Dissection of Characters: Whiplash
What comes first, the egg or the chicken? Or even a scarier question for writers:
What comes first, the plot or the character?
That question should hunt every screenwriter’s head, forever. And with no clear answer. Just as you can write a film script starting from the plot, you can also start from characters. I dare to say that one of those movies which characters are the foundation of the story, has to be Damien Chazelle’s Whiplash, from 2014.
It’s been almost a decade since this movie came out. By now, if you are a writer or a filmmaker, then you have definitely watched it. If not, you are nine years late and, to be honest, that’s not quite my tempo (I just wanted to write that down).
Anyway, as I hope you know, the movie is about Andrew, an aspiring jazz drummer who enrolls at a music conservatory, where he constantly has to prove to his mentor that he is truly committed to become one of the greatest drummers.
I watched Whiplash when it came out. Now that I am planning to do some screenwriting workshops, I thought of watching it again so I could analyze the movie plot. However, I found something much more fascinating about this movie. I realized that the plot is actually moving throughout his characters, with such an ease.
What?
Allow me to explain.
There is that scene where Andrew (Miles Teller), the protagonist, is having dinner with his family. His uncle and aunt seem to be excited for what his cousins are achieving. One of them got his MVP (he plays American football, probably at college) and the other is heading up Model UN and his mother, aunt Emma, is quite sure that he will get an important scholarship.
When they ask Andrew how’s is the drumming going, it’s the way they ask and the way they react to his response, that triggers Andrew to start a dinner squabble. Andrew confronts one of his cousins, assuring him that he’ll never hear from the NFL, and his father replies with a heavy question: “Did you hear from Lincoln Centre?”. Andrew stands up and leaves the table. That table is way more important than you think, because even in the way they are sitting, you can find the core of Andrew’s character construction.
First, the Father.
The most important thing underneath the surface of Whiplash is the relationship between a son and his father, in this case, Jim. Andrew has been playing the drums since he was six. Jim might had enjoyed watching his son performing in such a way, but this probably have changed as Andrew was becoming a man. We kind of understand Jim. In harsh words, nobody wants his son to be a beggar. Or a teacher (even though this is quite a decent way of living and a great contribution to society, but this is just another topic). It’s those thoughts that make Jim the one who is always trying to discourage Andrew, because he knows how difficult it is to achieve such an improbably goal. He has also lived it. He used to be a writer and just became a teacher. So frustrating. Jim is the future Andrew might fear the most. Not becoming one of the greatest. That’s why Jim’s responses are always based in his fear.
But in that table, there is another Fatherly figure, and it’s his uncle. Uncle Frank. He is actually sitting at the head of the table, where a father usually sits. Therefore, we can realize that Frank is above in that family hierarchy. He is above Andrew, above aunt Emma and above Jim. He asks Andrew how’s the drumming going. Then he wonders how is he planning to make money after graduating. That’s what fathers do, right? How is he going to provide. It is a crucual matter for life. That’s a fact. But Andrew is just so far from wanting to answer those questions. He just doesn’t care about it. We don’t even know if Andrew wants to form a family which he provides for. No matter what, Andrew is still sitting at that table and being part of that family. He is still looking for an approval, and probably for a father’s approval. So there’s an even bigger fatherly figure in this story, and he is not at that table. Yes, it’s Fletcher.
The approval that Andrew is not expecting from his father or his uncle, is actually expecting from Fletcher. It is certainly way more valuable to him because the man cares about what Andrew cares. They are on the same page, contrary to Andrew with his father and his uncle. These last want to be remembered by his friends and family, whereas our main character is looking for something greater: to be remembered by all. That’s why Andrew’s main conflict brings out the perfect antagonist for this story, which also made J.K. Simmons have a chance to win an Oscar, in my humble opinion.
So, coming back to the table, two cousins are sitting in front of Andrew: Travis and Dustin. They are young as him and they are aiming to be the best at what they are currently doing. Dustin is the brain and Travis the muscle. Dustin is looking for a scholarship, to become a student, then to become a job seeker, and then to become a great employee or an entrepreneur. Nothing wrong with that.
