First off, I love films where characters passionately monologue. A character who is introduced via a lengthy monologue can get a lot of the heavy lifting for the audience. How one observes another’s behavior can go a goodly way towards getting under their particular skin and seeing/hearing/feeling what makes them tick; and this is without much in the way of plot or story. Tone. Delivery. Body language can say so much. It is elegant when done right. Consider George C. Scott‘s knock-out intro to the biopic Patton, perhaps one of the greatest opening monologues to a film ever. Full of bravado, self confidence, and bucking against the grain. At one point Scott as Gen. George S. Patton Jr. memorably bellows, “Now I want you to remember that no bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country.” It is all in the delivery.
Now consider his son, Campbell Scott, who gets a less iconic, but no less magnetic monologue on the future total obsolescence of the male gender in Dylan Kidd‘s Rodger Dodger. It’s certainly more ironic (and often interrupted by those of lesser wit) but no less earnest than his fathers 1970 speech. It defines the slightly deluded misanthrope character of Rodger who will undergo subtle changes over the course of the film (note: those of you who think the movie is about Roger’s nephew Jesse and his sexual education in the movie, watch the film again). It throws in Darwinism into a modern sociological cistern (Manhattan) and clearly positions Roger as the alpha-male of modern society (i.e. an advertisement copy writer). His battle (of sorts) is no different than those of the classic western macho-men who are on the eve of their own demise (Unforgiven, The Wild Bunch and Ride the High Country).
The handheld photography on display here is similar to the work of Steven Soderbergh, although used to an entirely different end. Not aiming for intimacy, but rather a lurid spying, observing the human animal in their natural habitat. The conversation revolves around some frank sexuality undercut by embarrassed (yet enraptured, particularly the women) listeners, where the men try to diffuse Roger’s intensity with lesser quips. Note that there is a certain air of Isabella Rossellini both humouring him and mocking him at the same time. Roger remains undeterred, plowing forward, seeing (or imagining) the collective futile end for his gender, but fighting the good fight nonetheless. Certainly something in common there with the good General.
i’ve been meaning to own this film for a long, long time. i loved it when i first saw it three or four years ago, and seeing this clip again made me remember how dynamic it is. great commentary kurt.
I absolutely love Roger Dodger. Campbell Scott is probably one of the more underrated actors of his generation and it’s a ashame he rarely gets cast as a lead. If you haven’t seen it, check out The Dying Gaul as well. Campbell Scott, Patricia Clarkson, and Peter Sarsgaard just tear into each other for 90 minutes. It’s glorious.
Props to David Mamet’s THE SPANISH PRISONER. Where Campbell goes plays the stooge quite well too, quite opposite from the performance above.
this totally inspired me. just went out and bought Rodger Dodger. it will be watched in a matter of hours.
Let us know what you think of the film. Always happy to help folks grow their dvd collection!
Me too. Have never seen this but always dig Campbell Scott. The handheld thing is noticeable, distracting and highly annoying however.
~ For Your Consideration ~
~ Todd Haynes (I’m Not There) ~
BEST DIRECTOR
i’ve seen it before, but it was just as good as the last time. i saw it with my buddy (his first time) after Kontroll, and he loved it. what struck me this time around was how thick the dialogue was, but how handily the actors all (even elizabeth berkley) executed it. the film managed to retain a sense of reality through its stylistic aesthetic. i don’t know why it took me so long to add it to my collection
Hmmm, the handheld aesthetic is intrinsic to the storytelling in this case. not some stylistic tic. The film plays out in its own way like a nature documentary on mating rituals. I liked that aspect of it.
Although I’ve never had an issue with handheld stuff in anything, and the so-called shakey cam being co-opted by the action film genre has not been a problem either.
Concerning as I tend to agree with everything Roger says in this clip. Particularly that women on the whole lack geo-spatial orientation… I have done the ‘North’ test multiple times and its true. I think in society there is too much emphasis on equality, it is this compromise term that people want to diffuse any conflict with… but with the sexes there is anything but equality. We are hard-wired differently, profoundly so. It would be interesting to get a female perspective on Roger’s monologue, but for myself it is gospel.
