WEBVTT - Whiplash Review | Archive 0:00:21.244 --> 0:00:24.604 Film Spotting is presented by Regal Unlimited, the all you 0:00:24.605 --> 0:00:27.565 can watch movie subscription pass that pays for itself in 0:00:27.685 --> 0:00:31.365 just two visits. See any standard two D movie anytime 0:00:31.725 --> 0:00:34.725 with no blackout dates or restrictions. Sign up now on 0:00:34.765 --> 0:00:36.964 the Regal app or at the link in our description 0:00:37.165 --> 0:00:41.004 and use code film spot twenty six to receive fifteen 0:00:41.045 --> 0:00:41.685 percent off. 0:00:42.485 --> 0:00:45.405 Josh, it's time to drop something from the film Spotting 0:00:45.525 --> 0:00:50.404 archive into the main feed, And with the Sundance Film 0:00:50.445 --> 0:00:55.725 Festival Award winners having just been announced, we thought we 0:00:55.765 --> 0:00:59.045 would pick one of those award winners, actually a double 0:00:59.164 --> 0:01:04.205 award winner from our review history, and share that with 0:01:04.605 --> 0:01:09.245 our audience. Twelve years ago, Damien Cizelle's Whiplash won the 0:01:09.245 --> 0:01:13.365 Fest Grand Jury Prize and it won the Audience Award. 0:01:13.444 --> 0:01:17.365 Of course, it went on to much more acclaim later 0:01:17.444 --> 0:01:18.685 that year as well. 0:01:18.965 --> 0:01:22.444 Twelve years it actually this case where it actually seems longer. 0:01:22.485 --> 0:01:25.964 I mean, Chiselle has done a lot of stuff since Whiplash, 0:01:26.045 --> 0:01:29.884 but yeah, what a breakout for him, a breakout for 0:01:29.964 --> 0:01:33.365 me on letterbox Adam, I think this is one of 0:01:33.444 --> 0:01:37.884 the most liked reviews I've posted on Letterbox Stuff of 0:01:37.925 --> 0:01:40.965 Whiplash and you know that you know the insight, the 0:01:40.964 --> 0:01:43.565 insight I gave that got that response. See, I love it. 0:01:43.884 --> 0:01:45.565 That's that's why I asked. 0:01:46.125 --> 0:01:50.044 This was my review. Good job. See it's always. 0:01:49.725 --> 0:01:53.725 The pithy, it's all the two words when it's you. 0:01:54.045 --> 0:01:57.285 But when you actually you actually you spend time crafting 0:01:57.365 --> 0:01:59.684 real criticism and you get three likes. 0:02:00.005 --> 0:02:01.525 Yeah, just scroll right on by. 0:02:03.325 --> 0:02:06.085 Good Job's funny, though, Josh, I say good job to. 0:02:06.085 --> 0:02:07.925 You, thank you, thank you, sir. 0:02:08.245 --> 0:02:08.644 All right. 0:02:08.845 --> 0:02:12.565 We reviewed the film when it came to theaters that October. 0:02:12.885 --> 0:02:13.925 Here's that conversation. 0:02:14.285 --> 0:02:17.204 The keys to just relax, don't worry about the numbers, 0:02:17.325 --> 0:02:19.845 don't worry about what the other guys are thinking. You're 0:02:19.885 --> 0:02:25.205 here for a reason. A fun five six And I. 0:02:25.165 --> 0:02:27.405 Don't want to be great and you're not. 0:02:29.805 --> 0:02:34.045 You got Buddy rich hair a little trouble there, you're rushing. 0:02:34.204 --> 0:02:35.885 Here we go five six. 0:02:35.685 --> 0:02:38.885 And on a recent show Adam, we played a clip 0:02:38.924 --> 0:02:43.204 from Whiplash in which JK. Simmons demanding music instructor Barrts 0:02:43.245 --> 0:02:46.285 Miles Teller's aspiring jazz drummer, and I made a joke 0:02:46.325 --> 0:02:49.045 that he sounded like our Lee Ermei's drill instructor in 0:02:49.125 --> 0:02:51.605 Full Metal Jacket. I hadn't seen the film yet, but 0:02:51.644 --> 0:02:54.325 it turns out I was onto something in both Full 0:02:54.365 --> 0:02:57.805 Metal Jacket and Whiplash. The harsh demands of a superior 0:02:58.204 --> 0:03:01.165 play a part in an instance of suicide, and this 0:03:01.245 --> 0:03:03.204 is a small detail in the Whiplash, So don't worry 0:03:03.204 --> 0:03:06.205 that I've just given the entire picture away. All that 0:03:06.365 --> 0:03:08.565 is to say, though, that Whiplash, which is written and 0:03:08.605 --> 0:03:12.525 directed by Damian Chizzell, is a pretty