Travis might do the same as Dustin, with less success, but he is probably naturally talented at his hobby, which is playing American Football. By the way Andrew talks, he just doesn’t see in his cousin the skills needed to be part of the greatest league. Contrary to his case, that he really sees him self being part of the jazz’ greatest league. That’s why they are so related. Andrew sees in his peers, that he has something they don’t.
The cousins work also as mirrors of other important characters that play a part in the main storyline: Andrew’s fellow drummers, Carl and Ryan. We see Andrew climbing up the drummer’s hierarchy, from passing the pages to Ryan, the drummer (who looks more like an athlete who aspires to play on a pop rock band), to stealing the main role to the nerdy Carl (who actually looks more like a conservatory musician and that might become a great teacher in the future). Both his cousins and his fellow drummers, are Andrew’s competition in a way. The obstacles he has to overcome. They will also show him if he has it or not.
Finally, back to the table, next to Andrew, is aunt Emma. She’s so proud of her boys. This seems to affect our main character, since Andrew’s mom abandoned him and his father. It might be a stereotype, but while a father always seems preoccupied, a mother is always proud. That’s something Andrew probably never had, and perhaps that’s good. Perhaps that motivates him to seek for perfection.
This all comes down to his decision of not dating Nicole, the pretty girl that works at the cinema. Nicole could be the perfect answer to Andrew’s lack of a motherly figure. Andrew has the chance to have some feminine acceptance and affection, but then realizes that it’s not about that anymore. He realizes later in the movie that he really lost a chance with Nicole (he calls her back and tries to invite her to a jazz presentation), but this only shows Andrew that there is no way back, and that he has to overcome what he’s dreamed of. On the road, there are always some sacrifices to be made.
The cosmos built by these characters give a solid foundation to this film. One character can be a mirror of another and at the same time, a mirror to our main character. Each character is there to add to the protagonist complexity. There is nothing fortuitous in any of these characters, something that actually makes sense, since each second of production is money invested in telling the story in the best possible way. That simple and apparently innocent family dinner scene happened to be that important.
Mapping out your characters in such a way does not mean that you got a movie. You still need a strong plot, which Whiplash definitely has it, but by having this type of characters so related and opposite to each other, perhaps makes you find an easier way to create a meaningful story, by connecting the dots.
Oh, it’s always nice to talk about the controversial matters of the movie, and that’s a final thought I’d like to share. One thing that was left open for interpretation, maybe, is all about this mysterious case of Sean Casey, a Fletcher’s former student.
The movie really shows us that Fletcher had a similar story with him that the one we are watching with Andrew. The young man was a trumpet player and was actually on his way to become one of the greatest. He was not regarded as a good musician but, thanks to Fletcher, he ended up playing for the Lincoln Center, first as a third trumpet, but lately as the first. Then he died. Fletcher says he died in a car accident (Andrew oddly suffers a car accident afterwards), while the lawyer that Jim hires, affirms that Casey committed suicide. According to the lawyer, Sean was suffering from depression, which might have started back when he played for Fletcher.
Is it Fletcher’s fault?
Jim’s ambition to get Andrew out of that vicious and toxic obsession, supports that he did die because of Fletcher. However, oddly enough, Andrew is so similar to Fletcher (and it seems like he needs him so much) that he even understands Fletcher more than we do. The movie ends and leaves us with the impression that Fletcher an Andrew might become friends after all this mayhem, just as Fletcher and Casey probably were.
So no, I don’t think Sean Casey committed suicide because of Fletcher. Casey probably thought that playing at the Lincoln Center wasn’t enough to create the legacy he was aspiring for. I think it happens to every artist who finally climbs the first step and realizes he might have more time to do even more. Or perhaps Sean Casey realized he was playing jazz and, as Fletcher said, jazz is dying. Who knows…
But then, why was Fletcher feeling guilty about? Of course he could have felt guilty about it, but that doesn’t mean he was the cause for Sean’s death. Later at the bar, Fletcher admits to Andrew that he has no regrets, because all he’s done was trying harder than most of people normally do. And if I agree with Fletcher on something, is that the worst thing someone can say to you is this one: good job.
