For those who have seen this phenomenal film, I found an unbelievably tight storyform that underlines the reason why the narrative works so well (to say nothing for the performances).
If you haven’t seen it, you might want to wait to read it. It’s a comprehensive analysis, chock full of spoilers. Enjoy!
Having seen it twice, this was my favorite picture last year.
The one aspect I’m not sure about is Terrance’s determination: is he sincere at the bar in describing/justifying his methodology? Is that what he’s really determined to do (find the next Charlie Parker)? Was his speech a ruse to set Andrew up? Or was his determination as you noted? (certainly fits his plans in the final sequence).
It’s hard not to view the ending as being a mutual success: they both get what they’re looking for, but only if Terrance was truly determined to find that next great performance - which I kind of have to believe since it was brought up a couple of times and dramatized by throwing the chair. Then again, he could have been using the Charlie Parker story to justify that, too. There’s a lot of manipulation going on which tends to skew the intent sometimes.
Yeah, Whiplash is insanely good. Had me screaming at the end.
Wonderful movie, great analysis.
I really liked the fact that it’s basically a two character story. I wonder how the character Elements for motivation, purpose, evaluation and methodology are ordered in such movie. All dynamic pairs?
Interview with the writer / director.
Apologies for bringing this thread up again so long after the last post - but thought it would be better raising this one from the dead than starting another one afresh.
Just watched this film and I have to agree with everyone’s assessment - it is AWESOME! Such a clean movie in terms of narrative. It knows what its about and sticks to that relentlessly.
I started trying to work out the storyform before reading @jhull’s analysis to see if I could bumble my way through it myself. And to be honest - it had me second guessing a lot of the appreciations. I really couldn’t pin down things as easily as I thought I should have been able to - and though Jim’s analysis helped, I am still quite confused in parts.
I would love to work through it again on here if I could, and get feedback to see where I am getting things right or wrong. Anyone up for watching me butcher the process, and help steer me in the right direction?
The film is out on Netflix - so if you haven’t had a chance to watch it - do it now - you won’t regret it.
Hi Brendon, I haven’t seen it yet but it sounds great, I’ll try to watch it in the next few days. As a bonus, I haven’t read Jim’s article so I have no idea on the storyform – it will be fun to see if I can get anywhere close on my own!
When you say “just watched the film” I’m not sure if you mean today, but one thing that can often help is to sleep on it, or give it a couple days. Your brain will tend to remember the structure more than the storytelling, plus it needs some time to organize its understanding. Re-watching can also help I’m sure, but these days who has time with so much else to watch on Netflix etc.! 
Hi Mike,
Thanks for the response. I had watched the film about a week ago and was impressed with it then. I then had a chance to rewatch it again last night. I agree, sleeping on it and letting it sink in helps a heap.
I’ll try to pull together an extended beat sheet to help me come to grips with the story form. Will post that over the next day or two.
Hi Brendon, I just finished watching it. Great film!! I went against my advice and storyformed it right away, since I was dying to look at the Theme Browser! (Once you know the domains & concerns for a film it’s almost frustrating not to have the whole model in front of you. I was like, Accurate has to be either Symptom or Response, and I think I see Proven and Determination/Expectation in there too, but I was just dying to know what quads they were in. Maybe one day I’ll memorize the whole thing. If Andrew can play Caravan by heart… )
Anyway, I got down to 1 storyform and then checked Jim’s site. I got almost the same storyform but different on two points. I picked Decision Driver without thinking about it much, and Jim has Action. Also I picked Holistic as the MC Problem-Solving Style. I partly picked it because of MC Unique Ability (Fantasy) / Critical Flaw (Experience), but I also see a couple other good arguments for Holistic. I’d be willing to try and convince Jim on both, but he’s probably right, because well, he’s Jim.
I’d be happy to discuss any of the story points. (Although I’m still a bit fuzzy on the Story Goal and even the exact definition of the OS throughline – the OS is a bit tricky in this kind of film where the MC, IC, and RS have so much focus!)
Ha ha. After sleeping on it I realize my choice of Decision was pretty dumb – here are a bunch of things no Decision could have forced:
I was originally thinking that his decision to go back for his drumsticks forced him to drive like a maniac and get into an accident, but they didn’t show him losing control and crashing. Instead something happened that could not have been forced.
On the Holistic thing, I was thinking that going back for his drumsticks didn’t make logical sense, but it was still a linear process. I was thinking he had no respect for TIME at all in doing so, but that’s not true – he was driving fast, watching the clock, calling someone when he realized he was late … all those things show awareness of time.
So yeah, totally on board with Jim’s storyform. (Lesson learned: sleep before posting!)
Hi Mike,
It is a great film, isn’t it!
