in many ways and the ideas in Whiplash mirror a lot of the unexplained drive/ forces artists go though for the final products they create. Artists are often criticized for romanticizing this sort of "no pain = no gain" view despite extremely harsh environments often pushing out genius work regardless of how ethical it is. It reminds me of the infamous debate around the Shining. Stanley Kubrick undoubtedly traumatized and abused Shelly for the sake of his movie and the perfect shot. In the end Shelly gave a performance that made the movie a timeless piece in our cinema forever. So if Shelly went back in time would she do it again? was the suffering worth it for her? I personally don't think she would, but some artists would absolutely go though their pain again because they believe it made them who they are. But some wouldn't because they feel it broke them.

[@tysoon5490]

First of all, great video man, I love the way you break down the view that most people would be opposed. But, small tidbit, Fletcher when talking to Andrew references a conferentation between charlie parker and joe jones, Fletcher tells the story, saying that jones threw and cymbal at charlie parker's head, when the far more rumored story is that jones just dropped a cymbal on the ground, trying to tell parker yo get off the stage, and to come back when he was better. Fletcher could've retold this story the way he did, to try and justify his teaching style, After all, Charlie Parker became one of the greats, even after having a cymbal "thrown at his head"

[@shreddhead23]

😎🙏💯

[@thebarkingyears]

😁🙌👍🖖

[@Dowlphin]

75% OK.

[@Bilious303]

I walked away from this film thinking this was a pathetic attempt to create art through synthetic cultural appropriation. Fletcher is a white man looking at black art feebly tries to replicate it through inflicting as much pain as possible. He references the pain that was inflicted upon his idols and incorrectly assumes it was the pain thst created art rather than the desire, skill, and yearning. He fabricates a shallow simulation that never really harnesses the true spirit of his icons. Thinking he can substitute abuse for a real human experience. I thought the film fell flat in thst regard...unless that was the intention. We were meant to be shown the futility of attempting to emulate the black experience as a white.

[@shoopoop21]

Music as we know it, all the way down the the instruments people use, and back up into the theory of musical harmonies and composition, were invented by Europeans in Europe. Pop music, which is basically lyrics accompanying music, isn't something black people invented either. That would be, again, Europeans living in Europe. Funny how black people doing 'white people' genres of music is progress, not a problem...

[@shoopoop21]

In 100 years, black people will claim to have invented vidoegames, reinvented them in the early part of the 21st century, and Japan won't even be mentioned. Shame and pride are truly the most psychoactive and destructive drugs of all. Black people and their sycophants just can't stay away! The CIA doesn't even have to be involved with that one.

[@birdcar7808]

Objective standard of greatness but not an objective standard of morality, eh? The video seems a bit hollow without a definition of what greatness is and your basis for that definition. Nieman gives up his family, his love of art, potentially his life, his very soul, for what Fletcher has convinced him to believe is the only method to achieve greatness as an artist, in a Faustian bargain with Fletcher, the devil. Worth it? Traditionally, no. Potentially no in Whiplash as well, as Nieman is implicitly doomed to a lonely, passionless (but ferociously obsessive) decade until he dies by his own hand. Why Fletcher doesn’t mention his former student killed himself... Could it really be any reason when we know Fletcher’s goal is to produce a great artist by his methods? The reason is to avoid his students questioning if his torment is worth their lives - at least before he deems them ready, when his influence is so ingrained their minds that they’d sacrifice anything on his altar. And the argument that Fletcher is looking to train a great out of narcissism, and weeps out of narcissism, is worthy of consideration. Fletcher believes unquestioningly that he is correct, yet with only evidence that proves him wrong - save his interpretation of a single time a cymbal was chucked at Charlie Parker’s head. It is narcissism because if that unwavering conviction doesn’t come from concrete evidence, it can only come from the self. It’s up to you if you want to attribute the same arguments to narcissism as you do to manipulation.

[@BJ52091]

I thought I was alone in believing that Fletcher did nothing wrong. Thank you for your eloquent defense of a fellow worshipper of excellence.

[@thebarkingyears]

You are very welcome. Thank YOU for watching and for the gracious comment.

[@trustycrusty1773]

I HATE the notion that fletcher was evil, everyone who says it either fails to understand the movie or fails to identify with its characters in the slightest. Thanks for making this

[@leogazebo5290]

Nerdstalgic is a man that has more narcissism and ego than Fletcher. The man steals other people's video word for word.

[@thebarkingyears]

What’s that? I haven’t heard anything about it.

[@leogazebo5290]

@@thebarkingyears Yeah that's because Nerdstalgic has been sweeping it under the rug for years but the plagiarism happened again and again, the latest is them copying CGY video for district 9 and it's CGI.

[@thekivster]

Can’t believe there are people who say that “misogyny” and “homophobia” makes someone a bad guy.

[@samtotheg]

they do