MovieChat Forums > Roger Dodger (2002) Discussion > In defense of this movie

In defense of this movie

posted 21 years ago by YoungDova
38 replies | jump to latest

A lot of people (at least the ones who have posted) seem to have not liked this movie. But the major complaints I've read were the exact same reasons I enjoyed "Roger Dodger". The two main complaints are the parts of the movie I felt made it so good.
The use of all hand-held cameras was shaky, true. But this is what made it feel quasi-voyeristic. It seemed like the audience was just following along with two guys running around New York. The loose and unpredictable framing is the same way a normal person sees the world.
The ending left a lot of people wanting closure and whatnot. But the fact that the movie cuts off at a seemingly crucial moment goes along with the feeling that we are just there having a glimpse at the character's life. Until death, all our stories continue, and the fact that R.D. ends without final resolution reflects this.
The entire feel of the movie, for me, was that we were simply outside observers who had a chance to see a part of a couple guys' lives. There are events before we start watching (the movie picks up mid-conversation with Roger's theory of man's role in the species) and we end mid-conversation between Nick and Angela.
So anyway, I just thought someone should stick up for this movie since it seems most people didn't like it. Tell me what ya think.

[–] 21 years ago

[deleted]

[–] brysta 21 years ago

Big Spoilers Alert

the thing I didn't like was that Roger, who was supposed to be so slick withthe ladies, according to the synopsis, was NOT at all, in fact, he was a real jerk. So what could Nick really learn? How not to be?
Concerning the ending, I thought it was perfect, I mean, would you really want to know what Nick was gonna bs to her? At least Rodger hooked him up, and his little friends too. Much better advice to them that his whole night long scam session with Nick.

And I thought that was closure- look, Nick and his buddies got a few tips, and a opportunity to test them out, and Rodger evidently learned he had been being a real pr**k, since he went and spent some time with his sister. So he was trying to start over. what more closure does anybody need?

anyway, just my 2cts

[–] 21 years ago

[deleted]

[–] juice-9 21 years ago

The fact that Roger actually is a pr**ck is what's interesting with the movie.
His boss dumps him right off the beginning, he ruins her party out of boyish jealousy, the two girls he and Nick talks to ends up not even want to look his way and calls him an *beep*, which makes clear for us that he's not such a slick casanova that he seems or tries to be.

Just after Roger has taken Nick to the bordello, the film made me feel sick about it. Roger sure was an *beep*. You can just about imagine how Nick feels. Yet in the ending, there they are, amongst Nicks friends, and we have moved from Rogers world to Nicks. Roger continues his pseudointellectual character easily with the youngsters, being the selfesteemed casanova again, boys listening with gaping mouths. However now, because of Nicks experience from the night in the big city with his uncle - Nick all of a sudden seems like the most selfesteemed of his young nerdish friends, given a glance of what "sex" can be in the big city in a grown-up cynical world, and realizes the innocent highschool scenario he is within in a whole new sense.

Off course, i'ts up to every viewer to get a individual idea over what Nick really will say in the endscene, but i'm pretty sure he will go for the honest approach. The fact that the movie ended without telling really put a big smile on my face. The night out was simply a hard lesson for Nick.
In my opinion, Roger ended up - atleast partially - as a hero.

I gave it 7.

[–] 21 years ago

[deleted]

[–] TMRipley 21 years ago

Didnt Roger say earlier, when Nick asked him what to say, that it didnt matter what he said? Could that be an explanation why it didnt reveal what Nick said to Angela, because the important thing was that Nick was going to say something.

[–] 21 years ago

[deleted]

[–] vhmalex 21 years ago

Roger was being a prick on purpose, he was working the "good cop bad cop" angle like he stated right after the 2 girls leave.

-Mr.EFF

[–] 21 years ago

[deleted]

[–] pkrahn 21 years ago

Just saw this movie last night, loved it. The good cop bad cop was just for the one scene with the girls, although I still think there was a bit of frustration there on his part. He's just so good at rationalizing everything on a biological level that he came to grips with the situation pretty quick.

Like everyone involved in the film say in the dvd extras, Roger was a childish and childlike man, while the innocent young boy was much more mature. It was showing you a kind of person I've seen plenty of, people that aren't enjoying life so they categorize everything, and live for such trivialities as Roger does.

The boy saw this almost immediately in his uncle, but as the movie showed well, there is a certain amount of automatic respect kids give to adults, he couldn't bring himself to believe that this Ladies Man was completely wrong. Although when he realized the next morning that Roger hadn't scored, it made a lot more sense to him.

The plot would have been fine without the ending, but that really added to it, the whole fact that he actually learned from this sudden intrusion into his sorry daily routine, at least when combined with his current heartbreak. He thought about it, came to the conclusion that he liked the boy and that the kid had come a long way asking for help, and realized that the life of a 16 year old boy was a lot different than his own. And he went to the school and tried to give them some genuine help, it may not have done wonders, but it was him trying to help others for a change. Instead of telling them what was wrong with them to make himself feel superior.