dark film. In 0:03:12.565 --> 0:03:14.965 his quest to become one of the great jazz drummers 0:03:15.005 --> 0:03:20.165 of all time, Teller's Andrew alienates family, snuffs out abursioning romance, 0:03:20.445 --> 0:03:23.925 and spill a whole lot of blood. I didn't realize 0:03:23.965 --> 0:03:27.445 that drumming could involve this much blood. Actually. Meanwhile, JK. 0:03:27.484 --> 0:03:31.005 Simmons Fletcher, an abusively intense teacher at the elite music 0:03:31.044 --> 0:03:34.405 school Andrew attends, is on hand to push Andrew even 0:03:34.484 --> 0:03:37.845 further than that. Their goal is nothing short of perfection, 0:03:38.405 --> 0:03:41.565 and considering the potential, the value, and the cost of perfection, 0:03:41.685 --> 0:03:44.925 is largely what Whiplash is all about. One thing I've 0:03:45.005 --> 0:03:47.565 learned about you, Adam since joining the show is that 0:03:47.685 --> 0:03:51.045 you have a perfectionist streak. Would you say that's fair? 0:03:51.125 --> 0:03:54.365 That's fair, And to be fair, I can relate a 0:03:54.365 --> 0:03:56.845 bit of the pot calling the kettle black here. Still, 0:03:56.885 --> 0:03:59.045 I wonder what it was like for you to watch 0:03:59.125 --> 0:04:03.045 this striving for musical perfection. Did you find Whiplash affirming 0:04:03.125 --> 0:04:06.725 of such tendencies or cautionary about them? Perhaps it was 0:04:06.765 --> 0:04:09.965 something in between. And is the movie itself, which is 0:04:10.005 --> 0:04:13.765 a bold incorporation of the musical aesthetic in visual form, 0:04:14.245 --> 0:04:17.805 anywhere close to artistic perfection great stuff? 0:04:17.845 --> 0:04:21.645 Whether a piece of art can ever be perfect, of course, 0:04:21.725 --> 0:04:23.805 is a very loaded subject, but it is one I'd 0:04:23.805 --> 0:04:26.205 maybe like to return to if we have time, because 0:04:26.205 --> 0:04:30.125 I do think it's interesting to consider in relation to jazz, 0:04:30.365 --> 0:04:33.045 specifically in the broader sense. I know what you're really 0:04:33.045 --> 0:04:35.885 getting at is did I like this movie? Do I 0:04:35.885 --> 0:04:38.485 think it's a good movie? And yes, I did really 0:04:38.565 --> 0:04:40.285 like this movie. I think it's a very good film. 0:04:40.645 --> 0:04:43.765 And the first part of your prompt nails one of 0:04:43.805 --> 0:04:47.685 the aspects of Whiplash I appreciate the most. It absolutely 0:04:48.325 --> 0:04:52.085 is both affirming of such striving and cautionary about it, 0:04:52.205 --> 0:04:54.965 which is really the only honest position to take. I 0:04:55.005 --> 0:04:57.404 think it would have been so easy for Chizell to 0:04:57.485 --> 0:05:03.005 show the personal cost of Andrew's ambition physically, psychologically, socially, 0:05:03.525 --> 0:05:05.525 and have him renounce that by the end of the 0:05:05.525 --> 0:05:08.964 film and be in a much healthier place, maybe be 0:05:09.045 --> 0:05:11.525 the kid again who could actually play the drums just 0:05:11.565 --> 0:05:15.724 for fun. But Chizelle maybe because this is a personal 0:05:15.765 --> 0:05:17.805 film for him. What little I've read, he was a 0:05:17.805 --> 0:05:20.885 former jazz protege himself and now he's an artist of 0:05:21.085 --> 0:05:24.925 or making movies. He knows how disingenuous that would have been. 0:05:25.005 --> 0:05:30.005 He knows how crucial that drive is in any artistic endeavor. Dangerous, yes, 0:05:30.245 --> 0:05:33.565 but necessary. And by the end of this film it's 0:05:33.565 --> 0:05:36.005 a neat little trick Gizelle has pulled off. He gets 0:05:36.045 --> 0:05:39.605 to have it both ways. It's crowd pleasing and inspirational, 0:05:39.885 --> 0:05:44.605 but also really problematic and disturbing to really think about 0:05:44.605 --> 0:05:46.965 it from the main character's point of view. So there's 0:05:47.005 --> 0:05:50.525 this element of cliche to this film in terms of 0:05:50.605 --> 0:05:53.565 hitting some notes that we want a film like