This is a well-written piece as usual but saying the success of this film has to do with upper middle class striving is just not the full picture. That's where it comes from. But the film's success has to do with it being a treatment of the important, mostly-unspoken, pan-American principle of the last half-century or so that you won't be great until you push yourself past the breaking point. That everyone is great, potentially, but some of us have to have that greatness brought out of us, at cost. That's why the ending was excellent on its terms, because he still lets Nieman ascend to greatness in spite of all the perversity and outrageous behavior by Fletcher. It's easy to see this as the achievement of the American Dream itself. Same idea with him fleeing the car wreck — what an opportunity, it just proves nothing will ever stop him. I personally liked these flights of fancy because they made it clear this was about a deep mythic American thing and had not too much to do with jazz, which was at least something the director knew well and could expound on, despite your misgivings.
I'll add that while I took jazz in various levels of education and never experienced anyone abusive to that degree, that's an archetype that matches my experience. One jazz director actually, who was basically a good guy but he was a very dominating personality like Fletcher and could make people cry. And I have no doubt there are a lot of guys like him in the institutionalized jazz world. Military discipline in service of something as loose as jazz is just an ingrained irony available to those like Chazelle who want to use it, which is what I felt he was doing.
The funny thing is that I wouldn't say I'm a fan of this movie, but even determining whether I like it or not is a classbound question, which returns me to the original reason I responded: I don't think of the ethos of this movie as mid-upper class but more like lower class, like grind culture. So it's hard for me to say whether I actually like it because I don't want to sound like either a naive child or a crook. (Similar to you, I just found much of it too phony.) The part about greatness through maximum adversity is something that resonated with me and I think virtually every American up to about Zoomers.
This is a well-written piece as usual but saying the success of this film has to do with upper middle class striving is just not the full picture. That's where it comes from. But the film's success has to do with it being a treatment of the important, mostly-unspoken, pan-American principle of the last half-century or so that you won't be great until you push yourself past the breaking point. That everyone is great, potentially, but some of us have to have that greatness brought out of us, at cost. That's why the ending was excellent on its terms, because he still lets Nieman ascend to greatness in spite of all the perversity and outrageous behavior by Fletcher. It's easy to see this as the achievement of the American Dream itself. Same idea with him fleeing the car wreck — what an opportunity, it just proves nothing will ever stop him. I personally liked these flights of fancy because they made it clear this was about a deep mythic American thing and had not too much to do with jazz, which was at least something the director knew well and could expound on, despite your misgivings.
I'll add that while I took jazz in various levels of education and never experienced anyone abusive to that degree, that's an archetype that matches my experience. One jazz director actually, who was basically a good guy but he was a very dominating personality like Fletcher and could make people cry. And I have no doubt there are a lot of guys like him in the institutionalized jazz world. Military discipline in service of something as loose as jazz is just an ingrained irony available to those like Chazelle who want to use it, which is what I felt he was doing.
The funny thing is that I wouldn't say I'm a fan of this movie, but even determining whether I like it or not is a classbound question, which returns me to the original reason I responded: I don't think of the ethos of this movie as mid-upper class but more like lower class, like grind culture. So it's hard for me to say whether I actually like it because I don't want to sound like either a naive child or a crook. (Similar to you, I just found much of it too phony.) The part about greatness through maximum adversity is something that resonated with me and I think virtually every American up to about Zoomers.
Should make joker 3 with these same casts I won’t see it I won’t know haha
Never seen this one never will