And being cut off in mid-sentence, I was surprised to read that people were so disappointed with that. I almost expected it, it was the perfect ending. Who cares what exactly he said? I like the idea of the viewer taking the information they've been given about Nick, and letting them process their own answer as to what he'd say.

I didn't notice the shaky camera work, it must've been appropriate then. I do notice it in these super-annoying drama cop/lawyer shows, I wish they'd stop with it. But here I guess I liked it.

I saw this and The Dangerous Lives of Alter Boys, or whatever the title is, back to back, best two movies I've seen in months.

One question... was he exaggerating his job title? Isabella mentioned that he wrote great copy... does that mean he wasn't really designing advertising campaigns? He was just a lacky who thought he had what it takes?

[–] mathmaniac 7 years ago

That is what I loved about the scene at the end with the boys. Roger's remark about how this stuff is easy compared to working your ass off for 3 hours in a bar to try to make some progress with a woman - it 'clicks' in Nick's mind that 'Yeah...'

It was such a clever and insightful thing to say to that group but Nick of all of them would see it clearly right away. I have to think that this gave him the power to be more confident with the high school girls from that time on.

[–] benbobjruk 20 years ago

maybe you are supposed to use your own mind?

maybe you are suppsoed to make your own conlusions instead of being fed and given answers?

[–] freak_ds1 19 years ago

Films aren't made to be vague shells for the viewer to fill in as they see fit. Where you have differeing interpretations, or lack of a concrete purpose, it is more an indication of how well the director made his/her point.

[–] wooster42 21 years ago

why is everone typing pr**k? Do the moderators of this board really censor the word prick? prick, prick, prick, prick. PRICK. PRICK. It would be a sad state of affairs if we were not allowed to use the word prick. Also who the hell are we fooling when we write f*ck. Any self-respecting fourth grader would be capable of filling in the missing u. So here's another word for you fine folk. *beep*.*beep*.*beep*.

[–] wooster42 21 years ago

oh s h i t e they actually do censor the word f u c k. Oh well.

[–] comiis8 21 years ago

Now, that was funny.. You still got it thru. All it needed was spaces hahhaaa

[–] tikked_off-1 21 years ago

I think youn dova is absolutely right about RD. The use of the camera could either be this voyeuristic feel or kidd just wanted each scene to be as natural as possible. This was a good film, a smart film as a matter of fact, the way the dialogue was structured and exucuted was fantastic.

We all know what makes a great film is not visuels but writing. You can have good films with stunning cinematography, but the true power is held with dialogue. If you dont have good writing then your film is vunerable. Overall this film reminded me of david Mamet's films with quick fresh dialogue. I thought the ending was very creative in leaving the audience to create their own pick up line.

[–] amanwithoutaplan 21 years ago

Tikked off.... i don't know how to break this to you man, but a good film is comprised mainly of visuals. I think it was David Mammet who said that a perfect film would make just as much sense without dialogue as with it. The greatest directors in motion picture history portrayed their stories through images, not through dialogue. Take Taxi Driver for example, If you really look at this film there is little to no important dialogue in this film, yet we still know: A) who Travis Bickel is and B) the world he lives in. Only the worst films explain these things with dialogue, the viewer should never be told where they are they should be shown. If you have a character that says : "i'm in a barn" the viewer is taken out of the story by thinking: that doesn't sound right, if the character says "i'm a helpless introvert", we don't care, we want to be shown why he's a helpless introvert, not told. I will however concede that writing is still important, however, some of the greates films of all time were silent films, they had no dialogue and yet were still just as entertaining if not more entertaining than many of todays finest films. Maybe you just made a typo or didn't re-read what you wrote but the only real place dialogue has been structured for is the stage. This is only really because you can't have the hundreds of different shots that compromise a movie, the perspective never changes so nothing can really be shown unless a character picks it up and talks about it, not to mention set changes and other things that restrict plays from relying on visuals. Writing is important in movies, it is the one thing that is created equal amongst hollywood and independent motion pictures alike. It is not important because of the dialogue though, it is important for the story and the visuals and objects described in the writing. It is the skeleton and the visuals are everything else that comprises the body of the movie. That is why movies are called "motion pictures" and not "talking pictures".

[–] cousinolaf 21 years ago

Well, amanwithoutaplan, good argument, made a lot of sense, but does seem to suggest there's only one type of good movie, like movie-making is some kind of definitive science with one aim in mind. Film-making is a diverse exercise, with many avenues of greatness open. If you're setting down one paradigm of greatness, and judging all films you see by how they measure up to the one ideal, you're gonna be missing out. You talk sense, but your worldview seems limited and narrow-minded.

That is all.

