MovieChat Forums > Rubberneck (2012) Discussion > But.. wasn't he RIGHT about things??

But.. wasn't he RIGHT about things??


I watched the film and I'm a little confused. It seems to me that Paul was RIGHT in his reaction to their fling. This wasn't a drunken one-night stand, Paul and Danielle spent an entire weekend together, loving and screwing all over the place. He was completely correct to assume that this was at least the start of a legitimate relationship.

So the crux of the film -- that Paul is obsessing and that obsession is not based in any sort of reality -- is just not valid.

As an aside, if this was the other way around, and a woman spent an intense romantic and sexual weekend with a man and HE just treated it as if it were nothing, the movie would portray the guy as the biggest bad guy in the world.

reply

Two days of sex does not make a relationship. It could just be two days of good sex with no other strings attached. If a person (man or woman) wants to end dating or screwing or whatever, that should signify the end of things. The fact that Paul could not let go even months later demonstrated how damaged he was.

"Hypocrisy is the tribute that vice pays to virtue"

reply

well sir..... u know that wud b imoral/??? so i hope u wud nvr have such sex 2 sum 1 !!!!!!!!!!

reply

No. Paul's reaction to their fling was completely obsessive.

The weekend happens 8 months prior to the rest of the film, so this guy is twisting and building this imaginary relationship for the better part of a year.

Although Danielle doesn't become brutally honest about the situation until 8 months later (or about 50 minutes into the film, it is clear that she is not romantically interested in a relationship with him. Remember the scene after the movie and he wants to go to dinner but she excuses herself and makes a comment about "hanging out" with him? In her mind, they aren't even on a date. Nothing ever becomes of that weekend to anyone but Paul. Even his own sister tells him to move on, indicating that rational minds can see there's nothing there between Paul and Danielle.

I think the audience is supposed to view Danielle as a nice girl who's trying to be polite and soften the blow of her rejection, while keeping the work environment professional and courteous. This is where he gets the notion that he might still have a chance. In his mind, her workplace demeanor is a hopeful sign.

And surely you noticed how Paul manipulates situations to get next to Danielle, and how he inserts himself into her life by "not taking no for an answer" and insisting on doing this or that. He's controlling, off-putting and just plain creepy MOST of the film. Nothing normal about any of his reactions...

Also...there have a been quite a few movies where jilted chicks go batsh*t and are definitely the villains... Swimfan...Fatal Attraction, anyone?

reply

[deleted]

While I agree Paul became totally obsessive, if the writers were shooting to make Danielle a sympathetic character they failed in my eyes. She was a complete bitch through out the entire film. I mean I think we agree on Paul, dude was damaged probably beyond repair, but I saw absolutely nothing redeeming about Danielle.

reply

Yeah she did play him. It makes no sense to get involved with a coworker in those kinds of closer quarters if one doesn't have good intentions. She played with his feelings.

reply

Wow! Seeing as though stsinger finds this behavior normal, I think someone should put stsinger under psychiatric care.

reply

He was right to strangle that obnoxious bitch, and it would have been right for him to bullet through his stupid mouth.

reply

I saw the film as a cautionary tale. Reminded me a bit of American Gigolo. Careful with your affections. Although she didn't deserve to be murdered, Danielle was a despicable character. Yes, she led on Paul during their encounter. She was very tender and caring - the scene where she was caressing his face when he was talking about his childhood - that's not normal one-night-stand behavior, I wouldn't think. And their subsequent working relationship - from what I surmised, he really did nothing to indicate his obsession or to warrant the humiliating blast which set him off. She was also willingly having an affair with a married man. IMO, she was a selfish, slutty bitch. But even selfish slutty bitches don't deserve to be murdered. And Paul - I actually felt sorry for him. Of course, he was totally nuts and a killer... And no one deserves to be punished for their sexual activity (unless they're a rapist, of course) but as a compassionate human being,one can surmise that his actions stemmed from a long line of unfortunate events, denial,etc.
I blame his father.

reply

Yep, people are pretty quick to call women "bitches" and "sluts" when they have very little insight into their lives. You do this in real life, too, I assume.

__ __ __
Gentlemen, you can't fight in here! This is the War Room!"--Pres. Merkin Muffley

reply

How do you know she knew he was married? She seemed disappointed and hurt when his wife showed up.

reply