this 0:05:53.844 --> 0:05:56.325 to hit in terms of being uplifting. And then you 0:05:56.325 --> 0:05:58.285 sort of find yourself after you've risen out of your 0:05:58.284 --> 0:06:01.005 seat and find yourself cheering sitting back down and thinking 0:06:01.125 --> 0:06:04.125 what am I excited about? What am I really cheering for? 0:06:04.485 --> 0:06:08.325 It is dark in that way, and I respect quite 0:06:08.325 --> 0:06:10.365 a bit that little trick that Gizelle's pulled off. 0:06:10.485 --> 0:06:12.765 Yeah, I like that. Use the word trick because that's 0:06:12.925 --> 0:06:16.925 exactly what he does. In a way. All the questions 0:06:17.125 --> 0:06:20.325 that are at the beginning of this film really are 0:06:20.525 --> 0:06:23.964 still there, aren't they when the lights come up? And 0:06:24.205 --> 0:06:27.645 that's what I loved about it, because it explores all 0:06:27.685 --> 0:06:31.804 the possibilities of this being cautionary and how the direction 0:06:31.925 --> 0:06:35.205 this kid is going is dangerous for himself personally, certainly 0:06:35.205 --> 0:06:38.205 for his relationships, yeah, and even for his physical health. 0:06:39.005 --> 0:06:43.205 But then it opens up to consider without ever really 0:06:43.885 --> 0:06:48.404 condoning the methods that the Simmons character uses, but to 0:06:48.485 --> 0:06:54.285 make us really ask is there something that's worth all 0:06:54.325 --> 0:06:55.964 of this that the kid has gone through? And maybe 0:06:55.964 --> 0:06:58.645 perfection We don't want to get too derailed by that 0:06:58.765 --> 0:07:02.205 as a topic, right, Maybe it's just to be your 0:07:02.245 --> 0:07:06.085 best or to truly achieve something, it's going to take 0:07:06.125 --> 0:07:08.565 some sort of sacrificing, some sort of suffering, And then 0:07:08.605 --> 0:07:12.845 you ask yourself, Okay, is that worth it? Or would 0:07:12.845 --> 0:07:15.804 I be better off having other elements of my life 0:07:15.885 --> 0:07:19.244 be healthier and richer. But I never attained that maybe 0:07:19.285 --> 0:07:22.925 one moment, and we get that moment. This was a 0:07:22.965 --> 0:07:26.365 movie that very much worked for me personally as a 0:07:26.445 --> 0:07:30.045 viewer along the same trajectory as Frank the Michael Fassbender 0:07:30.125 --> 0:07:34.805 film with him in the paper mache head mask leading 0:07:34.965 --> 0:07:38.725 a band, and both pictures I was enjoying quite a 0:07:38.725 --> 0:07:42.565 bit all the way through wasn't crazy about, and both 0:07:42.605 --> 0:07:47.244 of them culminates in a performance that ties everything together, 0:07:47.365 --> 0:07:50.485 brings it all together in this climactic scene, and also 0:07:50.565 --> 0:07:53.364 leaves you still questioning. I think, so this doesn't wrap 0:07:53.405 --> 0:07:55.765 things up neatly, but I can totally see how an 0:07:55.765 --> 0:07:58.885 audience would go out of this picture thinking, oh wow, 0:07:58.925 --> 0:08:02.445 how inspiring that was. But really, the teller character Andrew, 0:08:03.125 --> 0:08:05.525 he doesn't have any clear idea of how he should 0:08:05.565 --> 0:08:09.205 live his life as a jazz artist. Where this film ends. 0:08:09.245 --> 0:08:11.605 Then maybe he did a few scenes earlier, and that's 0:08:11.645 --> 0:08:12.445 what I liked about it. 0:08:12.485 --> 0:08:15.725 To your point, specifically about the questions this movie is posing, 0:08:15.765 --> 0:08:17.245 it occurred to me that I actually think it would 0:08:17.285 --> 0:08:20.685 be a really fun personality test to give someone to 0:08:20.685 --> 0:08:22.805 have them watch a scene that happens near the end 0:08:22.845 --> 0:08:24.205 of the movie, and I'll be vague here to not 0:08:24.245 --> 0:08:28.125 spoil anything, but there's a conversation where Fletcher JK. Simmons 0:08:28.205 --> 0:08:32.165 lays out his rationale. He explains why he pushed Andrew 0:08:32.445 --> 0:08:35.405 and his whole ensemble as hard as he did. Take 0:08:35.485 --> 