[–] freak_ds1 19 years ago

"Maybe you just made a typo or didn't re-read what you wrote but the only real place dialogue has been structured for is the stage. This is only really because you can't have the hundreds of different shots that compromise a movie, the perspective never changes so nothing can really be shown unless a character picks it up and talks about it, not to mention set changes and other things that restrict plays from relying on visuals."

:rolleyes: First of all, not all theatres are proscenium theatres. Believe me, things look VASTLY different on a thrust or arena stage. Second of all, composition (ie visuals) are one of the stage director's PRIMARY tools. It is one of the first things you learn. You establish relationships, focus, and story through composition.

What would be more accurate, is to say that live theatre is very often dialogue driven because of separation between the audience and actors. Dialogue helps to bridge that gap.

[–] Townicus 21 years ago

!Spoiler material!

I have a different view on Roger than previous posters. Roger doesn't treat these women badly because he is afraid of relationships. I won't disagree that he repels serious relationships, but his behavior towards the females in the bars reflects his pain. He has a chip on his shoulder combined with an uncanny ability to read people. These characteristics produce a guy who walks around tearing people down. Roger observes a beautieful woman in a bar and proceeds to offend her with the same verbal skill he could use to bed her.

I loved this film. Roger's verbal ability entertained me throughout the film and I will never forget the opening scene. I felt a bit disappointed when I did not witness him reconstruct his relationship with his sister, however, I realized that it was designed for me to create my own conclusions.

[–] e-de-vries 21 years ago

Hi,

<spoiler>
I might add that the story he tells the girl in the bar about where she falls for her boss, who has had every woman in the office, actually happened to him. He got dumped out of the blue and one day later she already is involved in another relation. He had been played. He couldn't even enter the building; on the excuse of not being an adult?!

[–] DaveBowman2001 (473) 6 years ago

Good point. He loved the boss he was fucking too and she was abusing her own power and preying on younger (subordinate) men, but that was overlooked by everyone.

[–] cousinolaf 21 years ago

The shaky camerawork may have have been "what made it feel quasi-voyeristic", but it still pissed me off. Well, ok, not pissed me off, but I thought it wouldn't have suffered without it, and I for one would have found it easier to watch.

That is all.

[–] JoeMayo 20 years ago

I'll gladly defend this movie, till the day I die. This movie has something very few movies nowadays have: real characters. These people are so *beep* real. Their conflicted, confused, smart, inexperienced, wrong.

A general complaint regarding this movie has often been how unlikable Roger is. Well, *beep*. Some people are downright unlikable, that doesn't mean we shouldn't make movies about them. The fact is that they're interesting. That's why I like the film. An interesting character will always be more entertaining (for an intelligent audience) than a likable one. That being said, I loved Roger (but a lot of people didn't).

Moreover, this film trusts its audience. It respects them. It believes that they'll understand the pace, the dialogue and the characters. It allows us to draw our own conclusions based on what we have seen from the characters. Thank God. If only more filmmakers would do the same.

The shotty camerawork? It's there for a reason. If the filmmakers thought that the film wouldn't have suffered without it, then they wouldn't have done it. It's entirely representative of the subject matter and the structure of the film.

And the ending? The ending is a perfect resolution to the young protagonist's quest. The kid wants to be able to talk to girls (though the uncle mistakes that for sex) and at the end, he's able to comfortably approach a girl. We don't need to know what he said. What in the film would lead anyone to think that he wouldn't be honest in his approach? Do you really think the experience with his unlikable uncle has taught him nothing? A smart audience doesn't need reassurance.

[–] 20 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 20 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 20 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 20 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 20 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 20 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 20 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 20 years ago

[deleted]

[–] neil_mc 20 years ago

But it's not the sign of a good director when the camerawork overbearingly smothers the acting - which happens at several points throughout this film.

FA Cup Winners '04

[–] 20 years ago

[deleted]

[–] predator-28 19 years ago

MANCHESTER UNITED!!!

[–] CUTiger41 19 years ago

"But it's not the sign of a good director when the camerawork overbearingly smothers the acting - which happens at several points throughout this film."

I think that's the point. Roger is a fast talker and he sure isn't gonna slow down for a camera to catch up. I mean look at the way he talked to his nephew. The nephew was struggling to keep up the whole time. The audience was basically taking place of the nephew.

Personally, I liked the camera work for this kind of film. The entire movie barely slows down from the first scene. It resembles Roger's life in that everything not set up for him to processes it with the right amount of light. Did you see the look on his face when he found out he wasn't invited to his boses party? Did he sit down and ponder it? I mean, sure it affected him but he wouldn't let everyone know that. He was out of that office that instant, even if his nephew wasn't in the blue triangle.

[–] GuyOnTheLeft 10 years ago

Agreed, especially in a fairly early scene when it's shot as though by a paparazzo hiding behind foliage. It's dark, from a distance, and you can actually see leaves and stuff in the way. Ridiculous.

--------
See a list of my favourite films here: http://www.flickchart.com/slackerinc