i couldn't really enjoy this film emotionally, only intellectually.

i hate how the film says that fletcher was right. that you can really cultivate talent by putting it through extreme adversity. and despite all that fletcher's done that shows that he is not just misguided, but actively evil -- lying about sean casey's cause of death, and orchestrating his revenge on andrew by humiliating him in front of an audience -- he gets no comeuppance. to him, andrew's ambition validates everything he's done.

but i'm being a bit harsh. if i were to interpret the film charitably, it's saying "yeah, maybe fletcher is right. that the sweetest talent is juiced through trauma. but is it really worth the human toll?" and it says, maybe not. and perhaps the ending is not a triumph but a tragic continuation of a cycle of abuse.

becoming great

i disagree with the idea that pressure is needed to cultivate greatness. having been both the object and unfortunately sometimes perpetrator of such pressure, i now believe that pressure is wholly unnecessary to produce something great. truly great creations arise from a self-driven passion to create something that you yourself find beautiful, not out of fear or desire to impress others.

good and good

one thing i did appreciate about the film was how it drew a clear separation between goodness in morals and goodness in skill. fletcher is clearly a good musician -- he has a keen sense of tempo and pitch, and plays piano beautifully himself. but just because someone is skilled or talented does not mean they are a good person.

this was a useful message for someone like myself, who perhaps grew up with the message that moral goodness is roughly equivalent to competence.

yet i admit it is good

other than that... well the film was wonderfully acted and shot, and it certainly made me feel something. so it sure has artistic merit.

it's just icky to watch. and so easy to get the wrong idea out of.