Movie Review: Whiplash

Whiplash (2014)

Five Stars out of Five

R

Andrew Neiman: Miles Teller

Terrence Fletcher: JK Simmons (2015 Oscar Winner for Best Supporting Actor)

Writer/Director: Damien Chazelle (2015 Oscar Nominee for Best Picture and Adapted Screenplay)

Music: Justin Hurwitz

Film Editing: Tom Cross (2015 Oscar Winner for Film Editing)

also 2015 Oscar Winner for Sound Mixing

Cinematography:  Sharon Meir

I have always found Film Editing to be one of the most difficult aspects of movie making to review. However, every once in a while a movie like “Whiplash” comes along where the genius of great film editing is there for all to experience. From the opening minutes in 2014’s “Whiplash”, the viewer is catapulted into a series of camera angles, lighting, writing and acting sequences that go so far in the first ten minutes of “Whiplash” to tell the whole story and rhythm of the movie; you must be thinking what an incredible movie and film editing experience you have just begun. But why point out the film editing if it is the cinematography, acting or directing that makes all of those film segments work? Because it is the sequencing and exquisite timing of each segment that the film editor uses as he links them together that can break or in the case of “Whiplash” make a good film into a great film. To say that the film editing is the only even the primary reason Whiplash has earned five stars from me in this review would be a major disservice to JK Simmons’ acting or Damien Chazelle’s writing and directing; all are of the highest caliber.

“Whiplash” is a story of a young music student, Andrew Neiman (Miles Teller) in his first year at the prestigious (but fictional) Shaffer School of Music in New York. Writer/director Chazelle has crafted a story of ambition and clash of wills from his own experience in a high school band. I kept thinking throughout the movie, that it could have come from his experience in a US Marine Corp boot camp; it certainly made me think of boot camp. Andrew’s experience at Shaffer begins its rocky ascent as he is confronted late in the day practicing his drums by the school’s predominant (and dominating) music conductor, Terrence Fletcher (JK Simmons). Fletcher sees or hears something in Andrew that results in him eventually inviting Andrew to join his premier jazz band. That Andrew’s ascension to core drummer for Fletcher’s band comes with a series of hard knocks is quite an understatement.

Fletcher verbally and quite nearly physically abuses his entire band. When Andrew fails to keep the tempo during the Jazz standard, Whiplash, Fletcher screams at him, and eventually actually throws a chair at Andrew. It is interesting to watch the other band members during one of Fletcher’s outbursts, it is so reminiscent of boot camp as to be truly amazing – they all have their heads down; no doubt each is thinking as regards Fletcher, don’t, please don’t look at me. The entire band has been bent to Fletcher’s iron will. He states later in the movie that he feels such an “education” is one that is the only way to bring out the genius in a player, presuming that genius is there to bring out. He uses an example of how a cymbal was thrown at the head of Charlie “The Bird” Parker” early in his career for a poor performance. This cymbal motivated The Bird to practice and practice until he became the genius the world now knows him to be - or at least this the version Fletcher believes. It is Fletcher’s firm conviction that his job is to throw “cymbals” at his students, searching for the next Charlie Parker. It comes as little surprise that he also states that he has yet to find such a genius.

This should come as little surprise when one considers the seeming free form of Jazz wherein each soloist looks within to find that musical thread that he or she will explore, and in doing so achieve the artistic heights of Charlie Parker. How do you intimidate genius out of someone; is it the same as inspiring genius or simply abuse? But the misplaced intentions of Terrence Fletcher are not the point of “Whiplash”, nor even the screaming intensity that Andrew pounds into himself as he works to the point of bloody hands and a near fatal car accident to meet Fletcher’s approval. The point of “Whiplash” is watch the remarkable clash of wills and the overpowering ambitious drive each of the two protagonists are willing to exert as they move forward in their drive to perfection. Andrew will sacrifice his relationship to a girlfriend, seriously endanger his relationship to a loving father (well played by Paul Reiser), and drive himself to the point of a nervous breakdown. In the other corner stands Fletcher, a conductor and teacher willing to break down through humiliation and a million other mind games each of his students; willing to break them down so that he can in his view build them up as the genius musicians he demands for “his” band; and in fact willing to drive at least one to suicide.

