副作用

豆友推荐一年多了，一直在电脑了放着，看完第一感觉是女主的惊艳表演，第二感觉是咋有点像龙纹身呢？还有点纸牌屋女记者的赶脚。后来看完一查资料，还真是这么回事,姐妹花！妹妹戏路更宽一下下。但在（她）里的表演太花瓶了，根本没印象。被害死的丈夫觉得很有型，一查原来是舞出我天地的男主。裘德洛和泽塔表现的也不错。其实剧情也是中规中矩的，看到一个小时的时候就猜到了女同的结果。也看了豆友的评论，其实从逻辑上来说和诺兰的盗梦一样是讲不通死循环，只是盗梦拍的更华丽，所以漏洞不容易发现而已。总之，是一部不错的片子，却不可能成为经典，但可能使大家肯定了鲁妮·玛拉的演技派地位。期待他主演的卡罗尔。

就是冲着心理悬疑的标签看的这部电影，结果发现其实也不是心理片。
毕竟学的就是这个心理学，边看心里还边批评药物治疗的坏处。
这里小科普一下，电影中的医生其实都不是我们理解上的心理医生（psychologist），而是精神科医生（psychiatrist）。所以他们会给病人开药，而心理医生基本上是反对用药的。（有些地方可能不是分得很开，但是我们学校分得很开，而且教授们都非常反对甚至鄙视用药。）
精神药物的副作用不可小视，如果给18岁一下的患者用药，甚至会引发更多精神疾病。一个极端的例子是一个8岁的男童发展到后来居然要每天吃八种不同的药物来维持。
心理学家都建议采用心理疏导为主，药物为辅的治疗方式。简单来说就是能不吃药就不吃药。一般来说心理疾病上必须用药物控制的是少数，大部分还是那句话“心病还需心药医。”
转回来说电影，所谓悬疑就是让人意想不到。
这部片子有点像《一级恐惧》，都是借着精神病说事儿脱罪的那么一挂。但是这部片子从头到尾步步缜密，陷阱层层绕饶，相比之下《一级恐惧》要单纯的多，不过人家本来讲得重点也不一样，没可比性。
觉得这部片子最让人意想不到的是居然最让人觉得没有利益链接的两个人居然搅在一起，还是最让人意想不到的关系。
因为基本上就是几个高智商的人在斗心机，斗演技，斗手段，最后看谁斗得过谁，所以最聪明的也是发际线最高的裘德洛获胜（好像有什么不对。。。）。
本来就是悬疑片，我就攒点人品不剧透了。
自己看去吧。

前两日听Market place在讲side effects里面影射医药界行业潜规则的新闻, 我当时还以为这电影和promised land差不多是啥个人挑战大企业的题材。结果今天一看剧情半途峰回路转，结尾让我大跌眼镜。

整个事件和药业公司基本木有关系。前半段那个批判资本主义财团的基调被后半段“真正的坏蛋是两朵百合”这个半路杀出来的设定搅得渣都不剩…… 应该很多人走出来都在想“尼玛这片子到底想说啥。” 这种不协调的设定和有些刻意最求的sensational效果也难怪影评不喜欢。

不过我觉得后半段意外地带感啊！！！！看Jude Law 死整两个坏蛋的过程真是有股出了口恶气的感觉。这年头太多“坏人都是高智商高情商一手遮天万全准备的变态有钱人，受害者都是弱小无辜勤恳工作遵纪守法的弱市民”的设定。所以，遇到不公的，倒霉的事情除了等待蜘蛛侠钢铁侠蝙蝠侠之类的英雄来救，就只有像国产片儿一样靠苍凉的背景音乐和灰蒙蒙的远距离镜头来暗骂社会黑暗人心不古。被别人欺负为什么就只能坐以待毙呢，以牙还牙，全力反击总比哭天抢地自怨自艾好吧。 暗算拿MD的医生，进监狱的监狱，进疯人院的进疯人院，都是活该。老实生活的普通市民也不是好惹的呢。不过被欺负的对象是Jude Law也是我对主角方有无线认同感的重要原因之一。

虽然剧情经不起推敲的地方不少，故事讲得也有些唐突，但是被上司同事欺负了， 特别是被暗算了以后，看这个肯定觉得特别解气，哪里管这么多呢，所以还是推荐之……

PS. 进去之前我以为导演是Steven Spielberg，出来之后细想感觉不对。回头一看是 Steven Soderbergh。不认字就是活该……
 

At first, “Side Effects” looks like another jab at the pharmaceutical industry. Coping with her husband’s release from jail, Emily (Rooney Mara) finds herself sliding deep into depression. Following a public meltdown and a suicide attempt, she begins to receive treatment from Dr. Banks (Jude Law), who prescribes some medications, but to no avail. Dr. Banks contacts Emily’s former psychiatrist Dr. Siebert (Catherine Zeta-Jones), who suggests that she try a new antidepressant: Ablixa. The drug seems to work for Emily: she is happier and regains her sex drive, though she begins to sleepwalk. One day, while sleepwalking, she stabs her husband (Channing Tatum) to death and has no recollection of the event afterwards.

