MovieChat Forums > Roger Dodger (2002) Discussion > Is Roger such a bad guy?

Is Roger such a bad guy?

posted 19 years ago by onlyshallow-2
18 replies | jump to latest

Roger seems to have got it pretty hard on this forum but I have to say, I really liked him. I see being relentlessly cynical as a good point-I agree with him when he says 'Why can't we...see things as they really are?' He is intellectually superior to everyone around him and yet he has found it hasn't gotten him very far in life, and so in his frustration he picks people apart and subsequently alienates them.

I find most of his behaviour desperate digs at a world that doesn't seem to like him very much. He gets thrown out of a bar, Joyce's hallway and Joyce's party and takes it all with a grudging, if indignant, acceptance. When Joyce dumps him, he reacts in a way that is childish and futile but is exactly how lots of us would have reacted (be honest).

I think he respects Nick all the way through the film, he just doesn't have the words or mannerisms to show it properly. He is a friend to Nick at every point; his inevitable digs at him are affectionate and only turn nasty when he is allegedly playing 'good cop bad cop'. As for the women, he just tries to rationalise them as much as possible-a terrible but reasonably understandable personality feature. Strangely I think the woman who he gives the least respect to is Donna, the only woman who he doesn't alienate, although this is probably because he barely speaks to her over the course of the film.

Incidentally, I think Campbell Scott's performance was one of the greatest performances in any film, ever. It's amazing he didn't win an Oscar-a bigger injustice than Bill Murray losing out for Lost In Translation; at least he was nominated.

[–] 19 years ago

[deleted]

[–] psully-1 19 years ago

I've seen the film at least twice, just came in here to see what ya'll are saying about Campbell Scott, cause I'm fixing to watch The Secret Life of Dentists. I loved Roger Dodger, at least by the time I had seen it the 3rd or 4th time, it took a while to get used to Scott's abrasiveness, and I always had the feeling he was correct, but I didn't want to admit it rationally, at first.

Well, the movies's on now.

[–] bookfinders 18 years ago

He's not such a bad guy.

[–] mhannab1 18 years ago

He's the best wasted talent worthless drunk since the golfer in "lush."

[–] live4coffee 18 years ago

I just got this through the mail and can't wait to get home to watch it again!

I really liked Roger's character because he is obviously a very intelligent, yet very cynical guy. His sense of innocence had eroded completely and it's left an obnoxious predetor who sees and calls things exactly as they are.

I hope I end up like him :-)

"The dead do not suffer the living to pass"
"You will suffer me"

[–] Dudley_Dawson 18 years ago

I'd give anything to have an Uncle Roger show me around NYC when I was 16. I could have learned what I learned abount women in 10 years in about one night.

We don't want Nick to turn out like Roger but a little bit rubbing off on him is a good thing.

[–] snapes_cat 13 years ago

he was trying to get his nephew to rape a woman. that's generally a disgusting flaw in a person.

In this country, all Americans deserve equal rights… appletini.

[–] phrozenaphi06 13 years ago

Hardly. She wasn't asleep when he left her with him. And it's not like he had Nick slip her a Mickey, she was just a little tipsy.

[–] snapes_cat 13 years ago

"Just a little tipsy"? She wasn't in a state of mind where she could adequately express a sexual desire. Jesse Eisenberg's character was clearly in a sharper position to make the decision for her whether or not she would be having sex that night. I'm quite certain that if she were fully sober, she would not have permitted a sixteen year old boy (or however old he was) touch her in the manner that he did. Roger even scolded him afterward for not doing the deed - for not taking advantage of her, which is the definition of rape.

In this country, all Americans deserve equal rights… appletini.

[–] phrozenaphi06 13 years ago

I think you should take a gander at the legal definition of rape. Second of all if we hauled off every drunk person who had sex with someone who was slightly more drunk than them and condemned them as rapist then about 1/5 of the world would be in jail. Alcohol lowers your inhibitions. That's what it's SUPPOSE to do. A person is not going to act the same way drunk as they would "totally sober." That's the point. In the movie, seconds earlier to that scene she was having a full on, completely lucid conversation with Nick about whatever. As she was laying there on the bed she was coaxing HIM to stay saying "don't leave" and feeling him up as well. That's called implied consent. Unless she says no, goes to sleep, or is some how not able to communicate, it's debatable whether there was a issue. Was she too drunk? Possibly, possibly not. But if she pulled him down and started to reciprocate his advances (i.e.- make out, rub on him, sloppily remove clothes, etc.), it didn't get that far, but then how is that rape (accept for on HER part. i.e.- statutory)?

