Screenwriting : Whiplash and A-Storyline by Andrew Pritzker

This construct is not unlike many romantic comedies in which the couple are both protagonists and antagonists of their own relationship story. I was asked once who the antagonist was in the film, "When Harry Met Sally." There is no obvious villain except Harry and Sally's egos and misperceptions about each other. They are both on their own hero's journey but pulling in opposite directions in order to get to the same goal. In essence, that is exactly what Whiplash succeeds in doing.

You don't need a fully fleshed out B story supporting character. In this film, the B story DID serve it's purpose, which was to show his level of commitment and the personal sacrifice that it entails. 'The Story' is what's most important, and often times this does NOT involve fleshing out every single character -- or explaining every little detail and 'the rules,' for that matter (which often times, really means over-explaining for some).

BTW -- that's what supporting characters are, punctuations of the theme. It's not 'about' them.

It seems the only real purpose of the B Story was in clarifying that he was straight. The B Story presented no real diversion for the hero from his journey. He only becomes disenchanted when his mentor labels him a failure. Like Icarus, the hero melts and crashes but the B Story does nothing to restore his wings. It's a non story.

The B Story is a support story to enable the hero and heal his emotional wounds. It is a story that furnishes an internal goal, an emotional goal, which is hard to pull off with stick figures.

No. Put on your time machine hat, and think back to the scene where he's called her and discovered she has a new boyfriend. The expression on his face? That was LOSS.

50 bucks :)

Yes, it was the loss of an opportunity that he had already thrown away. However, he didn't even think of calling her until he had already re-established his true love story with the mentor. The mentor is the one who seduces (in a bar) and leads the hero into a trap. He's the one who dangles out the dream of performing at Lincoln Center. The call to the girl, once again confirms the hero is a straight male lead. A relationship with a girl is not the hero's true passion, at best it's a minor loss.

Michael, I never said the writing was flawed. It's a great execution of an alternate structure in which the A & B stories merge into one.

she's symbolic of the woman who must fight a battle with her man's true love -- his work. and this character didn't want to play that traditional game.

If you removed the girl, the film wouldn't collapse. It wouldn't even break stride. She has no real influence on hero at all.

maybe her character tells us a little bit more how dedicated he is in pursuit of excellence OR that if he got any closer to her then he would eventually shows signs of the abuse he was taking from his instructor. ie -- often women who are abused by their husbands never maintain relationships with their girlfriends... b/c the girlfriends will eventually find out.

The only thing Nicole is symbolic of is Andrew's willingness to give up a personal life to be a 'great.' The movie is not about Nicole. It's about what you're willing to sacrifice to be great. Fletcher represents that as a possible future version of Andrew: lonely, only pro musicians for friends, wracked by guilt over his student's suicide, yet perfectly willing to rationalize his world view.

I don't think Whiplash "breaks the rules of format, function, and structure." I don't think it's true that "the love story, or rather, the shadow of a love story, does nothing to help the character progress in his journey. It does not challenge him. It does not help him grow. It is a distraction." There's a breakdown on Kal Bashir's site ( https://www.youtube.com/user/clickokDOTcoDOTuk/videos ) - he sees her as representing a choice. And I must say I agree - him leaving her and wanting to go back to her means something.

What choice? She's practically nameless. What do you even remember about her besides the fact that she hasn't declared a college major and she's from Arizona. The girl is a shadow. She only represents a symbol of choice, a generic choice of a "girlfriend," but a girlfriend without any substance. There's no relationship between them. She could be any girl from anywhere. That's not a character of substance. I'm in agreement with Kal Bashir, she does represent "a choice" but in the same way a lunch menu presents a choice, the same way a shoe store offers a choice, but a simplistic choice with no true influence on this hero. She's not the road less traveled. She's not even a road. After Andrew leaves the music school, he doesn't call her. He doesn't call any woman. He only calls after he gets back together with his mentor. He doesn't have a life outside of his true passion and sadomasichistic relationship with his mentor. The girl is window dressing. She has the magnetic pull of a marshmallow. She represents the shadow of a choice and that's all.

She has no arc. That's the point. She's superfluous. It's not about her looks. She's a perfectly lovely actress. However, she's been cast to play a thumbnail sketch rather than a person of form and substance. My reference to "magnetic pull" refers to physics not the physical beauty of the actress. It's hardly a fair contest between the girl and the mentor. He draws Andrew in and traps him in a gravitational pull. He dangles the great prize before the hero. He is Andrew's alpha and omega, beginning and end. The girl offers nothing of substance. She is so greatly diminished by the mentor's nuclear glow that she hardly exists at all. Does she emotionally support Andrew? Does she heal his emotional wounds? Does she help him succeed? Dies she distract him from succeeding? Andrew says she does but the film, or the final cut of the film, never actually shows us what they may or may not mean to each other. My original point was not to support, damn, or critique one note characters in screenwriting. My point was to praise a wonderfully executed alternate structure in which the A Story and B Story are so strongly bound they appear as one. That is what makes Whiplash unique.

She doesn't need to have an arc. She's a reflection of Andrew's arc. You can argue she has an arc. She definitely chooses a side.

So it's settled, Andrew needs to write jucier scripts for Melissa Benoist :)

what Jenny said. that's why they're called "supporting" characters. if every supporting character had an arc then it turns into an ensemble... like CRASH.

I haven't seen the film yet to be honest, but I really enjoy the discussion about A, B, C, D story lines and how they support (or wreck) the film. I think the B, C and D story lines are there to reveal the character, to provide them with feedback and temptation and to force them to make choices. It can also be a good way to reflect on what's happening with the A storyline. Our film actually has about four story lines but that's simply because we gave each of the main characters their own story arc. If you're curious about our project, check it out here: http://www.cinecoup.com/theories/differentiator