副作用2013

我之所以不喜欢裘德洛演的医生，主要是因为：

1、他在追求真相的路上，使的是阴招。
他不但在这对拉拉情侣中两头挑拨，故意造成假象，并利用人的脆弱乘虚而入让两人反目（恰好利用狱外女医生关心自己情人这一让人倍感温暖的情愫来让两人反目，这样的安排十足混蛋）。
此外，他还伪造测试结果，让一个并没有精神病（实际上他完全明白）的人忍受精神病的治疗（这难道不是一个医生最彻底的道德沦丧吗？）。

2、他的这一切复仇行为，并不是为了那个无辜冤死的男人，而是为了自己被剥夺的生活，而且很大程度上是因为他的执念而陷入困境的生活。

更应该看到的是，医生这个身份在裘德洛那里只是为重获自己个人生活的一个工具，这是自私的。而恰恰这种身份的工具性使用，是对职业道德的最大亵渎。

真相要不要追求？当然要，但是你不能以非人性、不道德的手段来追求真相，以暴易暴并不能提高你的合理性。
正义要不要执行？当然要，只是利益参与方从来都不会执行真正的正义。

所以，当裘德洛饰演的医生最后竟然全身而退，从学校接回小孩和老婆一同离开，我感到很震惊。看似他回到了正常的生活，但是是以邪恶的方法，这个人怎么能不受到惩罚？

这个世界并不是一个非黑即白的世界，但因此而模糊了黑白却不是一个理智的人应该有的思考和行为。

据说这是索德伯格导演的最后一部影片。Jude Law 在两星期前接受BBC Graham Norton Show 采访时也确认了这点。

索哥是公认的技术型大师，他在制作与摄影剪辑方面的成就要远高于比导演方面。他近年导的《Magic Mike》与《Haywire》在艺术造诣与商业上都不算成功。而他2011年制作的《We need to talk about Kevin》 得到了影评人很大的肯定，所以宣传强调这是他最后导演的一部影片，是一种营销手段。

谋财害命的惊悚片向来是好莱坞喜爱的题材，而近年来精神分析类的电影在诺兰《Inception》的影响下也独领风骚。比如去年不太成功的《Red Lights》, 《 Man on a ledge》，都是属于两者的混塔。混搭是一种创新，但若找不到平衡点就容易被打上故弄玄虚的标签。

作为把惊悚犯罪与精神心理混搭的商业片，本片在索哥流畅的镜头编排与无痕的剪辑下显得游刃有余。绝对一流商业片的典范。每一个镜头都在为其票房做有效功。特别是影片开头塑造的气氛，压抑，缓慢，但又不至于沉闷。Rooney在酒吧镜子里看到自己映射的刹那是其中的最亮点。

但作为惊悚片，特别是注重精神分析的影片，本片略显虎头蛇尾。这种虎头蛇尾并不是节奏上的，相反索德博格把前松后紧的节奏控制得恰到好处。这种虎头蛇会是剧本上的。比如我有很多疑惑：

1. Rooney 的角色在影片结尾的暗示里是一个完全以物质至上的女人，那么一个爱慕虚荣的女人会耐性等待一场四年的阴谋？如果说是出于对Zeta-Jones大姐的爱情又解释不通，因为最后她轻易地出卖了大姐。

2. 杀夫这样严重的罪行只是为了炒股的几个小钱？考虑到电影没说大姐有巴菲特这样的本金？ 说到底，她能买多少股，赚多少钱？有没有直接让Ablixa索赔多？一般电影里的医疗公司赔上起来都是上千万的（或许有人说这药只在试用阶段，所以后果自负，那么yahoo，电视，车站上的广告又怎么解释，没有哪家医药公司这么愚蠢地打广告的吧）。若说是为了抛弃丈夫的话，那随便小刀一下，基本是人的应该都会和你离婚吧。何必捅这么多刀。

3. 冤大头Jude Law的离间计也太快有效了吧，大姐与小妹多年的默契这么容易就被攻破了？ Rooney 在伪装这么久后，如此轻易就奔溃了？Zeta-Jones的照片威胁也显得不打自招。

4. Ablixa 的生产商在股票大跌的情况没有想过要公关一下？收买一下演技一流的Rooney? 考虑到她是可以为了钱不择手段，为什么她不直跳过大姐，直接暗中和Ablixa的竞争对手合作？

这些其实都是细节，但一部一流的惊悚片剧本的逻辑性应该更强些，如果逻辑没有说服力，那么应该尽量把它搞得更复杂些，更多一些不定的因素。在本片中Rooney 被塑造成一个为了辉煌腾达可以装疯卖傻杀夫甚至冒险自杀的女人，而与她的野心与企图相比，故事结尾里的汇报是不是少了一些，或者说代价是不是太大了些？ 至少在最后应该让她偷了帐户里的钱再被遣送回疯人院吧。另外，按理她这样的美貌与心机并存的找个华尔街的高富帅应该不在话下，为什么要把鸡蛋放在Zeta-Jones一个篮子里。这样逻辑上说不过去，那么剧情可以再复杂一些，变数应再多一点，结局也可以不必这么一石二鸟的直接，比如可以让Rooney 与Jude合作骗走Zeta-Jones 的钱，或者她的丈夫可以假死而与Jude合作。想起Zeta-Jones 在科恩兄弟＜Intolerable Cruelty＞中的表演，峰回路转了几回。