The driving beat that is used to accentuate the abuse heaped upon the students and the presumed mental breakdown taking place in Andrew’s personality are hard to sit through. My daughter has told me she was so upset watching this movie that she shouted at the screen. This is easy to understand, it is not an easy movie to watch. But it is an example of genius. There are no deep undercurrents of thought in this movie, just a primal conflict between two ambitious men that is told with an artistic vision rarely seen. Not an easy picture to watch, no, but if you stare at it and try to divorce your reaction to Fletcher’s abuse, or Andrew’s self-driven acts of self-destruction, ignore the effects of the driving drum beat, and focus on the techniques of how this story is told, you will like me, be awe-struck. Like the 2015 Oscar Best Picture, “Birdman”, “Whiplash” can be a painful movie experience, but it is so striking in its technique, it is a must see for any movie-goer interested in how great pictures are made and told.

One last point: can someone practice so long and with a similar intensity as shown in this movie that they can reach genius-hood?Would this work in basketball for example, but with less success in an area of endeavor where creativity is required to earn the sobriquet of genius? I think this is a rhetorical question for many areas of study, but I think especially so for a Jazz musician. Yes, they must be proficient musicians, but they must also be creative musicians- I don't think that comes from practice, but from some other deeper part of the human soul. Both are necessary, but neither is sufficient.

Movie Review: Foxcatcher

Foxcatcher (2014)

Four Stars out of Five

R

Mark Schultz: Channing Tatum

David Schultz: Mark Ruffalo

John E. DuPont: Steve Carrell

Jean DuPont: Vanessa Redgrave

Director: Bennett Miller

Writer: E. Max Frye and Dan Futterman

As a former high school wrestler, I took particular interest in “Foxcatcher” for its story of two American Olympic wrestlers. This 2014 movie directed by Bennett Miller and written by the team of E. Max Frye and Dan Futterman recreates events describing the lives of two American Gold Medal wrestling Olympians, brothers Mark and David Schultz; their lives from 1986 to 1996. In this movie, knowing the ending is not quite the spoiler it might be with most movies since the events are a matter of historical record. But more to the point, “Foxcatcher” is not really movie about wrestling, but is instead one dedicated to comparing the lives of the wealthy 1% to those working for the wealthy; and along the way doing a very decent job of showing the sport of wrestling.

The movie begins in a nearly perfect fashion as director Miller and his writers very deftly show the nature of Mark Schultz’ (Channing Tatum) physical life with strong hints as to his internal life. Like his older brother Dave, Mark won a gold medal in wrestling at the 1984 Olympics in Los Angeles. But this highlight in his life has not made his life easy. He is not shown working at any job but rather only preparing for the 1987 World Wrestling Championships in Paris; that is with the exception of a brief lecture he gives for $20 to a group of elementary school children. When you watch this movie, and I strongly recommend that you do so, watch his face as he tries to give his talk. His intensity might be that of an impassioned athlete, or it might be the symptoms of a young man coming psychologically unraveled. While Tatum captures Mark’s misery beautifully throughout the film, one of the flaws in the film is that we are not really privy to the nature of Mark’s mental unease. There is a hint that it comes from living in the shadow of his older, far better adjusted brother; a brother that has essentially raised Mark from his early youth to adulthood, and who has proven to be an excellent coach for Mark’s wrestling training. But what is truly eating Mark remains largely unclear.

David on the other hand is married with two children, and seemingly everyone in David’s family is happy and mentally sound. He is an expert wrestler and coach. He works for the fictional Wexler University and has been approached by an American wrestling organization to move to greater things as a coach. David is happy and growing, Mark is sick and sinking. Into this mix, marches the even more mentally-troubled John E. DuPont, scion to the DuPont family’s wealth. John wants to start a wrestling training camp at his home near Valley Forge, PA. Mark rushes literally and figuratively into John’s arms, while David demurs. The second third of the movie shows Mark’s subjugation by John. At first Mark prospers, but in time the corrosive nature of John’s influence causes Mark to seriously lose his athletic grip. This is made clear at the tryouts in Pensacola FL for the 1988 Olympics in Seoul. Fortunately for Mark, Dave is there to step in and bring him to his senses (or as close as Mark can get to them). Dave played by Mark Ruffalo is in many ways someone who knows himself. He has his loving family, his career, and a sense of where he is going in life. Ruffalo’s performance was certainly good enough to earn him his 2015 Oscar nomination for supporting actor as his performance is nuanced and compassionate. His David is someone that everyone in the movie (with one exception) admires and wants to associate with. He is able to save his little brother from John DuPont, but he does not yet know the price he will pay for such an act.

