Thoughts regarding Roger's motivations (spoilers)

[deleted]

Well, I thought differently than a lot of people here. I didn't read anything about incest into the movie. I think Roger doesn't want to discuss his first experience because he didn't want to open up (remember he told Nick that it is bad thing to do initially). Moreover, he wants to be in control, and that could possibly hold up as being vulnerable. Also, he was turning attention away from himself and onto Nick frequently I felt. It is almost as if he wanted Nick to embarass himself in front of the women from the bar to prove himself and his methods of operating. Of course, it ended up making Nick look better. You could also say that he really wanted Nick to succeed and by being the "bad cop" he was giving Nick a shot at the women (i.e. Roger making himself the ass, and unlikeable).

I also think that when he yanked Nick away from the prostitute after seeing the old man, he realized it could have potentially negatively affected Nick. He really did care about him at that point, if not before, and feared him being that guy years from now. I think Roger also saw that the road he was making himself that old man years from then. At this point, he begins to reevaluate his life, leading him eventually to reconnect with his sister, and give Nick and his friends some useful advice about how to treat women.

All in all, I thought this was a great movie. It was nice to see Roger accept his own loneliness at the end and work to make things right in his life (while treating his profession as the humorous thing it really was, not in the sadistic, bitter way he described advertising earlier in the movie to Nick).

[deleted]

[deleted]

[deleted]

yeah the incest idea is way off the mark, the way i look at it is, roger is no longer talking with his older sister as well as having lost his mother, and is looking for a replacement maternal figure in joyce.

a lot of people complain that this movie doesn't tie up loose ends or have enough of a back story, jesus, why don't we have flashbacks and long running monologues on each characters personal history? because its not realistic, most of the people you meet in life, you don't know a lot about, have you ever found yourself intrigued by a person you've recently met and don't know a lot about? dylan kidd uses this method to let the viewers try and elaborate on what's going on behind the scenes, he gives us three days in two peoples lives and its left to us to finish the guess work.

I'm with you Peeb!

I'd suggest these guys who 'pretends' to know Freudian Theory to go back to the textbooks.

I think, it's perfect that he doesnt want to talk about his sexual experience. He is A PLAYER. Therefore, he has that air of mystery around him. He doesn't need to tell anybody about his personal fronts. It's not like he want more than sex from the girls so why bother? He just want to score-that's all there is to it!

Anyway, it is absurd to suggest that he was abused as a child. First of all, an abused child will NOT grown up as a confident, witty and successful person. The experience will be too traumatising to one's life and that of Rogers character far from protraying it. All the things that he say and do is just what a "PLAYER" does. If you dont get him, just forget about it. You're far from understanding the game.

I can't believe that it took me till the end of this board for someone to start talking sense here. I think peeb did a great job at setting the record straight about the movie. So I'll just try and "tie" the end of the movie up.

The reason that Joyce and Roger's sister look the same can probably be meant to poke holes in Roger's perspective using his very own logic.

"Because it's a substitution game. You have to remind them that they're missing something from their lives. Everyone's missing something, right?"

------ Roger is missing his sister -----


"So instead of taking steps to deal with their lives, instead of working to root out the real reason for their misery, they go out and buy a stupid looking pair of cargo pants. "

---- instead of taking steps to deal with the issues Roger has with his sister he tries to convince himself that Joyce is what will fill his void. At the end of the movie when Roger is visiting his sister it's probably becuase he realizes that he needs to start taking steps to deal with the problems in his life rather than play the substitution game -----

The end scene with nick and angela puts a fine point on the fact that Nick and Roger were both learning from each other on their night out. The scene shows all of nick's friends sitting there slack jawed and in utter paralysis, Nick on the other hand because of his night out with roger is able to try something out, so that he can "find his style" and the scene shows that he is about to say something to angela . The fact that the director cut the scene there, right before he said something, was meant to show that nick learned that it doesn't matter WHAT you say, but the fact that you say something that matters. By putting ANY line there it would be implied that the "opening salvo" that nick uses is actually meant to blow angela's mind. By omitting the line, it allows us all to insert our own "perfect line", because for everybody it's going to be different.


Basically, the main point of the movie was to show how complex human interaction actually is. Roger had a very cynical/aggressive point of view, but that wasn't enough to really get him what he wanted. Nick on the other hand, had a very romanticized/shy view of the world that kept him from trying to get what he wanted. In the end, they both rubbed off on each other and ended up being more dynamic and probably much better off from their experience.

