First of all, I don’t think Fletcher is revenge against Andrew at the jvc music festival. On the contrary, he always believes that Andrew is the next great drummer worth training, so he deliberately does not give up the "abuse" of Andrew, hoping that he can surpass Own limits. The conventional teaching cannot make people push the limit. Secondly, the tutor Fletcher is a normal person in life, and the camera also explains it. One is talking with friends and children, the other is the intoxication of playing piano in the bar, and the other is the tears of learning that the student died before. Normal people with affection.
changed the tunes at the last jvc festival, told Andrew that he knew he was himself, etc. In fact, it is still Fletcher's old routine, which is to use all means to put pressure on Andrew and make him confused. Only in this way can a person's potential be stimulated. As for Andrew's return to the stage, it is not revenge at all. The entire film describes Andrew as an indomitable person and a person with lofty ideals, such as the expressions at the dinner table at family gatherings, such as giving up personal relationships with children in order to realize their ideals. The first time Fletcher broke down, he chose to beat Fletcher.
But after a period of time away from drumming and the conversation between the two in the tavern, he must have understood something and the purpose behind Fletcher. Nothing makes him care more than being a great drummer. So after all the previous preparations, in the final performance, even if he was played by Fletcher again, he still naturally chose a different way of dealing with playing-go back and prove himself. Furthermore, the artistic pursuit expressed in the film has surpassed the practical significance of success. Isn't there a scene where their family eats together in the film? This comparison, I think, highlights this artistic pursuit.
This reminds me of the biography of Mozart, like many "tragedy" masters in classical music, squeezing their lives in exchange for the artistic achievements they want to achieve. But now we are only satisfied with what others call a "good job", and we are defeated by fantasy and vanity in the process of hard work. I think maybe the movie conveys a bit of arousal, maybe not. And it seems that this film has many aspects, it allows and even gives you reasons to refute and think about it. In addition, the protagonist Andrew finally returned to the stage angrily, and the teacher was already ready to play the next song. From now on, it can be seen that the teacher has no intention of spurring the students. Then the students began to play solo, and the teacher came back and said a very crucial sentence: What are you doing? It also shows that the teacher did not anticipate the students' rebound.
Fletcher played a role similar to the psychological "father" in Andrew's growth. Fletcher did not use encouragement but promoted it to allow Andrew to continuously push his limits. Andrew experienced countless heartbreaking blows, countless day and night crazy practice, the moment he broke his limit, it means that Andrew has matured psychologically and become a real man. He and Fletcher's mode of getting along with him broke the limit, after all, it was unsustainable after all. Oedipus’ sense of father-killing can be understood as "tragedy" or "inspirational", two sides of a starfruit. .
Finally, after reading it, I resonated deeply with the protagonist. This is just a kind of person, pursuing the ultimate in dreams, and eager to be recognized by authority. Andrew loves and hates the teacher, hate him for being so mean to him, but very eager for the teacher to identify with him. I am very able to appreciate this "perverted" psychology. In fact, without his own perseverance and perseverance, how could the final twist be completed? Everyone has his own understanding of this film. For me, it perfectly interprets my mental journey in my learning career and can be regarded as inspirational.