Rape is a legal term that describes a CRIME. People get drunk and screw all the time. Daily even. Am I saying it would have be a good thing for Nick to go through with it? No of course not, for many reasons. It being morally ill-advised, would be among those. But would it have been a crime? No probably not. To loosely throw the word rape around can be very damaging to those who actually have been raped, as well as to those who get falsely accused. Fear of being labeled a "slut" and/or regret for being too "easy" has put far too many innocent people in jail and permanently tarnished too many futures. Is rape a problem? Yes. Is crying wolf"" ALSO an extremely undeserved problem? Hell YES. But getting drunk at a party and succumbing to YOUR OWN sexual urges with someone whom in the morning you subjectively feel you didn't know well enough to do so, DOES NOT constitute rape. It constitutes bad judgment, and believe me men have it too.

I wonder if you yourself have you ever had sex before? Drank before? These are questions to which I pose to someone with comments of your nature. You sound as if you may be a tad naive Perhaps a young female Jesse Eisenberg fan? Either that or you ARE the person I described at the end of the last paragraph. Either way you're off base.

[–] GuyOnTheLeft 10 years ago

Yes, you are right--see my other reply.

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

[–] noveltylibrary65 (200) 4 years ago

Wow I never knew "Don't leave' meant 'Please have sex with me'. Creep.

[–] GuyOnTheLeft 10 years ago

Phrozen is right in the reply to this comment. It would not have been rape, though it would have been sleazy. This is the problem with some feminists' extreme definition of rape: they forget that there is a continuum, and that it is possible for a man to act like a cad without being legally guilty of a crime. I understand the impulse to punish someone who treats others poorly; but the answer is to socially ostracise them, not to expand the definition of a violent crime beyond all reason, to include all lothario-type behaviour.

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

[–] sbowesuk 9 years ago

Tipsy my ass. She was black-out drunk, period. That was obvious even though her eyes were open most of the time. In a lot of countries, sex with someone that drunk would be considered rape. If you can't understand that, then you have issues.

Edit: I see you were trying to get technical with the law in another comment. Understand, the law varies from place to place, but make no mistake, there is such a thing as incapacitated rape, which is what almost happened in this movie. I suggest you look it up.

[–] gfarrell80 8 years ago

snapes_cat and sbowesuk are correct, Roger is a deeply disturbed human being. He's the kind of guy who in another 10 years might be picking up, killing and dumping prostitutes due to his inability to have a healthy relationship with a female.

Not only the party drunk girl scene, but then the whole 'take my 16 year old relative to human trafficking sex bordello'. mmm? Yeah, Roger is a a pretty bad guy.

I wonder if the writer is basing the Roger character on a real life jack hole that he knew. There probably are at least a few Rogers out there...

[–] DaveBowman2001 (472) 6 years ago

Roger is a good guy, stuck in a world of bullshit. He's intentionally shown to be sleezy or detestable, but most everything he says is right and he's insightful about people. He's perfect for advertising. People enjoy living their comfortable lies and can't handle the truth. When he opens their eyes to the lies, the distance themself from him.

It's funny how people criticize him (and I get why, but he's likeable). Nobody calls out his BOSS, who's fucking him and threatening to fire him if he doesn't go away quietly. Then she does.. IF that was a MAN in that role, this board would be full of outrage, but I haven't seen one mention of it. We're you not watching the same movie? Then the boss goes on to fuck another subordinate after Nick. Detestible and illegal.

People here are arguing a bunch of politically correct virtue signalling crap. Sigh. Arguing about how drunk a woman was in a move (acting).

Anyway, NICK begged Roger for the failsafe (and paid for it). Roger only casually alluded to it earlier in the night. Roger asked him twice what he was talking about. He didn't want to totally corrupt Nick, but Nick wasn't taking no for an answer. Roger was smart enough to see his innocence and that NIck might have the opportunity to get love right, unlike Roger. So after bitching and begging, Roger takes Nick to the failsafe. It's the most uncomfortable scene in the movie. He realizes Nick is still pure and innocent and sees reminders of his own/family past abuse and drags Nick out of there to protect him and let him figure things out in his own time. He doesn't want this to be his forever memory of his first time.

Then Nick goes to the school to help the other nerds deal with women. It's a nice gesture. He (like all of us) sees the beauty and purity in those early adolescent/teen years that he/we can never get back and imposes some wisdom he wished he had at that age.

I think you have to be a certain age/maturity to relate to this movie for sure.

[–] DaveBowman2001 (472) 6 years ago

Cont'd
Not to mention he shows Nick a good time (exactly what he showed up and asked for). Leaves work early, loses his job over it, makes him call his mother, gets him kissed, gets him home safe and gives up his bed...then goes to visit his sister and tries to reconnect and make things right (there's a deeper story there somewhere another poster nailed about abuse).

I loved that line about "I confess I'm really married, but I keep my ring in my wallet" and then " I'm single, but Lets get at What really matters is emotional unavailability". Nailed it. Haven't we all known women like that?

[–] jasonbourne (1027) 4 years ago

I think I would like him as a friend. He says interesting things and has different things going on with him. From what you write you would be a better friend to him. I couldn't put Campbell Scott's performance up with Bill Murray's losing.