Not sure the best way forward from here as there are a few things that stood out for me.
Totally agree with you regarding the OS throughline. It is considerably overshadowed by the MC and the RS throughlines. On trying to work out its storyform, I came up with a couple of candidates - each having good arguments for them, but in each case they didn’t quite work fully for my liking.
The things that I though were quite straight forward in regarding to the Character Dynamics and Plot Dynamics:
MC Resolve: Steadfast - Andrew Neimann believes he has what it takes to be one of the greats, that he is “here for a reason”. Though he wavers in that conviction a little throughout the film but he steps up at the end to take his rightful place, proving to everyone that he does indeed have the ability.
Limit: Optionlock - there was a hint in one of the scenes regarding a timelock. But it was sequence specific and not related to the OS much at all.
Outcome: Success - Though the OS is pretty light in the film so hard to pin down exactly what the story goal was. It does have a triumphant ending which hints at a Success story.
Judgment: Good - Andrew feels good about himself and has vanquished any demons he may have had.
If you don’t mind - I wouldn’t mind going through my thoughts for the other story forms I had in mind and dissecting them as I have trouble placing POVs to throughlines. I seem to remember bouncing the IC and MC around 3 of the 4 throughlines as they all had arguments for (and against) them. The following is going to be a bit of “stream of consciousness” - for which I must apologise.
Originally -(and to be honest I am finding it hard to shake the idea) is I had the MC throughline in Fixed Attitude.
The reason is that I had Andrew’s concern firmly in Innermost Desires. To me - that seemed to be ringing loud and clear for me for what drove Andrew, and a lot (if not all) of where his conflict came from. He believed he had what it took to be one of the greats and would do anything to do this.
Scenes to argue the point:
Of course this conflicts with Andrew being a Do-er. Perhaps Activity may have been a closer fit - with the concern of Obtaining. But Fixed Attitude seemed to be quite a solid fit up front after both viewings.
Other things I felt were resonating:
For Terrence (IC) - I had him firmly in Way of Thinking. For me - what I thought drove him was his search for the next Charlie “Bird” Parker. To do this, he became Jo Jones, (the musician that threw the cymbal at Charlie “Bird” Parker’s head, in order to inspire a Charlie Bird Parker in the people he mentored.
I was certain that Hinder was part of Terrence’s throughline as that was all that he seemed to do, to everyone.
In regard to him being the Changed character, I saw Terrence coming to the realisation that Andrew was his Charlie Bird right at the end. This was seen in that he changed from being a hard-arse, everybody needs resistance to flourish. To the point where he was actually helping Andrew straighten a cymbal mid-performance. There was a glint in his eye as he calls on the last sting of the orchestra to bring Caravan to then end. To me - this signified that he had finally found his own Charlie Bird Parker.
I have a bit more to go over - but have to run.
This is a GREAT idea for furthering your understanding of Dramatica. I’ll do my best to help as I have a pretty good grasp of it, having taken Jim’s mentorship program. But don’t be afraid to question my assertions either – a year ago I’d never even heard of Dramatica!
I hope you don’t mind I’ll try the approach of asking you questions instead of just stating stuff, as I found that really helped me when Jim did that. (despite how it puts you on the spot, but Jim never threw any cymbals, drums, or Mack trucks at me 
)
First of all, when figuring out the MC Throughline, the Do-er vs. Be-er question definitely needs to be considered first. Even if you think you feel a lot of Innermost Desires, if he’s obviously a Do-er when it comes to his personal issues, then he’s going to be in Situation or Activity. And when you see an MC doing something physical that is obviously conflict-related (drumming until your hands bleed!), if it seems to be related to his personal issues, that makes the Do-er nature pretty clear. ESPECIALLY if he keeps doing it (showing that it’s the “preferred” approach).
When you talk about his belief that he could be one of the greats, you may have been seeing his Issue of Fact (belief in something real; it’s a fact that he’s talented), combined with his drive to prove that talent (Unproven), rather than all of his personal issues stemming from a Fixed Attitude. You can try the old litmus test: If you removed his belief that he’s one of the greats, would he still have any personal problems?
Oh, you also might have been sensing the IC Benchmark of Innermost Desires, something like being able to measure Terrence’s influence by how much he ruins his students’ (esp. Andrew’s) deepest desires and dreams. Preconditions might have been part of what you sensed, too; perhaps giving up his girlfriend was his own (somewhat silly) precondition that he met.
(EDIT: Remember also that a Concern of Innermost Desires is the stuff of unfulfilled longings, unrequited love, deep yearnings, subconscious desires and dread … it’s not quite the same as the conscious determination and drive that you see in Andrew.)