Also in ‘I’m Not There’, there is a scene where Dylan lets loose his feelings about the differences between the genders, albeit too frank, mysognistic or not, I tend to agree. I think we should acknowledge the differences between the sexes rather then try to wallpaper over them and assume equality. It was also my experience that four different women I know saw I’m Not There and really disliked it, whereas the male friends that have seen it like it. Not a overwhelming poll I understand, but I suspect there is something appealing to the masculine in the abstract esotericism of Dylan’s artistic choices, and by extension, Haynes envisioning.
{enter rant mode}
Ah yes, Nature over Nurture. There are differences in males and females that are both a matter of genetics and programming. The problem with equality is that instead of it being a means of allowing for someone the opportunity to be good at something they are interested in , its used as a club that everyone is equal to everyone in every way. I was told I wasn’t allowed to take Industrial Education in Jr. High. I was told that girls took Home Ec. and I would be teased if I joined a class of all boys. Well, I eventually won out and took the class. Yes, I did get teased at first, but when it became obvious that I was excelling in the course they shut the hell up. I won top honors in Industrial courses three years running. Why? My dad not only let me watch what he was doing out in the garage as a kid, he insisted that I learn how to do stuff. He didn’t want useless children. I learned how to use the Oxy-Acetylene torch when I was 7. I was programmed .
When I was learning to fight in medieval style combat, I was having great difficulties with power issues. It wasn’t in till I was trained by a very smart lady fighter , that I understood, my problem was I was fighting like a guy. I am hinged like a girl. She changed a couple of little things about my stance and position. Suddenly I could hit anyone hard enough to drop them to their knees. Programming.
Yes they are fundamental differences between guys and girls, (and not just the obvious ones), but it also comes down to programming. Maybe if that girls in the clip had been programmed differently they would be better off at where north is. I can read maps, I seldom get lost. I will admit in the city I have no clue to where north is, but out in the valley and in the back country, no problem.
(end rant)
yes, I throw like a girl!
Yeah I factor in the programming as part of the inequality. Obviously gender distinctions talk in generalizations, but on the whole, from my experience, the sort of stuff Roger is talking about is true. My identity is very much linked to my maleness, and that is a mix of programming and nature… and I tend to notice a certain threshold of tolerance with my women friends, that does not exist with my male friends, and vice versa. I do not think, with the programming/nature aspects to their disadvantage that women operate with the same kind of ease/enthusiasm with/for abstractions that men do. I suspect they lack the ease of detachment men are capable of, we can seem unembedded in our emotions and discern meaning in some kind of phantom self, … there is of course the accusation that man are more prone to infidelity because of this ease of detachment. Women seem to understand things through themselves entirely, like there is this aura of self bound up in its emotional intelligence and all relations to the outer world are interfaced this way. Perhaps emotional maturity is a consequence of this sort of embedded quality. Myself I feel quite nomadic, only occassionally in my own skin.
A lot of this may be my own personal psychosis, but I have seen it conveyed in art enough to think that it goes beyond me.
I should probably make it explicit that I love women, I see in them the missing ingredient, and I do not think them on the whole inferior, but different and all the more important because of this difference.
(I feel like I need to be explicit in this respect because of what I construe the female perspective to be – I suspect a man would instantly understand no offense need be taken)
And I love men. The sad thing is I usually don’t get along well with the women folk. My identity is very much focused on my experiences. I know what I am capable off, and I tend to cringe at stereo types of women. They are usually correct, but part of me wonder what if… I girls really were treated the same as boys.
I believe this is changing, and changing fast. Girls now have far more role models than I ever did when I was growing up. I think the only female media role model I had growing up was Emma Peel. I watched the reaction of the male golfers when Anika Sortenstand (sp) played with the boys of the PGA down at Augusta. Then cheers when Michelle Wei (sp) declared she didn’t want to play with the LPGA, she wants to play the PGA. She wants to be the best period. not the best Lady golfer.
The thought of a Kill Bill heroine that was a bad ass killing machine of furious vengeance, was mostly a pipe dream. The days of the quivering princess in distress are slowly ending… I kind of feel sorry for all the guys out there. Womens roles are changing and for the most part for the better. Where does that leave the traditional role of the male.
And we’ve come full circle around to Roger. The principle thing is that it’s probably a lot easier for woman to absorb and fulfil male roles than vice-versa, when it comes down to brass tacks that is…