While I compliment you for being someone actually intelligent talking about what's going and shooting down any idea of paternal or sisterly love/rape, the only thing you forget is that Roger isn't a ladies man or SexGod (as you like to put it). He is a man who already understands he's perfectly happy with the relationship with his boss, and while he may not be able to admit his love to himself or to her, he is certainly able to accept and act on it on his own with only her as a witness (he talks and acts like he doesn't need her in his own self-aggrandizing, smarmy talk, though we all see the incredible and almost disturbing steps he takes to keep her in his life). And judging from his patronizing, though humorous to his co-workers, diatribe about a man's place in society in general and in the future, we as the viewers are supposed to understand Roger on first glance: A man who feels out of place and has taken to insulting himself and others just to secure some place somewhere with somebody who may be better in his own mind. In this case his boss, but considering Roger's job and obvious skill and wooing but not keeping (as he is an ad man, one trained and set out into the world to garner interest in product, but after that not really care about what happens to the customer or his client) he doesn't necessarily seem like the kind of person who is pulling the strings, on his love or professional life. We can see he's fallen in love before, probably numerous times, and all have ended the same way. So while everyone on these boards will think that his actions show some sort of cycle-repeats-itself mentality (which, for most high-schoolers here that have written all of 16 pages about authors using psychology!, think stem from some sort of incestual relationship that left him the victim and forever more the victor), I think the writers of the movie had something simpler in mind: Roger has always been hurt and always been victimized, so naturally he found himself in the profession of hurting and victimizing himself for laughs over drinks during dinner. All while compartmentalizing what that really means for himself and his self-worth... or his disdain and neediness toward everyone around him.

His nephew is a pain at first, but only for awhile. That annoyance goes away and is followed by cynical, stalwart tutordom. Why?

1) He realized that equivocably he and Nick are just as intelligent.

2) Nick is more naive than he is and has none of the emotional scars that Roger tries so hard to hide or claim to be a right of manhood or proof of his virility and strength.

3) In the face of rising professional feminism (wherein his "girlfriend" is his own boss, who Roger thinks he's smarter than but realizes that women are more adaptable to survive), Roger sees in Nick an innocent champion to get revenge on all of the female nation. Obviously that changes by the end.

So when Roger seemingly makes mistakes, but then plays them off as intended later... that is what it should be construed as. He already has someone he cares about, and he has put them above all of female-hood (no matter how many Saved By The Bell franchises they've appeared in). So while Nick sees everything as meaning something and each woman or girl he talks to as being someone he must take at face-value, Roger sees every assumption he gets right as more evidence to his own theory about all women sucking, except for the one that doesn't want him anymore.

That's all of my rebuttal to anyone who thinks Roger himself thinks he is the perfect lady-killer (well, actually, he may think of himself like that... but he certainly doesn't think of himself as perfect).

To the incest thing, I think its bunk. But if we truly want to discuss it intelligently (as this movie, in the great scheme of things, doesn't realy go into all the ins-and-outs of every relationship or history of every character in the Roger Dodger universe), the only thing that could make sense is Roger's sister being raped. Or something he construes to be rape. By his father. Roger tried to defend her, Roger tried to stand-up for her, but she herself forgived her rapist. She probably told Roger he was being silly (whether he imagined it or not, that seems to be an on-going denial trend), and he felt hurt at the idea of being discarded (he who would love) over someone who would hurt. His lashing out at Donovan and his boss would more suggest his pain at being replaced and denied instead of an attack at his self-esteem. He doesn't think women know what's best for them. In his regaling of his co-workers, he is not only explaining what he thinks is the central flaw in men, but also in women. That long ago women decided they no longer need men. And time will catch up. But what hurts him is that, in his history, long ago women decided they no longer needed him. And history has already caught up with him. Women get drunk and sleep with him (like he wanted Nick to do with Donna), but they wouldn't remember it, or they'd sob about it. Women he loved would move on (like Joyce with Donovan) and he has no coping mechanism. It makes sense that he feels prostitution is both welcome and as a last resort. They need him for his business, but that just goes to prove that he is an object. If incest is at all involved, it is between his father and his sister (which would explain the similarity between his boss and his sister that everyone wants to point out), so as to show his first sign of betrayal, especially when his sister forgives daddy, but also chooses to sponge-bathe him back to health or until death.

But I don't see it.

I don't think there's any incest, or any mystery needed to be solved whatsoever. That not only are Roger and Nick supposed to be "normal" (as in, we can see where they're coming from, but also how we differ), but completely of the times. If there's any man with intelligence watching Roger Dodger who doesn't identify with Roger, than this movie serves as a warning. And, by God, if you see yourself as Roger... with the wit and anger and cunning required... then see this movie as a death knell. Because not only are you annoying to women, but nobody likes you. Not your boss. Not your friends (if you have any). Not your family. And not even by yourself (considering Roger's actions throughout and then the happy change in him near end... which also wouldn't fit with any idea of incest) . If you actually respect Roger, get thee to a cafeteria.

philZman - of course, you could well be right. I think analysing the film in the depth that I did in an earlier post was in reaction to what I considered a way-off analysis (the idea of incest playing any part in the film). It could well be that the film is nothing more than what you describe, but what is so good about it is that the characterisation of the main players, and the story are so coherent. There is nothing in the movie that is "fat" or gives off an inconsistent vibe. The film is very true to itself and doesn't cop out or take cheap detours to please a Hollywood mindset. Whatever the motivations in the writing, directing and acting, the film hangs together brilliantly.