Carl Jung developed the concept of the "shadow" or "shadow aspect" (of the psyche). As reference, per Wikipedia the shadow is the "unconscious aspect of the personality which the conscious ego does not identify in itself. Because one tends to reject or remain ignorant of the least desirable aspects of one's personality, the shadow is largely negative." Some quotes from Jung: "Everyone carries a shadow and the less it is embodied in the individual's conscious life, the blacker and denser it is." On the tendency of the shadow as projection: "The projection-making factor (the Shadow archetype) then has a free hand and can realize its object--if it has one--or bring about some other situation characteristic of its power." Generally speaking, the shadow has negative energy, although Jung thought it could also be the "seat of creativity." All of that applies directly to Whiplash. How? Think about this: Fletcher as a physicalized projection of Neimann's shadow. Neimann's drive to be the best. His need to feel superior to others (witness the awkward dinner conversation with his extended family). His self-abnegation. Driving himself to bloodied hands. That is all a part of Neimann's psyche. Fletcher embodies all of that energy as a superior and external figure. Fletcher is the projection of Neimann's shadow. Now there are other parts of Neimann's psyche. His attempts at a relationship with Nicole demonstrates he would like to be in love. He's kindhearted toward his father, even if he probably thinks of him as pretty much a loser. He has a passion for music and an affection for creativity. However his shadow bends and shapes all 'positive' aspects of his psyche through his obsession. If we step back from Neimann's story and ask this question - Why does THIS story HAVE to happen to NEIMANN at THIS time - in my view, it boils down to this: He needs to confront his shadow self in order to determine who he is. That's why the universe intersects him with Fletcher, why Fletcher decides to work with him, and why they enter into their decidedly unhealthy relationship. Given that, consider the end. Fletcher has set up Neimann to fail in such a way, Neimann would have no future as a jazz drummer. As spiteful and meanspirited as that is, in one way of looking at the story, that is the ONLY chance Neimann would have to go on and have a healthy psychological life. He could walk away from his obsession, be freed of its claim on his soul. And he ALMOST does. But then he comes back. And while what he does is amazing, achieving a level of drum- playing he'd never hit before... while he proves to himself he can do it... while he wins over Fletcher... He is doomed. Chazzelle himself said as much -- I can't find the article, damn it! -- when he was asked what he imagined happened to Neimann after the end of the movie and Chazzelle said he thought Neimann would be dead by the age of 35. Just like Sean Casey, another of Fletcher's students who had not died in a car crash, but committed suicide. So in sum, I see Neimann's psychological journey as one where he confronts his own shadow - in the form of Fletcher - and rises to the level of his obsession, achieving a perverse sense of unity, one that will ultimately destroy him. That's my take. What's yours?

That's really interesting. I'm still trying to wrap my head around this shadow concept, but your mentioning of the overlaps also had me thinking of: Casey's car wreck = Neiman's car wreck Parker's drug/alcohol usage (which lead to his death) = Neiman's pill usage Jo Jones throwing the cymbal Paker's head, him cry and laughed off stage, to come back as the greatest drummer ever = those beats are played out twice: Neiman's first time in Fletcher's group (chair at head, crying, then "I won't disappoint you") and then the final climax (laughed at and humiliated, then becoming one of the greats). It was as if Neiman's story was being echoed from Parker's and Casey's.