To be honest, while watching the movie I thought the MC throughline might be Activity. Until the last scene, when the two of them almost merged over that incredible performance – that screamed an RS of Activity.
Hmm. I’m trying to think how I can help here, because I think I sort of jumped several steps, kind of got the IC Domain/Concern (esp. Impulsive Responses) by feeling. Jim’s mentorship is really good for developing the feeling of Domains and especially Concerns.
What might help is to remember that the IC Throughline is not so much about a person, but a force of influence, which is usually represented by person(s). Although the IC Story Points can often be attributed to the character, their most important feature is to cause influence and conflict in others (always the MC, but often other characters too). Despite its deprecation, I think the word impact is still useful here.
So ask yourself: where was the conflict that other people felt from Terrence coming from, and what area was it in?
What made it easier for me to identify the other throughlines was a strong guess at the OS Domain (and Concern, because of being pretty sure on top-right). Even though I didn’t have a good handle on exactly what the OS was, a great trick is to identify some characters who are important enough to show some conflict, but aren’t the MC or IC. Now, it’s possible those characters don’t have a role in the OS (they might just be helping to show the MC issues or IC influence), but if they have enough screen time they probably will have an OS role.
For Whiplash, I picked girlfriend Nicole and Andrew’s dad:
Damn! You are doing better at it after a year than I have after 5! I am saving up for Jim’s mentor program as I have been itching to do it since I saw it posted. Got a few more months of saving up before I can undertake it.
This is interesting. One of my issues is that I get hung up on something and can’t shake it rather than taking the story in holistically.
I think this is an area I am quite weak in. Hopefully with a lot more exercises I will come up to speed.
This is very intriguing stuff. How would you say is the easiest to parse out which element belongs to which appreciation? For example, I was reading Andrew’s laser focus as part of a Fixed Attitude, whereas you were seeing it as multipart examples of other elements, not related to a Fixed Attitude at all. Is there any easy way to dissect the thinking to allocate appreciations appropriately? Or does it just come with practice and intuition?
I am not fully sure what you are questioning here. But bear with me as I try to answer your question.
The conflict that I felt that Terrence was specifically calling people out for being out of tune, out of time, or ultimately trying to sabotage his band. I agree that the tune/timing issues are a good example of fitting into Accurate/Non-Accurate. Is this what you were asking?
Okay - thank you for this, very helpful.
Interesting that you said top-right as I was looking at bottom-left for the area of concerns (at least it is a dynamic pair of top-right) as I saw some variations and elements there that seemed to resonate.
There are a few more points I would like to get to but gotta run. Will post again tomorrow (hopefully). Thanks again for the help!
A lot of it’s practice, but keep in mind I was NOT actually noticing the IC Benchmark or Preconditions before seeing the storyform. What I was able to do was see the real source of conflict in the IC throughline at the Domain/Concern level, which for that throughline is less about the person, and more about the force of influence. It does help to keep in mind that everything in the model appears at least once in the story (Signposts, Benchmarks, PSR etc.). I still have trouble separating Benchmark from Concern sometimes.
What you might want to try is to watch (soon) another film with an IC in Impulsive Responses, and look for similarities.
Those are all great points and totally on the money, but I was actually asking about the Concern level; sorry, I should have been more clear on that. If you zoom out a bit and think about Terence as a FORCE of influence & conflict, in what area is that felt?
Glad to help, I’m enjoying this too!
Hi Mike,
Really interested in hearing more about this. Would you mind elaborating a bit.
Regarding the IC - I usually try to work through the other path. If Andrew is steadfast - what is he steadfast about? And then work through who is challenging that and trying to offer another path to travel. I don’t know if that is truly the correct approach to it, but I guess that is how I usually go about trying to work out who the IC is.
In Whiplash, there were a couple of candidates. Of course there is Terrence, who right from the start challenges Andrew’s worldview, walking out on him. His father also gives the alternative “Well you’ve got plenty of options still” talk at the cinema.
I would be interested in how you read the film regarding the IC.
I think that’s a good way to do it I think, and pretty much how I do it too. You can also look for a Relationship, although you have to be open to the idea that in some stories the relationship doesn’t require physical presence (e.g. The Lives of Others).
In Whiplash I never even considered anyone else for IC, just because Terence’s influence (impact) is so strong. He’s the “bull in a china shop” kind of IC, lol. I think Andrew’s father is illustrating the MC throughline issues, along with being a manipulative OS character.
Yelling in people’s face, throwing cymbals, slamming doors, all of these provoke impulsive responses from people … making it hard to stay cool and play your music. Even trying to be “on my tempo” is like a preconscious conflict, it’s not something you can do consciously.
