Some Thoughts on "Five Easy Pieces"
Five Easy Pieces
I’ve never seen the complete movie, “Five Easy Pieces,” only the scene in the restaurant that seems to be replayed ad nauseum on TV. I’m almost sure you’ve seen it too. The Jack Nicholson character sits down with three friends in a booth and tries to order an item not on the menu but obviously easy to make. The waitress reminds him, coldly and indifferently, there are no substitutions allowed at which point Nicholson sarcastically tells her how to fill his order without breaking any rules. When she questions him further he looses his temper, says something obscene and sweeps everything off the table. It is the obvious intention of the filmmaker to show the Nicholson character as the everyman striking out against the unreasonable, uncompromising, and uncaring rules of our modern world, etc. etc. In fact, when this scene is replayed, the commentator usually sets it up in exactly this context--we’re supposed to be on Jack’s side here. Instead, I feel sorry for the waitress. Sure she’s surly and rude; I wouldn’t want her for my waitress. On the other hand you’ve got Jack Nicholson acting like a complete jackass and displaying the self-control of a two year old. I don’t think I want this anti-hero to speak for me. Which is worse: a society where unfriendly waitresses and bureaucrats invoke silly rules to avoid complications or a society that applauds temper tantrums as legitimate and justifiable methods of promoting dignity and self-worth?
I’ve never seen the complete movie, “Five Easy Pieces,” only the scene in the restaurant that seems to be replayed ad nauseum on TV. I’m almost sure you’ve seen it too. The Jack Nicholson character sits down with three friends in a booth and tries to order an item not on the menu but obviously easy to make. The waitress reminds him, coldly and indifferently, there are no substitutions allowed at which point Nicholson sarcastically tells her how to fill his order without breaking any rules. When she questions him further he looses his temper, says something obscene and sweeps everything off the table. It is the obvious intention of the filmmaker to show the Nicholson character as the everyman striking out against the unreasonable, uncompromising, and uncaring rules of our modern world, etc. etc. In fact, when this scene is replayed, the commentator usually sets it up in exactly this context--we’re supposed to be on Jack’s side here. Instead, I feel sorry for the waitress. Sure she’s surly and rude; I wouldn’t want her for my waitress. On the other hand you’ve got Jack Nicholson acting like a complete jackass and displaying the self-control of a two year old. I don’t think I want this anti-hero to speak for me. Which is worse: a society where unfriendly waitresses and bureaucrats invoke silly rules to avoid complications or a society that applauds temper tantrums as legitimate and justifiable methods of promoting dignity and self-worth?
posted by unca | 6:09 PM
3 Comments:
Unca, I too have seen that clip many times but like you I don’t think I have ever watched the whole movie. I agree with you now that I have matured in my almost half a century of living. In my younger days I might have cheered along with a lot of the other theatregoers because it’s cool.
Hollywood is notorious for this kind of vindicating lawlessness mentality. A couple of movies that come to mind are Thelma and Louse. This is about a couple of ladies taking their revenge on the male species and society in general. They go about shooting and blowing up stuff as they travel from town to town. I guess they are justified in doing this because men can be real jerks sometimes. The other movie that I thought of is Falling Down. A character played by Michael Douglas is an average working guy who snaps and goes on a get back at society destruction spree. It is obvious the director wants you be on his side even when he destroys a convenience store with a baseball bat because the prices are too high. After all we can all relate to that so good for him.
I basically agree with you. And blogball.
We like the rebel pose. We like the idea of externalizing our inner frustrations and making them someone else's problem. There's the secret thrill of being naughty, and an iconoclast. We'd all like to say "we're not gonna take it any more" about something. We've probably all felt like smacking someone (or at least vaporizing another car on the road) at some point.
And if we can frame that behaviour -- even loosely -- in a context of the underdog doing battle with the all-powerful forces of stupidity, stifling convention, and evil thought-control, then we're pretty tickled.
And we make movies about it -- Cannonball Run, Dukes of Hazzard, Reservoir Dogs, Thelma & Louise, whatever -- and we cheer the anti-hero because it's safe and doesn't have the negative consequences that type of behaviour would actually have in real life.
I also think part of the reason we don't like Jack's behaviour in 5EP is that it's a little scary -- it's not controlled, and looks like it could be dangerous to us. The waitress we can handle, because
a) we're used to that kind of nonsense, and
b) she's not actively doing anything -- it's that she's NOT doing anything.
Jack, on the other hand, is breaking some social rules, and we have no way to know what he's going to do next -- might he take a golf club to my windshield? (Oh, wait, that was the REAL Jack Nicholson, not his character...)
Anyway, my point is that if we know all that would happen is a couple broken plates/cups, we could more easily say "That guy's just an ***hole, I won't associate with him" the same way we do with the waitress. But it's the fear of what ELSE he might do now that he's broken a social barrier that makes us react mroe strongly against him, I think.
So that's my story, and I'm stickin' to it...
Blogball-yes, "Falling Down" also came to mind. I have to admit that when he dispatched the punks in the park, there was a glimmer of glee for me. They certainly deserved retribution more than the waitress. And Thelma and Louis--the ultimate male bashing film--yes, the film makers tried to make us identify with their oppression and we did for awhile until everything just went over the top. I stopped caring about them near the end. I think you're right about the age thing. I can also remember thinking, "right on" (as we used to say) shortly after I saw the clip. Now I just think, "what a jerk."
Bryan -- interesting theory about our fearing what JN might do next but if I read my own repulsion correctly, I'm not really afraid of him at all. He's just a jerk. Also, I don't think we're supposed to be afraid of him. I think the intention is for us to cheer him on--something I find increasingly difficult to do. "Do you want me to hold my opinion," I hear you ask? "Yes, I like you to hold it between your ..." (whoops sorry, there, I got carried away.
Post a Comment
<< Home