Great as a movie - But jazz without improvisation?

Rating: 7/10 (24 February 2015)

First of all I greatly enjoyed this movie. The actors were very convincing and so was the story telling and cinematography. Ever since seeing it last night, this movie has haunted my mind. And of course that is a great thing a movie can achieve, right?
I loved Whiplash because it raised many questions about art education and about teaching jazz music in particular. As a jazz lover I adored the music that was played. Unfortunately not all questions that were raised were actually answered within the story of the movie. Mainly because to my idea Whiplash displays an extremely limited view on what jazz music is about. And while being involved in the story I kept hoping that different approaches to music would be introduced... Too bad that did not happen.
The main theme is all about dedication: Andrew wants to become a jazz legend so much, that he practices until his hands are bleeding. In his view the ultimate way towards success is to earn his teacher's approval. This professor (Fletcher) however, only exploits the student's ambition and keeps bullying him into raising the bar without end.
But are talent, dedication and discipline the sole ingredients for achieving true greatness in music? Is fear of failure a good motivation? What about inspiration, the joy of creating fantastic music together with other musicians? In the school orchestras all students are trembling of making a mistake and in blind awe of their professor. Don't they have a mind of their own? In the movie Andrew also does not have any friends to create music with, not within nor outside of the school system. Does he really love music at all? He is only focusing on equaling the excellence of very old classic jazz (of half a century ago) and there is not even a spark of joy in the music he is making.
Several times Charlie Parker is set as an example to Andrew by his teacher. He was supposed to have benefited greatly from his initial failure and humiliation. Why didn't the student question the truth behind the legend of Parker? Parker developed his technical and artistic talent by playing TOGETHER WITH many different other musicians in clubs during endless jam sessions.
And very importantly: Charlie Parker's success was based on IMPROVISATION. How could a writer miss the opportunity to illustrate this huge thing by which jazz music is different from classical music? Why did Andrew allow himself to be degraded into a wind-up monkey, performing only the notes that are on the sheet music, within the tempo his teacher wanted to hear? Why did Andrew not get the insight that there is more to jazz music than this narrow path? It all remains a mystery.
Even in the end of the movie his vision stays exactly the same: in the finale Andrew set off into a manic, everlasting drum solo, clearly intended only to wipe his teacher off his socks. In the end Andrew only starts to smile when Fletcher at last reluctantly approves of his performance. End of story...
Music making as an equivalent to a boxing match! Play faster than Rocky Balboa's punches and the world is at your feet? Too bad the movie missed the opportunity of making clear that there is way much more to music.
So, how about a sequel in which the ambitious student at last finds true artistic joy of playing REAL IMPROVISED JAZZ by playing WITH other musicians and by learning to actually LISTEN and INNOVATE music? That would have been the ultimate victory!