This is really trying to find meaning where there is none. "Andrew's life didn't need editing", wtf. It's just a way to introduce the main character and his nemesis, that's all there is to it.
The reason it is oscar-worthy is : drums are by definition repetitive, a character playing drums is mostly static, there are no real dialogs possible while drums are being played, and the movie overcame all these obstacles.
One of the problems is that the article ascribes a lot of decisions to the editor that were actually made by the writer or the director. Which is weird, because something can't be an editing decision if it had to be shot a certain way, because editing comes all the way at the end after everything's been shot.
Of course, writing about film is hard, because it's such a collaborative medium. It's hard to attribute a decision to a single person, when in actuality it was probably hinted at in the script, then improved from the director talking to the actor, or the DP suggesting an experimental camera angle, or the editor finding an accidental shot that just happens to work for the scene.
So let's look at whether some of these decisions were born in "writer," "director", or "editor" land. I'll pretend that Whiplash wasn't written and directed by the same guy.
However, after rushing to get to the studio, he
realizes that he is early — by 3 hours. He was
manipulated, leading him, and us, to question:
should he trust Fletcher’s version of “time?”
This series of cause-and-effect events is the story, which is the purview of the writer.
Andrew re-enters the rehearsal space in slow-motion.
He gets behind the drums, also shot in slow-motion,
until Fletcher re-enters the room, which resets the
film into normal motion.
Again, if you had to shoot it in slomo, it wasn't the editor's decision. It's hard to say if this would come from writing or directing. The script could say "he approaches the bench in slow motion," or it could say "he approaches the bench" and the director intuits that the film should ratchet up the tension.
It’s interesting to note that while his drumming is off,
the editor chooses to place cuts of Andrew placing
band-aids on his hand that are in perfect rhythm with
the timing of the ride cymbal –-
This does sound like an editing decision. But again, the script could easily say "He band-aids his hand in rhythm with the cymbals."
If you want to read more about some actual decisions an editor goes through, I highly recomment In The Blink Of An Eye, written by sound and film editor Walter Murch. Tony Zhou's Vimeo series Every Frame A Painting is great too, although it focuses more on directing and cinematography.
Interesting article - I am always curious how the psychology behind the edits subconsciously plays into my understanding of, and feelings toward, character dynamics.
For those who haven't seen it, Whiplash is my favorite movie of the past several years. The "third act" is probably the most intense finale I've seen in quite some time as well.
Highly recommended to anyone, musical background or not.
I am generally a movie curmudgeon with a high bar. I got it as an iTunes rental for a long flight. iTunes only gives you 24 hours once you press play. I watched it three times before expiring.
Even as a musician, it's the human expression side that talked to me. Expressing your voice and ideas. Also the existential notion of time, no rush no drag, very important outside of the instrument.
The final part was like being in a rocket taking off, pretty intense.
> For those who haven't seen it, Whiplash is my favorite movie of the past several years. The "third act" is probably the most intense finale I've seen in quite some time as well.
Totally agree. I watched it during a flight totally randomly. I didn't expect much but it was a great surprise. The finale was so intense I had to watch it a second time.
I thoroughly despised this movie. To me it felt like a celebration of a sadistic abuser mind-raping a kid, and never being punished for it. No music teacher I know would have gotten away with what Fletcher did without going to jail.
This is not how you teach jazz. This is not how you teach anything.
You don't have to like movies for them to have been good! You could despise a character while still thinking the movie was good for making you despise the character. That's an art.
If they have a strong emotional impact on you, they've "worked" (other than if they're just crap) because you talk about them, digest them and question their messages. A ton of great movies explore the darker side of humanity by using despicable characters; that's the beauty of story.
You hated it because it had a mean character in it? Your prerogative, I suppose. I thought it was a fantastic movie, despite not liking every person in it.
It also applies to how many of us extract excellence from ourselves. Working intense hours, loathing ourselves for errors, losing our lives to release some app which is probably shitty and even ultimately meaningless to humanity when you allow yourself to think about it... :)
Also, many teachers have a lot in common with the one in the film. A lot are worse. (SPOILER: Modulo the unlikelihood of someone competing after stumbling about and obviously bleeding profusely.)
I really enjoyed this movie, but I also feel like it was a Rorschach test for sociopathy. What you come away with at the end of this movie kind of says a lot about you as a person.
I loved this movie, and immediately commented to a few movie-buff friends of mine that I was certain that they'd get an oscar for the sound editing. The actual movie edit was artful and amazing, but the sound edit.. talk about meticulous.. every single drum hit?! Called it! http://www.nabshow.com/thought-gallery/oscar-winner-ben-wilk...
Sorry to be pedantic, but Whiplash won the Academy award for best sound mixing; the award for best sound editing went to American Sniper. Mixing involves the spatial and tonal quality of the sound; editing the temporal and semantic quality.
