Five Easy Pieces

Had fun reading about 30 of the negative reviews. It's nice that people who live in such a perfect world that they don't believe the character flaws examined in this movie exist. Many of us have gone through much of what Bobby Dupea has. Self doubt, poor choices and being born into a family whose lifestyle we reject which results in us not being as good of a person as we would have liked. Bobby knows he is toxic but is unable or unwilling to change. Nicholson's acting is near perfect but occasionally off (think Chinatown for perfect) making it his arguably his second best. Bobby is largely a disgusting prick, but you occasionally have misplaced hope and empathy for him. The movie sticks with me and resonates 52 years later, I guess because I see some of myself in Bobby Dupree. Bobby's badly damaged character is an indictment of some of us. If movies matter to you, see it. You won't feel warm and fuzzy, but you will get a good look at life that hopefully you don't see from your vantage point.

This film is a classic because it operates and works on every level imaginable, a truly evocative film. Other posters have elucidated upon and discussed the musicology of it, and the significance of Chopin. I'll take their word for it, and not go there. That's out of my league. And, as others have noted, the film is an exploration and study of character, which it certainly is. All that and more. I see the film as being in its own way a period piece unto itself, the period being films made in the late 60s and early 70s. It is quintessentially representative of what was an important movie circa 1970. Of course the storyline of an alienated young man (Jack Nicholson as Robert Dupea), walking away from all that is expected of him, and indeed walking away --if not running away-- from his prodigious gifts, and doing it all with a cocky attitude, no longer resonates quite the way it did in 1970. But, if you weren't around in 1970, trust me, it resonated well then. It was a theme that seemed important and meaningful at the time, even though the character's motivations for his actions are never really explained and remain something of a blank slate for the viewer to fill in. In 1970, when the concept of an "identity crises" was big, it worked to just suggest and imply that Dupea felt the need to Quixotically search out and determine for himself what was important for him. That dovetailed with another important component in many movies of that era --you never explain yourself, because if you explain things, you trivialize it all and ruin it. Or, as Jenny, Ali McGraw's character in Love Story (also a 1970 film) put it, "Love means never having to say you're sorry."

Meanwhile, unfolding alongside the Dupea character, was Karen Black's tour de force performance as the big-haired clingy-dependent waitress girlfriend, Rayette, and doing it to a medley of apropos Tammy Wynette tunes. Karen Black's performance perfectly captured and spot-on nailed an almost ubiquitous sort of woman prevalent in that era, when the social changes wrought by the women's movement had not yet taken fruit.

As for the notorious diner scene, this one scene essentially dominates the whole movie. It is something that people who have seen the movie will bring up and talk about, even decades later. Yet the scene is in no way pivotal or important to the story. At most it once and for all permanently affixes in the viewers' minds that Dupea was an impulsively flippant and angry person, not one to meekly abide any of life's minor frustrations. But we were already getting that picture of him before this scene happens. And, courtesy of Dupea, the scene provides a snippet of gratuitous social commentary about inflexibility and the stupidity of mindless adherence to meaningless rules. Something for the viewers to cheer and say, "I can relate to that!" Those things aside, to me the real value of the scene was that it provided an entertaining contrast in a bleak drama, a needed change of pace. But regardless of whether it was a statement about Dupea's attitude, or a social comment about stupid rules, or a needed amusing interlude, no matter which of those it is, its lasting impression renders its importance out of proportion to the movie as a whole. Surely, as he made this film, director Bob Rafelson's never intended that 35 years later this particular scene be the main thing viewers took away and remembered about the film. In this sense, as entertaining as it is, the scene therefore must be viewed as being a bit of a story-telling flaw. In retrospect, it should have been toned down just a skosh. But, then, on the other hand, were it not for this scene, perhaps the film would hardly be remembered at all. It is already a largely overlooked masterpiece.

This movie pops up on the movie channels on a semi-regular basis, and when it does I always stop and am riveted. The cinematography is superb. The acting is superb. Nicholson turning in one of the performances from that era that made him the unhinged star in the first place, long before he became a parody of himself. But be warned, it is not a "happy" film. It is the product of an era that did not as a rule produce happy films. But it is nevertheless a film that must be seen.

Previously known only for creating 'The Monkees', Bob Rafelson produced an underrated masterpiece when he made 'Five Easy Pieces', a film that deserves to be a lot better known. Jack Nicholson, typically intense but atypically understated, has possibly his finest hour as Bobby Duprea, a self-hating misogynist ill at ease with himself and the world. Many people will, when thinking of Nicholson, bring to mind his pantomime pyschopath Johnny from 'The Shining'; but Bobby, a profoundly human creation, is actually far more scary. Elsewhere the film features characteristically gorgeous cinematography from Laszlo Kovaks; a soundtrack that skilfully offsets Tammy Wynette and Chopin; excellent writing throughout and some very black humour. Like a less extreme version of Mike Leigh's 'Naked', and bristling with uncomfortable truth, 'Five Easy Pieces' is a true classic of 1970s cinema. Few films today are as good.

After reading all of the reviews listed here on IMDB, it is incomprehensible to me that not one has grasped the point of the story. This is in spite of the title giving the whole thing away. Come on now guys... The movie is titled Five Easy Pieces because that's all the Jack Nicholson character could play. The pieces are classical, true, and great examples of classics. However, they are evidently not among the most difficult pieces.

I am astonished that several reviewers wondered why he would give up such a great chance to be a classical musician. Why did he reject his talented and maybe wealthy family to hob nob with those having little or no appreciation of classical music or the life style? (As more than one of the reviewers said.) He left his family home and tried to lose himself because he did simply not have the talent to pursue a career as a concert pianist. He clearly could play well, but this is not the same as having the talent to perform professionally. His sister, Partita, gives us the example of one who does meet those standards, as well as his brother, Carl Fidelio.

What does one do when he just can't do what is expected no matter how hard he tries? He moves from place to place and from person to person because nothing and no one can help him overcome his failure.

"Five Easy Pieces" is a very unusual film because the star (Jack Nicholson) plays an incredibly unlikable guy. Robert badly mistreats his girlfriend, Rayett (Karen Black), and cheats on her. She IS often annoying and slow, but he chose to live with her and spends much of his time making fun of or ignoring her. He's easily bored and prone to self-defeating and selfish behaviors because he's emotionally stunted--unable to really love anyone.

This is also an unusual film because it doesn't have a traditional plot. Much of it spent just watching the man go through life. The main focus of the film, when it does occur, is Robert returning home to visit his family. The father is quite ill and it's obvious Robert does NOT want to visit and is only doing so out of obligation. But, guilted into this, he goes. There, you learn that the family is full of gifted musicians and intellectuals--and Robert is very ill-at-ease in this environment--and seeing these folks, it is understandable. They are about as unlike him as possible.

If a psychotherapist watched this film and wanted to form a diagnosis of the two main characters, they would probably see Robert as a relatively high functioning antisocial personality (meaning, his violations of laws and norms are usually NOT the sort to get him imprisoned) and Rayette as a Dependent Personality. Dependents NEED someone to love them--even if that person is abusive and distant. Like a whipped dog, they wait and hope to get an occasional bone tossed their way in the form of a kind word here or there. And, they are quite sad to see. Because these two were done so realistically, you have to admire the writing of this film.

Overall, a very well written film. In spots, it's VERY enjoyable (such as the famous diner scene) and in others, it's very painful. To carry it off, the actors (particularly Nicholson and Black) are at the top of their game. Also, the musical choices were wonderful. Playing all the low self-esteem Tammy Wynette songs (such as "Stand By Your Man") seem to be perfect to describe Rayette's life.