0:08:39.045 that explanation out of the context of the movie. You're 0:08:39.045 --> 0:08:42.045 just meeting this instructor on the street and hearing his 0:08:42.125 --> 0:08:45.805 teaching philosophy. I'm curious how many people would listen and, 0:08:45.845 --> 0:08:50.165 without hesitation, dismiss him and say, I would never want 0:08:50.205 --> 0:08:53.285 to be taught by that man. I couldn't undergo that 0:08:53.365 --> 0:08:55.565 type of process. I don't even want to spend any 0:08:55.564 --> 0:08:57.605 time with him, much less be instructed by him. How 0:08:57.605 --> 0:09:00.804 many people would listen and think, Okay, I get it. 0:09:00.804 --> 0:09:03.724 It sounds rough, but I get it. It could all 0:09:03.725 --> 0:09:06.365 be worth it. Sign me up. Now, take those people, 0:09:06.445 --> 0:09:08.725 the people that said sign me up. Have them watch 0:09:08.804 --> 0:09:12.045 the movie, hear his philosophy. Where this scene appears within 0:09:12.085 --> 0:09:14.645 the context of the movie. You've seen his behavior, you 0:09:14.684 --> 0:09:16.605 see how far he goes, you see all the damage 0:09:16.645 --> 0:09:19.445 he's caused. How many of those people would still say 0:09:19.645 --> 0:09:21.925 sign me up? And how many of them would switch 0:09:21.965 --> 0:09:26.365 their answer to no way. I certainly wasn't unequivocally enthusiastically 0:09:26.525 --> 0:09:29.085 on board, but Josh I was still on board. That's 0:09:29.125 --> 0:09:31.525 how messed up I am. That's how much I buy 0:09:31.645 --> 0:09:34.885 into this notion of artistic great And it's not perfection, 0:09:35.005 --> 0:09:38.085 as you said, because I don't think it's attainable in 0:09:38.245 --> 0:09:40.805 arts anyway. This isn't math or science. There's no formula, 0:09:40.845 --> 0:09:43.285 there's no hard answer, there's no hard right answers. But 0:09:43.525 --> 0:09:47.525 in the striving for a form of perfection, maybe you 0:09:47.605 --> 0:09:51.525 achieve something close, maybe you achieve something transcendent, and in 0:09:51.564 --> 0:09:53.285 that way, maybe it is. 0:09:53.285 --> 0:09:55.525 All worth it. And that's another trick the movie Polls 0:09:55.645 --> 0:09:57.925 is that just when you think you've got this guy 0:09:58.005 --> 0:10:02.485 figured out and demonized, here comes that speech And yeah, 0:10:02.564 --> 0:10:04.685 I was in the same boat as you. I'm thinking, well, 0:10:04.925 --> 0:10:07.485 he's he's maybe got it figured out here and it 0:10:07.525 --> 0:10:10.965 ties into you know, the one line if it's the 0:10:10.965 --> 0:10:12.765 same conversation I'm thinking of, but I'm pretty sure it 0:10:12.804 --> 0:10:14.684 is is when he says something about the worst two 0:10:14.684 --> 0:10:17.525 words in English language are good good job. And doesn't 0:10:17.525 --> 0:10:20.765 that tie into this culture now of every kid's team 0:10:20.765 --> 0:10:23.365 gets a trophy. Right, every kid comes home, whether you're 0:10:23.405 --> 0:10:26.165 in last place or first place, with a ribbon or something. 0:10:26.725 --> 0:10:30.125 And that's the idea behind it, is that we're all 0:10:30.445 --> 0:10:33.084 just here to learn. Now at different contexts. Of course, 0:10:33.245 --> 0:10:36.565 that happens with little kids. Here is well, you know, 0:10:36.804 --> 0:10:41.124 a young adult college age and maybe making that transition 0:10:41.325 --> 0:10:45.365 between Okay, you're bad, get out of my classroom, I'm 0:10:45.365 --> 0:10:48.485 bringing another guy in and at some point you do 0:10:48.605 --> 0:10:52.485 have to have that restriction for the art to breathe, 0:10:52.485 --> 0:10:54.684 and so you see where he's coming from, and the 0:10:54.725 --> 0:10:58.765 movie shifts your perspective. Another interesting question to ask along 0:10:58.804 --> 0:11:01.845 the lines of yours would be what shifts did you 0:11:01.925 --> 0:11:06.685 make during this film? Like where were you agreeing with Simmons? 