Here are some of the character observations I had: Charlie Parker: dead at 34. Broke, heroine and alcohol. One of the greats. *Neiman's future. Sean Casey: suicide. Depressed and anxiety resulting from his time with Fletcher. Good, but no Charlie Parker. *Fletcher actually lied to Neiman and the classmates, saying Sean's death was from a car accident. What's interesting is that Neiman was in the car accident, and then metaphorically almost killed himself trying to get to the show on time. Also, a possible future for Neiman if Fletcher didn't completely embarrass him and make his future as a drummer impossible. As noted by Scott, Fletcher would have saved him from this fate. Nicole: a wanderer. Doesn't know why she is in school for. Says her "mom" wanted to be an actress, but Nicole works at a movie theater. Bullied by her mom. * Neiman knows exactly want he wants and will do anything to get it. The opposite of Nicole who is too afraid to go after her artistic dream. Both bullied. Uncle Frank and Aunt Ema -- supper supportive of his kids. Celebrates their mediocrity. "HS teacher of the year", D-3 football, model UN" *Neiman is all or nothing. Cousins -- good, but not great. Have a social life and don't sacrifice like Neiman. Ryan -- natural talent but not self-sacrificing. Has a girlfriend and social life on the weekends. *Neiman -- admires Ryan before he meets Fletcher. tanner -- older. 22. Gets replaced by Neiman. Gives up and switches to pre-med. Mr. Kramer -- discourages Neiman. Favors Ryan who has more natural talent. * exact opposite of Fletcher: "The truth is I don’t think people understand what it is I did at Shaffer. I wasn’t there to conduct. Any idiot can move his hands and keep people in tempo. No, it’s about pushing people beyond what’s expected of them." talking head from documentary: thought Charlie Parker was a genius. Born with a gift. *According to Fletcher, Charlie Parker was shaped into being great. Fletcher: his monologue explains himself The truth is I don’t think people understand what it is I did at Shaffer. I wasn’t there to conduct. Any idiot can move his hands and keep people in tempo. No, it’s about pushing people beyond what’s expected of them. And I believe that is a necessity. Because without it you’re depriving the world of its next Armstrong. Its next Parker. Why did Charlie Parker become Charlie Parker, Andrew? ANDREW Because Jo Jones threw a cymbal at him. FLETCHER Exactly. Young kid, pretty good on the sax, goes up to play his solo in a cutting session, fucks up -- and Jones comes this close to slicing his head off for it. He’s laughed off-stage. Cries himself to sleep that night. But the next morning, what does he do? He practices. And practices and practices. With one goal in mind: that he never ever be laughed off-stage again. A year later he goes back to the Reno, and he plays the best motherfucking solo the world had ever heard... Now imagine if Jones had just patted young Charlie on the head and said “Good job.” Charlie would’ve said to himself, “Well, shit, I did do a good job,” and that’d be that. No Bird. Tragedy, right? Except that’s just what people today want. The Shaffer Conservatories of the world, they want sugar. You don’t even say “cutting session” anymore, do you? No, you say “jam session”. What the fuck kind of word is that? Jam session? It’s a cutting session, Andrew, this isn’t fucking Smucker’s. It’s about weeding out the best from the worst so that the worst become better than the best. (beat) I mean look around you. $25 drinks, mood lighting, a little shrimp cocktail to go with your Coltrane. And people wonder why jazz is dying. (then,) Take it from me, and every Starbucks jazz album only proves my point. There are no two words more harmful in the entire English language than “good job”. ANDREW But do you think there’s a line? You know -- where you discourage the next Charlie Parker from becoming Charlie Parker? FLETCHER No. Because the next Charlie Parker would never be discouraged. ANDREW ...And you? Are you back to playing now? FLETCHER Not really. Here and there... The playing never interested me. I never wanted to be Charlie Parker. I wanted to be the man who made Charlie Parker. The man who discovered some scrawny kid, pushed him, prodded him, shaped him into something great -- and then said to the world, “Check this out. The best motherfucking solo you’ve ever heard.” ANDREW Who’s your Charlie Parker, then? (hesitant) Sean Casey...? FLETCHER Sean... Sean was a sweet kid... And with all those idiots saying “This isn’t for you”, Sean did something great. Very few people ever get that chance... FLETCHER (CONT’D) But no... Not Sean Casey. (then, as he thinks about this,) The truth is I don’t know if I ever had a Charlie Parker... (and then,) But I tried. And that’s more than most people can say, Andrew. I tried. And even if I never find one, I will never apologize for trying