Before we continue, let’s take a look at those side effects of the fictional Ablixa, claimed to be in the class of SSRIs (along with Prozac and Zoloft). Stabbing? In fact, aggression usually decreases in depressed adults following treatment of SSRIs. Better sex? Ironically, decreased libido and sexual dysfunction are among the most distinctive side effects of SSRIs, frequently leading to termination of therapy. Sleepwalking? Again, there is no clinical evidence of that in SSRIs (there is some in another class of antidepressants, TCAs). Basically, all of these side effects are made up.

So the film’s realism is not worthy of much praise; in fact, some might find aspects of the plot questionable or far-fetched. Lack of realism however is forgivable in this film, as we are invited to further challenge the veracity of almost everything on screen. In addition to the usual suspect of the drug company (consistently representing “the bad guy” in theaters), we wonder if Dr. Banks is carelessly prescribing Ablixa for his own gains. We wonder if Dr. Siebert is setting out to harm Emily or Emily’s husband. We wonder if Dr. Banks and Dr. Siebert have been colluding in Emily’s fall. We wonder if Emily’s boss, a fellow patient of depression, has a role in whichever conspiracy theory we have in our heads. Some of us might even wonder if the self-medicating Dr. Banks is the real patient, or if he exists at all. There seems to be evidence for all of those explanations, none of which make complete sense.

This uncertainty is the true thrill of “Side Effects.” It does not give us a quick answer, preferring to taunt and tease for the most part. The suspense of a homicide or a cat-and-mouse race, in which we root for justice to prevail, gives way to multiple interpretations and ambiguous scenarios where good and bad people seem to switch places every fifteen minutes. We do not know which side justice stands on, or even if there is justice when everyone seems to have ulterior, sinister motives. The film invites us to investigate a case that really begins after its legal ending and has more than a few surprises waiting to be unfolded, like a Rubik’s cube that automatically twists just when you think you have a clue. Slow as our stint as detectives might be, it is quite a ride.

With hits such as “Magic Mike,” “Eric Brokovich,” “Traffic,” “Sex, Lies, and Videotape” and the Ocean’s Trilogy, director Steven Soderbergh has long been among the ranks of Spielberg and Scorsese as a big-shot director whose name cashes in as much as his actors. “Side Effects” is a further proof of his worth. Though still not at Alfred Hitchcock’s level, Soderbergh does share certain traits with the celebrated master. Both are prolific and fast on their feet: Hitchcock directed over 50 films in his luminous career and Soderbergh 27 features, both clocking in at more than one film per year. Both are versatile filmmakers: Hitchcock directed silent films, early talkies and both English and Hollywood productions, while Soderbergh jumps between blockbusters and independent projects with ease. Both are cinematic polymaths: Hitchcock’s visual and editing styles broke grounds, and Soderbergh has doubled or tripled himself as screenwriter, cinematographer and editor, the latter two under his pseudonyms. Both directors have enjoyed critical and commercial success: Hitchcock’s fame needs no further elaboration, and Soderbergh’s 12 wide releases earned more than $82 million on average and nods from the critics.

Manifest in “Side Effects” is one final similarity, perhaps more striking and precious than any above. Though not noted for his economy of dialogue, Soderbergh stays true to the Hitchcockian philosophy of telling a story with his camera. Many revealing details of the key incidents are conveyed or foreshadowed by deliberate, cunning shots or sequences: the zoom on a name card, the to-and-fro between Emily’s face and a handshake and a conspicuous tracking shot all complicate our understanding of what is going on. When depicting Emily’s depressive episodes, Soderbergh uses shallow focus and eerily high angles and frames to underscore the isolated, distorted nature of her mental state. In one memorable moment, she attends a ball with her husband and, as she leaves for a drink at the bar, she looks into an angled mirror and sees the illusion of her right face melting off. The metaphor of her altered mind is obvious, but its implications are not disclosed until the very end. Colored by Thomas Newman’s hushed, uncanny score, Soderbergh’s photography successfully visualizes the ambiguity of the story, making the film a mystery inside out.

A charming cast galvanizes that mystery. Rooney Mara is perfect for the role of Emily: her delicate, doll-like features lend to a sweet innocent veneer, which haunts us as soon as we realize that perhaps there is more trouble to her than depression. The jarring emotional hollowness of her character in a depressive state — even when she stabs her husband to death — unsettles us and lingers in our mind. Mara’s performance is effective, airtight and respectably devoid of any self-indulgence: she is there to make you wonder, and she does exactly that. Playing Emily’s current and former psychiatrists, Jude Law and Catherine Zeta-Jones form an unlikely pair, yet the experience of watching their characters’ protean and tumultuous relationship is quite stimulating. Channing Tatum has little time to play the pivotal victim, but the third-time collaborator with Soderbergh does a decent job as well.

Soderbergh insisted that he would depart from filmmaking after finishing up his final projects, including “Side Effects.” Be it a curtain call, a “sabbatical” (as he put it) or a much-needed break, it is possible that we will not see his name on credits for a while. In my recent memory, few directors have supplied moviegoers with works as consistently good and delightfully fast as his. I hope he will, as famed “ten-films-and-no-more” director Luc Besson (“The Fifth Element,” “The Professional”) did, “regain [his] appetite film by film.” Until he starts his next project, though, we are lucky to have “Side Effects” to enjoy.

---

First published in The Amherst Student, Issue 142-16