John DuPont is played by Steve Carrell, and like Ruffalo, played so well that Carrell also earned an Oscar nomination, this one for best actor. John is in a lifelong fight with his mother, Jean (Vanessa Redgrave). It is pretty clear that it is a losing fight for John, and almost as clear that Jean does not even consider it a fight. She has a passion for horses, while John has been searching for a similar passion. He has decided that being a coach and mentor to a wrestling team is his goal. He works to create a training site on his mother’s property and begins to hire various American wrestlers that have the potential to become Olympians. That John has no athletic ability (he can hardly stand straight up), knows less than nothing about wrestling moves beyond the most basic, and in fact appears to be mentally unbalanced, does not stop him from working towards his goal. That he can do so, is of course the result of his family’s great wealth. The writers Frye and Futterman really seem intent on making the distinction between the “haves” and the “have nots” the central sub-text of the story. Because of his wealth, John can buy a wrestling team, an armored vehicle with a 50 caliber machine gun, and shoot on the rifle range with the local police force; but he cannot please his mother.

The attitudes of the wealthy are alluded to in clear fashion as the movie opens with multiple scenes of the rich with their horses, fox chases, their hounds. The attitudes of the wealthy towards their animals, their possessions do not differ markedly from John’s attitude towards his employees. They aren’t people like he and his mother, they are not even employees, they are things to be owned and to be used. To be used, that is his primary thought. He hired Mark to own him. He expects the slavish attention and implied homoerotic affection that their close physical interactions while on the wrestling mat demand. Whether John was a homosexual or not is not explored, that he believes he can demand Mark to do anything he requires is very evident. John can order and get anything he wants from all around but for two people: his mother and David. One of the best scenes in the movie is Redgrave’s tired conversation with john as she makes it abundantly clear that she does not care for wrestling (thus demeaning the very thing John is making his raison d’etre) but at the same time she will tolerate it. One gets the feeling she not only demeans him with her acceptance of his fancies, but at the same time, she seems to back away from the mental illness she too perceives lurking in the background of John’s troubled and unfulfilled mind.

As superb as the open scenes were with “Foxcatcher”, the segue from the play time of the wealthy to the grubby little life of Mark Schultz, the closing scenes of the now unhinged John are rushed into. And not just rushed into, but done so with little explication. We see John watching his paid for infomercial extolling his abilities as a wrestling coach and mentor, and then with little dramatic buildup or meaning, we watch him casually drive out into the snow and commit an act of violence that will lead to prison. The movie then switches to Mark living as a cage fighter, something he had previously derided. It is not made in any way clear what Mark is feeling. We now better understand him, but he seems disconnected from his losses.  The movie opens brilliantly, moves through the second reel with almost the same level of intensity and meaning, but closes far too quickly. It is troubling that Mark is not well explained at the beginning, and less so at the end; it is troubling that John’s demons are poorly defined – is he insane or just unloved? We are told that John dies in prison for his actions, so apparently not insane. But as brilliant as many aspects of this movie are, there are some vexing problems.

This movie is really worth seeing by adults. The acting, directing, editing and writing in the first third are as good as it gets, in my opinion. Despite the poor closing and some holes in character definition (not development), this is an excellent drama that displays fantastic moments of cinematic story telling.

Movie Review: Unbroken

Unbroken (2014)

Three Stars out of Five

PG-13

Louis Zamperini: Jack O’Connell

Phil Lewis: Domhnall Gleeson

Cpl/Sgt Matsuhiro “Bird” Watanabe: Miyavi

Director: Angelina Jolie

Writers: Joel and Ethan Coen (re-write), Richard LaGravenese and William Nicholson (first draft); book: Laura Hillenbrand

Cinematography: Roger Deakins

As an adult male (and quite often as a youth), I must admit, I have fantasized seeing myself in any number of situations wherein I would prove as heroic as the real-life Louis Zamperini. Why this man is not more often held up to modern America as a hero; a hero anyone would want to emulate, is a small mystery to me. Here is a man who grew up with his Italian immigrant family in Torrance California during the depression. As a juvenile, he was frequently in trouble with the law; but via the intervention of his older brother, he soon found himself saved in a sense via his remarkable abilities as a runner; abilities that allowed him to excel at the 1936 Olympics in Nazi Germany. By WWII, Zamperini had become part of the American war effort by working as a B-24 bombardier in the Pacific. At one point in 1943 his plane was forced down due to mechanical problems; he then spent 47 days at sea on an open raft. His trials, as bad as they were on the raft, were only just beginning. He and his plane’s pilot Phil were found (rescued really seems the wrong term) by a Japanese warship. “Zamp” finished the war in three different POW camps subject to the extreme cruelty of his camp commandant. He survived and forgave his captors. Most can only dream of such heroics.