0:11:06.765 --> 0:11:09.245 Where did you just want to like get him fired? Yeah, 0:11:09.245 --> 0:11:11.804 And I think it's a real emotional trajectory that this. 0:11:11.765 --> 0:11:13.844 Picture takes you through, There's no doubt. And I think 0:11:13.845 --> 0:11:16.525 a shorter version of this same challenge it comes in 0:11:16.564 --> 0:11:18.565 the form of a question that happens in a dinner 0:11:18.564 --> 0:11:23.245 table conversation much earlier in the film, where Andrew, in 0:11:23.445 --> 0:11:27.125 justifying his pursuit of this ambition, says, basically, I'd rather 0:11:27.205 --> 0:11:29.925 die at thirty four, but be somebody that people are 0:11:29.965 --> 0:11:32.925 still talking about fifty sixty years from now versus someone 0:11:32.965 --> 0:11:36.245 who lives to be ninety. Yeah, and nobody cares about 0:11:36.365 --> 0:11:38.925 not memorable in any way. That's another question. I think 0:11:38.965 --> 0:11:41.765 a lot of people listening probably have asked themselves at 0:11:41.765 --> 0:11:44.285 some point, and that reaching for greatness. I said this 0:11:44.365 --> 0:11:46.125 movie was one of my most anticipated movies of the 0:11:46.205 --> 0:11:48.965 year because that's something I am always drawn to. Those 0:11:49.085 --> 0:11:51.405 kinds of stories is something that has always fascinated me. 0:11:51.445 --> 0:11:53.725 For whatever reason. It came up a lot recently in 0:11:53.765 --> 0:11:56.525 connection with my top five movie Tattoos. Remember, I was 0:11:57.125 --> 0:12:01.245 paying tribute to know Man on Wire, Felipe Patv pulling 0:12:01.245 --> 0:12:04.045 off this unbelievable feat and all that jazz, Joe Giddy, 0:12:04.085 --> 0:12:07.445 and a character pursuing this perfection and always failing. It 0:12:07.485 --> 0:12:11.325 also connects Josh with something else I'm always preoccupied with. 0:12:11.405 --> 0:12:13.005 It comes up a lot here on the show, which 0:12:13.045 --> 0:12:16.285 is purpose. One of the reasons I think this type 0:12:16.325 --> 0:12:19.285 of ambition is so attractive, even though it's so obviously 0:12:19.325 --> 0:12:23.564 potentially harmful, is that it's simplifies everything. Sure, if your 0:12:23.765 --> 0:12:27.525 entire focus is this goal, whatever that goal is, then 0:12:27.645 --> 0:12:29.964 virtually every decision you have to make has already been 0:12:30.005 --> 0:12:32.365 made for you, or is at least much easier to decide. 0:12:32.365 --> 0:12:34.645 There's another great scene in Whiplash that gets directly at this, 0:12:34.885 --> 0:12:36.965 in both dialogue and also how it shot, which I 0:12:37.005 --> 0:12:38.965 know we want to talk about a little bit. Andrew 0:12:39.005 --> 0:12:41.204 takes this girl he's interested in. He asked her out 0:12:41.205 --> 0:12:45.125 at the movie theater. She's selling popcorn nicole out for pizza, 0:12:45.485 --> 0:12:49.165 and she reveals that she really doesn't know what she 0:12:49.205 --> 0:12:51.804 wants to do with her life. There's no real reason 0:12:51.804 --> 0:12:53.805 why she decided to go to school at Fordham, it 0:12:53.885 --> 0:12:56.045 was just there. She doesn't know what her major is 0:12:56.125 --> 0:12:58.325 yet she's still searching. It's this very kind of vulnerable 0:12:58.365 --> 0:13:01.365 moment and Andrew's reaction. He's a nice enough kid, at 0:13:01.445 --> 0:13:03.645 least at this point in the film. His reaction to 0:13:03.684 --> 0:13:07.645 that isn't mean or hurtful, but his questions are just 0:13:08.045 --> 0:13:11.165 pointed enough that it's quite clear to her and to 0:13:11.285 --> 0:13:15.645 us that he just cannot fathom being so directionless, so 0:13:15.845 --> 0:13:18.725 lacking and drive, so lacking in purpose. And she certainly 0:13:18.804 --> 0:13:21.804 senses it, and the exchange ends awkwardly. But the reason 0:13:21.845 --> 0:13:24.005 we sense it, Josh, It isn't just the words, it's 0:13:24.045 --> 0:13:27.084 because of the editing here in this sequence. It's been 0:13:27.205 --> 0:13:30.085 up to this point in the conversation a pretty standard 0:13:30.125 --> 0:13:33.485 shot reverse shot conversation, and then he asks that first 0:13:34.045 --> 0:13:37.444 leading question and she recognizes the subtext, and the pace 0:13:37.485 --> 0:13:40.045 of the editing quickens. The editor here is Tom Cross. 