There was so much CONFLICT coming from all this – and if you remove the Impulsive Responses conflict, suddenly there is no problem, no impact from Terence. If all the students were somehow 100% cool as a cucumber despite everything he did, there’s suddenly no problem in that throughline, he might as well have been a soft-spoken Mr. Rogers.
Did you get a chance to think about the other questions I asked about the OS?
Hey Mike,
Sorry for the delay. I work the last part of the week and over the weekends so barely have a chance to scratch myself. Just getting a change to sit down and work through all the good stuff you shared.
Okay - I see where you are coming from and it is making a bit of sense now. But, to be honest, I am struggling to unpick the “what he does” from the “why he does it”. I can see some of the elements work quite clearly (you make a good argument) for Fixed Attitude. But do we look at what he does, or why he does it? In that sense I still struggle to get him out of the Way of Thinking quad.
As mentioned above, he actually stated that he was looking for the next “Charlie ‘Bird’ Parker”. To do that - he took on the role of being Jo Jones. He was going to throw that cymbal at everyone’s head as he believe that that was what it would take to get people to become that great talent.
Now whether that is his fixed attitude, or him trying to challenge people’s way of thinking I am still working through.
I did try to bring what you stated up into the domain level and make it work as a statement.
For example, “Terrence Fletcher believes that no student of his is worthy to be in his band unless they can stand a few cymbals thrown their way.”
I guess that’s the best “Fixed Attitude” statement that I can up with for Terrence.
If we start looking at the whole band, though, don’t we start drifting into the OS? In regard to Terrence, I was trying to pin down elements that were specifically related to him only. There wasn’t too much to go on except the points where he had to deal with the kid who committed suicide because of the way Terrence treated him. Also, the fact that he got fired from Schaeffer.
I thought both of those scenes were IC only moments - which, to me, seemed to touch on the issue of Approach vs Attitude. That would put him in Activity though, which doesn’t work.
Hmm - I am still pondering this and would work well if IC was in Manipulation.
I tend to agree with you that things are looking Top Right in terms of Concerns.
Regarding your questions on the OS (Dad and Girlfriend)
[quote=“mlucas, post:14, topic:304”]
What happens when Andrew first asks Nicole on a date, what is her initial response?[/quote]
She rejects him (in jest).
[quote=“mlucas, post:14, topic:304”]
In the scene where the dad and the woman lawyer (I think she was a lawyer) talk to Andrew, what is happening, what are they trying to do and where is the conflict coming from?[/quote]
They are trying to talk Andrew into bringing a confidential complaint against Terrence Fletcher. I guess the conflict comes from Andrew’s anger and being treated they way he had been by Terrence, vs his loyalty to Terrence and the school. I felt that he had some Stockholm syndrome about it. It was an abusive relationship, but Andrew struggled to see that.
The only thing I can remember is the chocolate raisins and the popcorn. Was there another food item?
Regarding these moments, though, all of the scenes you picked still include Andrew heavily - and I would argue that they seem to be more MC scenes rather than OS. I would have thought the OS was related to the Band itself, or school, or the state of Jazz. Something that is bigger than the MC and his personal problems (going out/being rejected by a girl). The second point you mention feels more Protagonist inspired than MC so you have a point there.
Just noticed how long this train of thought has been going on for. Sorry for the long post!
Haha no worries about long posts, I do them all the time!
So, the chocolate things in the popcorn, to me that was a total manipulation conflict. The dad seems to want him to keep being the same son he was, watching movies together the same way, and the son plays along even though he doesn’t want the chocolate things (playing a role). When he tells him he’s going to “eat around them” the dad is super-upset, he basically says “I don’t understand [the way] you [think]!” But then later he stocks the son’s apartment with them, even though he already knows he doesn’t like them. Total manipulation – you gotta keep being the son I want you to be, that sort of thing.
Although it’s a small moment, it felt like an important moment of “pretending” in the OS.
This is where the conflict is coming from in that scene. You’re right it’s related to Terrence but it’s mostly about the OS characters at this point: the student/son, the father, the lawyer, the bad teacher.
For the IC throughline, the IC’s influence can impact characters other than the MC. I like to think of this as the “bull in the china shop” IC – there’s one particular item in the china shop that needs shaking up (the MC), but the author doesn’t mind sending a bull in there to do the job, which does plenty of collateral damage.
Hmm. I think you can look at either one! Wherever his influence comes from, or what areas he has influence in, how he influences others … it’s all fair game.
Your Fixed Attitude statement for Terrence is great! Nothing can possibly change his mind … until it turns out he was wrong about one particular student …
Regarding the idea of MC in Activity – I meant that only while watching the movie I thought he might be in Activity, but keep in mind trying to get the storyform before you’re finished watching is not a great idea, since the Storymind is a holistic thing. By the time it was done, RS in Activity made way more sense!