This compelling story was told in book-form (2010) by Laura Hillenbrand. In 2014, director Angelina Jolie brought an adaptation by Joel and Ethan Coen, Richard LaGravenese and William Nicholson to the silver screen. Zamperini’s story is indeed inspiring, but the movie is somewhat less so. There is little to no character development and almost zero emotional connection to the viewer during the last third of the movie. The movie’s final section (the time in the POW camps) seems almost like a detached documentary. The movie starts more promisingly with interior scenes depicting a cramped B-24 while it is under attack and then again later in the movie while Zamperini is adrift, lost at sea. I found the opening sequence of a fleet of American bombers coming towards the viewer out of a crystal blue sky to be inspiring, to create a sense of pride in what America and men like Zamperini did in WWII. Moments later when the plane is under attack by anti-aircraft guns from the Japanese-held island of Nauru and by its defending fleet of fighters, the viewer gets a visceral feeling of how tight the quarters were in such a bomber. And more to the point, a sense of just how close to death, each member of that plane’s flight crew was to death.

Similar reactions were felt by me during the 47 days Zamperini spent with Phil and Mac (who died after 33 days in the raft). Initially, Mac was held up as a problem, but as a result of their ordeals together and possibly through Zamperini’s positive influence, Mac becomes a real member of their little raft-crew. But like so many other aspects of this movie, when Mac does die, there is little emotion felt by the viewer. The scenes on the raft that do work though, work very well. There is again a sense like that felt on the plane, though in this case the almost agoraphobic sense of the ocean’s vastness versus the claustrophobic interior of the plane. And in these scenes, rather than the impersonal forces of death in the air coming from the flak and the enemy Zero’s, this time it is from the uncaring and dispassionate ocean. Zamperini and his fellows are shown gradually dying from the effects of exposure, hunger and dehydration. In these scenes, there can be little more emotion from the characters than those shown of exhaustion and the growing acceptance of their pending deaths. Jolie and her writers are indeed able to capture both the physical and emotional changes overtaking the three men on the raft. Like the early scenes in the B-24 under attack, the simple emotions related to survival and fear are well displayed.

The problems with the movie don’t occur until the final third of the movie when Zamperini reaches the first of two POW camps shown in the movie’s version of his trials. That Zamperini faces very real physical danger is amply shown. Upon arriving in the camp he quickly earns the antipathy of the Camp Commander, Cpl. Watanabe (aka The Bird). It is repeatedly shown that Watanabe is one of those staples of prison movies wherein the guard or warden is a psychopath. Why Watanabe is so fixated on Zamperini is largely unclear; is it due to Zamperini’s Olympic athlete status, is it due to Zamperini’s attitude towards Watanabe, or what – it is not clear. What is clear is that Watanabe will make Zamperini’s life miserable and that the latter will live on the edge of death for almost two years as Watanabe takes him right up to the point of execution before backing away. Physical danger, yes, but what is going on in Zamperini’s mind? Ably portrayed by up and coming Hollywood star Jack O’Connell, the viewer is simply not exposed to much in the way of the internal turmoil felt by Zamperini or of the emotions driving Watanabe. There are two scenes that give a hint for each: Zamperini’s reaction to making a radio broadcast from Tokyo aimed at his mother, and a late scene showing a photograph of a presumed childish Watanabe standing by his uniformed father. Was Watanabe trying and failing to impress his father as a prison warden, was he as an enlisted man (refused officer status in Japan’s army) trying to live up to his failed attempt to become a commissioned officer by beating Zamperini and the other prisoners – maybe, but it is far from clear. And was Zamperini suffering internally as he so briefly showed following the radio broadcast – again, it is not clear. It is close to impossible to believe that no matter how brave and resilient the real Zamperini was, that he was not facing his own feelings of failure and desperation. These ambiguities were the biggest flaw with the movie, and ultimately why it was not a critical success (it was largely a commercial success) in my opinion.

As Jolie’s second directorial effort it shows promise for her vision with respect to the physicality of events, but offers areas of improvement when it comes to visualizing the internal landscape of her characters.  She almost seems to rely too heavily on the artistic vision of her cinematographer, Roger Deakins. Consider again the opening scene of the American bombers coming out of the clouds and a setting sun; beautiful and inspiring, but did this vision (as great as an opening scene as it was) drive Jolie’s vision for the movie? Was she so caught up in creating a paean to Zamperini, a man she clearly admires, that she overlooked the importance of telling his story in such a manner that his moments of weakness and doubt were clearer; and in being more clear to the viewer, that much more compelling a vision of a hero?

The movie is worth seeing: the story is one for all Americans to know, the cinematography is beautiful and inspiring, and the acting is very professional. I do recommend it, however weakly due to the lack of emotional contact.