0:13:40.564 --> 0:13:43.045 It quickens just for that back and forth, a little 0:13:43.045 --> 0:13:45.084 bit of if you've seen the movie Double Time Swing, 0:13:45.485 --> 0:13:48.804 if you will, and it just completely heightens the intensity 0:13:48.804 --> 0:13:51.645 of that scene and draws our focus into what's really 0:13:51.684 --> 0:13:53.925 going on in the back of his mind, which we 0:13:53.925 --> 0:13:55.805 can sense a little bit based on his personality, but 0:13:55.845 --> 0:13:57.925 it's really there because of the way that scene is 0:13:57.965 --> 0:14:00.205 captured and the way it plays out rhythmically. 0:14:00.564 --> 0:14:02.645 Hey, how are you? 0:14:02.804 --> 0:14:06.285 I'm good? Thanks? Good? The usual. 0:14:08.725 --> 0:14:13.925 Look, I don't really know how. I see in your 0:14:14.005 --> 0:14:17.564 law and I think that you're really pretty and would 0:14:17.564 --> 0:14:18.005 you want. 0:14:17.845 --> 0:14:23.405 To go out with me? Ever? Please go away? 0:14:24.005 --> 0:14:26.125 Oh my god, I'm so sorry. 0:14:26.285 --> 0:14:29.725 I'm so sorry. I'm just messing with you. I'm going 0:14:29.805 --> 0:14:35.165 to make you. Oh my god, I'm sorry. 0:14:35.285 --> 0:14:37.205 That's actually pretty mean. 0:14:37.405 --> 0:14:44.125 I'm sorry. I didn't mean so what's your Oh I'm Andrew, 0:14:44.205 --> 0:14:46.565 Andrew I'm Nicole. 0:14:46.925 --> 0:14:49.925 Nice to meet you, Nicole. I'm glad you mentioned the 0:14:50.005 --> 0:14:53.645 character of Nicole. She's played by Melissa Benowist I believe 0:14:53.685 --> 0:14:55.325 is how you pronounce it, and she only gets a 0:14:55.365 --> 0:14:58.365 handful of scenes, but she's really crucial because there isn't 0:14:58.525 --> 0:15:02.805 really that opposing force in this film for the Miles 0:15:02.845 --> 0:15:06.085 tell her character. We do see his father by Paul Reiser, 0:15:06.165 --> 0:15:10.845 but he's more of an ingratiating, supporting He's not going 0:15:10.925 --> 0:15:13.405 to be real harsh with his son sense, but she 0:15:13.685 --> 0:15:16.885 is that polar opposite. She doesn't, as you said, doesn't 0:15:16.925 --> 0:15:20.205 know what she wants to do, and positions that as 0:15:20.245 --> 0:15:23.365 a worthy to live your life, to explore and not 0:15:24.045 --> 0:15:25.965 have everything laid out in front of you and go 0:15:26.045 --> 0:15:28.325 after it with this driving force. So I like that 0:15:28.965 --> 0:15:30.805 she has that role in the film. And you're right 0:15:30.885 --> 0:15:33.965 about the editing so crucial to talk about in this 0:15:34.085 --> 0:15:38.485 picture because we get so many insert shots I noticed 0:15:38.525 --> 0:15:42.285 that are not only there to convey information, but the 0:15:42.325 --> 0:15:45.165 pacing at which they come are like accent beats and 0:15:45.205 --> 0:15:48.125 a piece of music, and we get them where you'd expect. 0:15:48.205 --> 0:15:51.925 When Andrew joins this elite group and we first see 0:15:51.925 --> 0:15:54.805 them warming up, so we get the moistening of the reads, 0:15:54.845 --> 0:15:56.965 the tuning of the drum keys, all in these quick 0:15:56.965 --> 0:16:00.725 answers procedure very much, very much, But we also get 0:16:00.725 --> 0:16:03.925 these accent beats in other scenes where you wouldn't expect them. 0:16:04.005 --> 0:16:05.965 That date scene between the two of them will get 0:16:05.965 --> 0:16:08.165 a quick one under the table of her foot inching 0:16:08.245 --> 0:16:10.485 toward his, or even the scene where he goes to 0:16:10.525 --> 0:16:12.605 the movies with his father, we just get an insert 0:16:12.645 --> 0:16:16.485 shot of popcorn. And all that does is give us 0:16:16.565 --> 0:16:20.925 this sense of fluidity and movement, so that this is 0:16:20.925 --> 0:16:24.885 a movie that's always on the move, and that kind 0:16:24.925 --> 0:16:27.445 of incorporates this idea of jazz style as well. And 0:16:27.485 --> 0:16:29.965 I do like how Chazelle and the editor Tom Cross 0:16:29.965 --> 0:16:32.045 incorporate that into the film. 0:16:31.925 --> 0:16:34.565 Or whatever, just because he's so constantly in that space. 