Suppose God offers you two choices for reincarnation:
One is a life of genius, surrounded by immense fame, status, wealth, and talent, but you die young. The other is a normal, average life with a job, family, and children, living to a ripe old age.
How would you choose? Everyone's answer might differ.
How much diligence is needed for a genius to fully shine? To what extent is self-imposed pressure "too much"? What exactly is the role of a teacher?
I believe this film explores the grey, or rather, the dark area between motivation and anti-motivation. While watching, I felt exhilarated and excited, but also sensed something almost self-destructive.
Recalling an interview with Lang Lang, his father's approach to his piano practice was almost brutal, akin to Fletcher's dehumanizing pressure. Lang Lang tried to run away and even self-harm to stop his father's forcing. Now a world-renowned pianist, he described those years as cruel, yet admits that without such pressure, he might not have achieved his current success. I wished the interviewer had asked: "Would you choose this cruel path again?" But she didn’t.
Whether it's Lang Lang or Andrew in the film, they are both beneficiaries and victims of such harsh education. Frankly, how much do we understand the inner lives of geniuses? Given a second chance, would we prefer one less prematurely deceased genius in the world or one more ordinary drummer?
There are very few who have talent and endure such extreme education to reach heights unreachable by most. However, the story of the student who committed suicide in the film also tells us that this method is not for everyone, perhaps not even for the majority. Few people can resurrect after being pushed to the brink of death; most either break or flee to protect themselves from danger.
In the film, Fletcher's extreme obsession with "if a genius gives up, then he's no genius" shapes his teaching. He sees self-defense as cowardice, a one-sided view. While the film doesn't delve into his childhood, I suspect he must have experienced something extreme to adopt such a radical approach to education. He cares not for students' feelings, but only for results. Interestingly, genius students themselves often exhibit extreme and abnormal temperaments. Under Fletcher's inducement and pressure, Andrew sacrifices love relationships, integrity, and even his safety, along with perhaps many things he is unaware of. At the door of genius, his talent is ignited, but at the cost of his complete or healthy personality.
Fletcher's obsession with music and nurturing genius reaches the point of 'obsess'. Anything not following his rhythm, even if technically correct, is unacceptable to him. But music is not meant to be privately owned. The diversity of jazz today is due to different interpretations and performances of the same work. Without individual understanding and performance, there would be no bebop, free jazz, or Fusion jazz. Fletcher's model of pushing for genius, in my opinion, can only create technical geniuses. Whether such geniuses have future creativity remains uncertain. Ironically, he constantly uses Charlie Parker as an example.
Many modern parents try to push their talented children towards genius, a dangerous endeavor. This film aptly displays the two extreme outcomes of high-pressure talent cultivation. Each person is unique. As teachers and parents, should we gamble everything on our student/child to withstand such pressure to become a genius? Or should we encourage and gradually elevate a talented child to a certain level, then leave it to their fate?
I believe a well-rounded person cannot focus solely on one thing. Such single-minded pursuit – peak drumming skill – will inevitably destroy other aspects within. What's currently unimportant might become crucial later.
I was disgusted when he broke up with his girlfriend for being a "hindrance," yet admired his relentless practice and pitied him. I even can't fully condemn Fletcher's actions. Until the very end, my feelings towards each character changed constantly. Isn't that a remarkable multi-layered experience a good film should provide? A good film doesn't necessarily leave you feeling comfortable. Human nature is complex, and when a movie gives you a new experience of human nature, it signifies a thought-provoking good film.
Sadly, many view the film only in terms of the characters' moral integrity, forgetting it's a movie! There are many elements to a good film: script, editing, music, art, etc. Overall, I think it's a great film with a unique style. Like judging a building, you can't disregard all other elements because you dislike the color of the floor. Nor should you rate an entire movie poorly because a character's moral compass differs from universal values. It seems one-sided and unprofessional.
Finally, the film reminds me of the astronomical phenomenon where a supernova explosion creates a black hole. I never quite understood the "massive self-collapse caused by intense burning of a star." Watching this film, I gained a new understanding of genius. When a supernova explodes, it sometimes creates a black hole at its center due to immense gravity. Nothing escapes a black hole, not even the supernova itself. As a genius is born, so is destruction.
Share your thoughts!
Be the first to start the conversation.