But either way yes, it is very meticulous, and I think you'd be even more shocked to look at the project files, because each individual sound you hear in a film often involves multiple layers of sound or multiple treatments of a single source sound through different mix busses. As a rule of thumb there are bout 10 edits on the sound track for every cut you see on screen. Thankfully there are some tools available to partially automate the process, but in the it requires a huge amount of work and near-endless reserves of patience.
Source: movie sound is what I (mostly) do for a living, though I haven't won an Acamdemy award for it.
Most years the big films which are up for Best Picture and Best Director, are often nominated for other more niche awards.
The Curious Case of Benjamin Button was nominated for Best Sound Mixing. And you have to wonder if it really had far and away better sound editing than hundreds of other films that year.
fyi: Whiplash was originally shot as a 20min short (different lead actor) which then got it's budget expanded so they could re-shoot and go for a full length movie. Annoyingly don't have details to hand.
[+] [-] flashman|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] column|10 years ago|reply
The reason it is oscar-worthy is : drums are by definition repetitive, a character playing drums is mostly static, there are no real dialogs possible while drums are being played, and the movie overcame all these obstacles.
[+] [-] morley|10 years ago|reply
Of course, writing about film is hard, because it's such a collaborative medium. It's hard to attribute a decision to a single person, when in actuality it was probably hinted at in the script, then improved from the director talking to the actor, or the DP suggesting an experimental camera angle, or the editor finding an accidental shot that just happens to work for the scene.
So let's look at whether some of these decisions were born in "writer," "director", or "editor" land. I'll pretend that Whiplash wasn't written and directed by the same guy.
This series of cause-and-effect events is the story, which is the purview of the writer. Again, if you had to shoot it in slomo, it wasn't the editor's decision. It's hard to say if this would come from writing or directing. The script could say "he approaches the bench in slow motion," or it could say "he approaches the bench" and the director intuits that the film should ratchet up the tension. This does sound like an editing decision. But again, the script could easily say "He band-aids his hand in rhythm with the cymbals."If you want to read more about some actual decisions an editor goes through, I highly recomment In The Blink Of An Eye, written by sound and film editor Walter Murch. Tony Zhou's Vimeo series Every Frame A Painting is great too, although it focuses more on directing and cinematography.
[+] [-] sharkweek|10 years ago|reply
For those who haven't seen it, Whiplash is my favorite movie of the past several years. The "third act" is probably the most intense finale I've seen in quite some time as well.
Highly recommended to anyone, musical background or not.
[+] [-] bedhead|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] agumonkey|10 years ago|reply
The final part was like being in a rocket taking off, pretty intense.
[+] [-] yodsanklai|10 years ago|reply
Totally agree. I watched it during a flight totally randomly. I didn't expect much but it was a great surprise. The finale was so intense I had to watch it a second time.
[+] [-] dreamcompiler|10 years ago|reply
This is not how you teach jazz. This is not how you teach anything.
[+] [-] estefan|10 years ago|reply
You don't have to like movies for them to have been good! You could despise a character while still thinking the movie was good for making you despise the character. That's an art.
If they have a strong emotional impact on you, they've "worked" (other than if they're just crap) because you talk about them, digest them and question their messages. A ton of great movies explore the darker side of humanity by using despicable characters; that's the beauty of story.
[+] [-] deadlysyntax|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ablation|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] slowmotiony|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] calibraxis|10 years ago|reply
Also, many teachers have a lot in common with the one in the film. A lot are worse. (SPOILER: Modulo the unlikelihood of someone competing after stumbling about and obviously bleeding profusely.)
[+] [-] knucklesandwich|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ojbyrne|10 years ago|reply
The movie essentially argues that greatness comes from external pressure, from being pushed beyond your limits.
[+] [-] miles932|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] anigbrowl|10 years ago|reply
But either way yes, it is very meticulous, and I think you'd be even more shocked to look at the project files, because each individual sound you hear in a film often involves multiple layers of sound or multiple treatments of a single source sound through different mix busses. As a rule of thumb there are bout 10 edits on the sound track for every cut you see on screen. Thankfully there are some tools available to partially automate the process, but in the it requires a huge amount of work and near-endless reserves of patience.
Source: movie sound is what I (mostly) do for a living, though I haven't won an Acamdemy award for it.
[+] [-] brunorsini|10 years ago|reply
On Film Editing Kindle Edition by Edward Dmytryk (http://www.amazon.com/Film-Editing-Edward-Dmytryk-ebook/dp/B...)
In the Blink of an Eye Revised 2nd Edition by Walter Murch (http://www.amazon.com/Blink-Eye-Revised-2nd/dp/1879505622) (sadly no Kindle version exists for this one yet)
[+] [-] azhenley|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] reagency|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] paublyrne|10 years ago|reply
The Curious Case of Benjamin Button was nominated for Best Sound Mixing. And you have to wonder if it really had far and away better sound editing than hundreds of other films that year.
[+] [-] unknown|10 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] BuildTheRobots|10 years ago|reply
Personally I was absolutely blown away by it...
[+] [-] unknown|10 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] swagv|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sp332|10 years ago|reply