0:16:34.605 --> 0:16:37.245 But even when he's not listening to music, it seems 0:16:37.285 --> 0:16:39.005 though the music's following, yeah. 0:16:38.765 --> 0:16:41.525 Pursuing him for sure. And even when we get establishing 0:16:41.605 --> 0:16:45.285 shots of New York City, they're quick shots cut to 0:16:45.405 --> 0:16:47.685 the beat of the song that is playing. I do 0:16:47.725 --> 0:16:50.325 want to ask you, though, how you feel about these 0:16:50.405 --> 0:16:54.485 formal choices in that climactic scene which we won't necessarily 0:16:54.525 --> 0:16:58.485 give away what happens, but it is the big scene 0:16:58.485 --> 0:17:01.405 at the end, the one that won me over on 0:17:01.445 --> 0:17:05.605 the movie overall. Yet I did feel like the esthetic 0:17:05.645 --> 0:17:08.885 approach that Chazelle was taking throughout the movie by trying 0:17:08.925 --> 0:17:12.285 to match his visuals with the music, almost went a 0:17:12.325 --> 0:17:16.325 little overboard there. I mean, we get tracking shots, swish pans, 0:17:16.845 --> 0:17:19.965 wide screen shots of the auditorium. This is a performance, 0:17:20.005 --> 0:17:22.045 we can say it's taking place, said a jazz competition, 0:17:22.085 --> 0:17:24.725 I believe, And it was almost even for jazz. It 0:17:24.765 --> 0:17:25.725 was almost too much for me. 0:17:25.925 --> 0:17:28.285 Yeah, it wasn't for me. I think that that might 0:17:28.325 --> 0:17:31.365 have been though that as someone who does love jazz 0:17:31.445 --> 0:17:34.165 music and who has played in jazz group since seventh grade, 0:17:34.445 --> 0:17:36.405 starting out in sort of middle school and high school 0:17:36.445 --> 0:17:38.205 bands where I didn't really know what jazz was, but 0:17:38.245 --> 0:17:42.405 then actually discovering bebop and that sort of thing and 0:17:42.685 --> 0:17:46.125 really appreciating it playing in different jazz combos, let's just 0:17:46.165 --> 0:17:48.845 say that I was really thankful, or at least the 0:17:48.885 --> 0:17:51.205 audience was really thankful that when I saw this movie 0:17:51.365 --> 0:17:53.765 late on a Sunday night, there was no one else 0:17:53.805 --> 0:17:56.365 in the row with me, because I wasn't just tapping 0:17:56.445 --> 0:18:00.165 my foot. I was, I was music leg I mean yeah, 0:18:00.205 --> 0:18:02.045 I mean I was. I was really into it. So 0:18:02.085 --> 0:18:04.805 honestly I might have been so hypnotized by the music, yeah, 0:18:04.805 --> 0:18:07.565 and the playing that even though I was aware of 0:18:07.605 --> 0:18:10.245 some of the pyrotechnics of the camera, it certainly didn't 0:18:10.285 --> 0:18:12.765 draw me out of it. If anything, it drew me in. 0:18:12.965 --> 0:18:15.685 That's how caught up in the end of this film. 0:18:15.725 --> 0:18:17.525 I was, even as I said, I caught myself also 0:18:17.605 --> 0:18:20.285 thinking about kind of the ramifications of the end of 0:18:20.325 --> 0:18:22.765 the film I love too, Josh, that I honestly didn't 0:18:22.765 --> 0:18:23.365 see it coming. 0:18:23.605 --> 0:18:24.845 You can say I didn't either. 0:18:24.925 --> 0:18:27.125 Now, well, this is exactly where this type of movie's going, 0:18:27.125 --> 0:18:29.725 But the movie takes enough little detours that to get 0:18:29.765 --> 0:18:32.085 to that scene certainly was something I didn't expect. 0:18:32.125 --> 0:18:33.925 And that final scene I think you could describe as 0:18:33.965 --> 0:18:36.965 having a three act structure itself for sure. So there's 0:18:37.005 --> 0:18:40.525 the initial dtour, but it takes a few other turns. 