A few things to kick things off: * We've all heard the old saw: "Write what you know." Damien Chazzelle proved the value of that with Whiplash as it is inspired by his own experiences as a drummer with a tough teacher. * That said, no matter how interesting we may think of our own life experiences, we have to apply a strict test to them: Is this particular story big enough to be a movie? What about Whiplash? (A) Drumming is a visual narrative element. (B) It has the feel of a sports movie, the challenge of athlete and coach. (C) The story has to go somewhere and build to a substantive climax - which Whiplash does in spades (as I've noted, I think it has one of the best third acts I've seen in years). (D) But mostly it has a compelling central relationship: Neimann and Fletcher. Locked together in a kind of mortal combat. * With all that, the story has to mean something and that goes directly to the psychological journey of the characters. The tortured relationship of Neimann to Fletcher, and vice versa, is complex and nuanced. * Finally, let's not forget the emotions the movie traffics in: Yearning, Loss, Tears, Regrets, Hope, Thrill, Anger, Rage, Sadness, and on and on. The narrative structure is actually quite simple, but there is this engine of emotion churning the story forward. In sum, Whiplash is what I call a Big Small Movie. The scope of the story is small: These two characters over a period of an indeterminate number of months. But the relationship, the emotions, the characters themselves all add up to Big. So Chazzelle wrote what he knew. But he also knew enough to make a MOVIE out of the story elements. Whiplash is an incredible achievement. First time writer-director. Shot in 18 days. Limited budget. Fantastic performances. Strong visual look. What do you take away from the movie?

Several things I'm taking away, having watched the movie and even more so having read through the script a couple of times. First of all, as has been noted, the story is clean and simple, a two-hander that also happens to be loaded with conflict (August and Mazin covered this, the various levels of conflict in the central relationship, in detail on a recent podcast). The romantic subplot was minimal and only really used to further underline the protagonist's single-mindedness (and eventually his regret over the loss of a relationship). As a screenwriter, I liked how Chazelle was not afraid to use boldface type, lots of underlining, and even a larger font to emphasize the action and dialogue where appropriate. And for a writer, it's also noteworthy that the last five pages or so, the most dramatic moments of the movie, were almost all description, very little dialogue. So much was conveyed visually in that last scene: the twists and turns of Fletcher's motivations and reactions, the father's realization that he had lost his son, the extent of Andrew's drive/obsession/mania.

This script was a good reminder of Billy Wilder's rule #9 and #10: #9: The event that occurs at the second act curtain triggers the end of the movie. #10: The third act must build, build, build in tempo and action until the last event, and then—that’s it. Don’t hang around.

Also a reminder for me, when the story calls for it, is to give some of my characters ulterior motives, especially the antagonists.