jem, those are some great observations. It's possible to extend the time frame beyond the Neimann / Fletcher relationship to Casey / Fletcher. So we could ask the same question relative to Fletcher: Why does THIS story HAVE to happen to FLETCHER at THIS time? Because he needs to get his ass fired lest he create MORE Caseys and MORE Neimanns. Aside from that, I think it is one of the most interesting ideas I teach: To think about the specific psychological relationship of a story's Nemesis (Antagonist) to the Protagonist. So often, they are a reflection of something deep within the P: * The Apartment: Sheldrake is precisely the type of person Baxter aspires to be, but if Baxter didn't become a "mensch," he would lose his soul, just like Sheldrake did. * The Silence of the Lambs: Clarice's father was killed by two burglars. As a child, I think she basically understood that to be akin to the Boogeyman, this frightening harbinger of violence looming around the corner at any time. So the story universe compels her to face a REAL Boogeyman: Buffalo Bill. * The Dark Knight: Batman confronts Joker, who is a masked man, like Batman. Has seemingly unlimited resources, like Batman. Is involved in the criminal underworld, like Batman (the latter trying to stop crime). As Joker says to Batman in the interrogation scene, then at the very end, they are similar. Joker represents chaos. Batman believes in law and order. But he knows of chaos due to the random murder of his parents. Again the projection of the shadow aspect of Batman's psyche. On and on and on it goes. You see this dynamic in movie after movie. Hell, in Raiders of the Lost Ark, Beloq literally tells Indiana: "You and I are very much alike. Archeology is our religion, yet we have both fallen from the pure faith. Our methods have not differed as much as you pretend. I am but a shadowy reflection of you. It would take only a nudge to make you like me. To push you out of the light." No surprise that screenwriter Larry Kasdan explored the same exact dynamic in The Empire Strikes Back when Luke confronts Darth Vader in that hyper-dream state on Dagobah. Who's head is Darth's helmet when it explodes? Luke. The Shadow! I love this stuff! We get all into it in my Write a Worthy Nemesis class. Anyhow the psychological connection between Neimann and Fletcher in Whiplash is genius, compelling and super powerful. That ending is awesome because it's got so many levels of meaning to it: Neimann wins... but he also loses. And everything in between.

Scott, I've been itching to reply since I read this at work earlier today and because this movie hit me so hard my head was spinning for days. I couldn't stop talking about it. I love it! One of the things that struck me about the movie is that from what I saw, Andrew's nemesis and shadow is his father. And I thought it was so deftly crafted because here his father is just being loving and caring, and he has good intentions, but ultimately his father is the main person trying to keep Andrew from achieving his goals. He discourages him. Tells him to quit. Even hires an attorney to get him to tattle on Fletcher resulting in Andrew finally quitting. From my perspective, Andrew is partly motivated by his fear of becoming his father; someone who had a dream and fell short. And at the climax, Andrew returns to the stage when he sees his father and feels pity for him as he's dragged away by the much larger stage hands. From the script: "Jim has never looked quite so small to his son, quite so pathetic, as at this moment." It's a different take on the shadow dynamic, but in that moment Andrew is literally headed in his father's direction. And if Andrew's father is his nemesis, then Fletcher is a perfect trickster - testing Andrew by sometimes helping him and sometimes harming him. He actually wants Andrew to succeed, whereas Andrew's father doesn't, and in some ways might selfishly want his son to fail to justify his own failures. Just my own take.

I think it's a story about What makes one the greatest. Andrew's journey blew me away from the first trailer because of it. Andrew has the most dramatic journey. From the shy doubtful about himself first-year to the Genius Player. The main plot points of the story reflect Andrew's understanding about what you should do if you want to become the greatest - you need to fight, to earn it in pain and sweat. And this makes Andrew to walk the line and fight literally - with Fletcher. And when Andrew is finally gives up - the father appear, the man opposite to who Andrew wants to be. So he returns to fight till the end. I think it's great theme close to everyone who wants his life to be special and has everyday struggle about if he dare or have enough talent.