0:18:40.205 --> 0:18:43.845 Also, starting with Miles Teller, the star of this film, 0:18:43.885 --> 0:18:47.325 an actor that you've come to appreciate recently due to 0:18:47.365 --> 0:18:49.645 his performance in The Spectacular. Now I've been a little 0:18:49.645 --> 0:18:52.365 bit on the Teller bandwagon, going back to a few 0:18:52.365 --> 0:18:54.205 earlier performances, What did you think of him here? 0:18:54.765 --> 0:18:57.565 Well, what I liked about his performance here is that 0:18:57.725 --> 0:19:00.325 he goes in a different direction than The Spectacular Now 0:19:00.365 --> 0:19:02.285 and one that was very encouraging because that was a 0:19:02.325 --> 0:19:05.565 movie which very much in the performance and the character 0:19:05.565 --> 0:19:09.005 relied on his charm, and he played that to the hilt. 0:19:09.045 --> 0:19:10.805 I mean, he just had you, even a kid with 0:19:10.925 --> 0:19:15.165 major faults, he had you one over instantaneously. He sort 0:19:15.165 --> 0:19:19.285 of drains himself of that here and it's maybe not 0:19:19.405 --> 0:19:23.445 as ingratiating of afformance, but it's a perfect fit for 0:19:23.485 --> 0:19:25.325 the part and for the movie and for this story 0:19:25.325 --> 0:19:28.925 that's being told. And again I was encouraged that he's 0:19:29.045 --> 0:19:31.845 not concerned with playing somebody who's likable necessarily. He was 0:19:31.845 --> 0:19:33.885 more than willing to go that direction. And you see 0:19:33.885 --> 0:19:36.685 it in that scene, that date scene again, because The 0:19:36.725 --> 0:19:39.885 Spectacular Now is a teenage romance in some levels, so 0:19:40.365 --> 0:19:43.645 it's almost like it could have gone that way. And 0:19:43.725 --> 0:19:47.365 he really puts the emphasis on the drive that Andrew 0:19:47.445 --> 0:19:50.245 has and his willingness, especially in the second date scene, 0:19:50.805 --> 0:19:53.925 to just jettison what he at least thinks might hold 0:19:53.965 --> 0:19:54.365 him back. 0:19:54.565 --> 0:19:59.085 It's funny because whenever an actor plays a performer of 0:19:59.125 --> 0:20:02.005 some kind and maybe there's Oscar talk and I don't 0:20:02.005 --> 0:20:03.485 know if there's going to be for Miles Teller in 0:20:03.485 --> 0:20:05.925 this film, but the question comes up, well, are we 0:20:06.005 --> 0:20:09.845 really awarding or recognizing the performance as an actor or 0:20:09.925 --> 0:20:11.965 actress or is it just that we're all so wowed 0:20:11.965 --> 0:20:13.645 by the fact that, oh, look, Jeff Bridges can play 0:20:13.685 --> 0:20:16.205 the guitar, or look at how great they sing in 0:20:16.245 --> 0:20:19.325 this scene. You're almost more wowed by the vocal performance 0:20:19.325 --> 0:20:21.845 than maybe any of the acting. I don't know whether 0:20:21.965 --> 0:20:23.685 we should give an actor extra credit for that, but 0:20:23.765 --> 0:20:26.405 maybe we should give Miles Teller some extra credit Josh 0:20:26.445 --> 0:20:30.485 for the drumming, because lots of people can sing pretty 0:20:30.565 --> 0:20:34.205 darn well. Not very many people, relatively speaking, on this 0:20:34.325 --> 0:20:37.765 planet can play the drums or even fake playing the 0:20:37.805 --> 0:20:41.085 drums at this level. And without that ability, and of 0:20:41.085 --> 0:20:43.685 course he got some lessons, he had some background in it, 0:20:43.725 --> 0:20:46.045 but he did go through a boot camp that paid 0:20:46.085 --> 0:20:49.445 off really well. Without his ability and the commitment he shows, 0:20:49.685 --> 0:20:51.565 this whole movie falls apart. I said that when we 0:20:51.565 --> 0:20:54.165 were looking ahead to this movie, you can't fake jazz 0:20:54.245 --> 0:20:56.445 drumming at this level, and the movie doesn't. I'm sure 0:20:56.525 --> 0:20:58.205 there are a few tricks at times where it cuts 0:20:58.245 --> 0:21:00.645 to some of those close ups. Maybe he's not playing entirely, 0:21:00.805 --> 0:21:04.445