再说惊悚程度，索哥一贯高度的控制力未能让故事的惊悚度达到大脑阈值，脑海中一下子闪过大卫芬奇1997年的《The Game》，虽然结局是合家欢乐，但观众的心却久久沉溺在惊恐中。而此片最后尽管Rooney回到了疯人院，Jude回到生活正规，我却不感到有多大的心理满足，难道是被诺兰芬奇折磨惯了？

演员来讲，Jude Law 的表演非常到位，上一次他精彩的冤大头表演是在明格拉的《The Talented Mr Ripley＞, 而Rooney 对精神病症状的把握是绝对一流的，自从她演了龙纹身女孩后，她几乎成了问题女孩的最佳人员，她姣好的脸庞与纤细的身材让我想起《Girl, Interrupted》里的薇诺拉，只是她的眼神少了迷离多了锋利。相比之下，Zeta-Jones的表演明显是在吃老本，没有什么新意，那段与Rooney的激情戏假得可笑，蜻蜓点水忽悠观众呢。像《Chloe》中的Moore御姐讨教一下吧。

最后啰嗦一句，Jude Law 老婆的角色完全可以剪掉，对剧情没有什么直接帮助，智商比较低只是用来烦观众的。

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。

看到好几篇评论都说裘德洛主演的医生乔恩如何如何无辜，如何如何被两个腹黑女人搞的名誉荡然无存，家庭破裂生活一团糟，最终又如何如何代表正义将两个心狠手辣的女拉拉虐翻！实现大逆转，然后带着妻子继子，过上了幸福安康的生活。
可是，为毛楼主看完却是另外的感觉？难道是我打开的方式不对，于是楼主重新看了一遍，发现了其中的一些小细节能够证明裘德洛演的医生其实根本就是隐藏在本片中最大的坏蛋。
第一处疑问
影片48分处，调查员来询问裘德洛主演的医生，其中问道为什么裘德洛在英国接受教育却来美国行医。裘德洛的回答是在英国如果一看精神病医生会被歧视。所以为了自己的职业发展，他不得不来到更为开放的美国。
真的是这样吗？
第二处疑问
影片56分处，裘德洛的同事（或许是主管之类的）基恩，就是那个满头白发的老头对裘德洛说艾米丽是个美丽的女人，如果是男人的话，裘德洛断然不会如此帮助。被裘德洛否认。（真是裘德洛的真心话吗？）随后他又说了关于艾莉森的事情。原来，早在英国时，裘德洛刚刚成为实习医生，就曾经同一名叫做艾莉森的女病人有过纠缠。从后面他和妻子的谈话中我们可以知道（影片的57分-58分），那名叫做艾莉森的病人揭露裘德洛曾经带她去过伦敦，甚至还在车里同他发生过关系。当然，按照裘德洛的话，艾莉森有精神分裂症，那些说法都是她一厢情愿的幻想。
真的是这样吗？

第一个细节
影片77分钟，拉拉医生希伯特邮寄裘德洛和艾米丽之间的通奸照片给曼哈顿的医疗行为调查处，从照片中我们可以看出，裘德洛和艾米丽之间并非是他上面所说的对艾米丽没有任何企图。虽然这是女医生和艾米丽设的圈套，但裘德洛如此容易上钩，清楚地说明了他并非自己说的那么高尚，同时也在侧面说明他并非是第一次，那么在若干年前的英国，在那名已经自杀了的叫做艾莉森的女病人的事情中，他就不可能向他和妻子说的那样青白。我们也有理由怀疑他来到美国并非是他说的英国医风不开放。
第二个细节
影片82分钟，裘德洛交给艾米丽一份人格测试表格，在86分钟处，我们看到裘德洛正在涂这份表格，99分处，一切尘埃落定，艾米丽来到裘德洛的办公室，裘德洛随手打开的那份文件，就是之前的人格测试表格，然后我们从两人之间的对话了解到那份表格是用来测试是否患有精神分裂症的。（别忘了艾莉森的病也是所谓的精神分裂症。）
到此我们可以预见到，接下来的日子艾米丽将会在精神病院中度过。可能若干年之后她也会像英国的艾莉森一样选择自杀吧！
而我们的裘德洛医生，则同妻儿一起重新开始了幸福的生活。
由上面的两个疑问和两个细节推断，裘德洛演的医生并非我们在影片看到那样正义，其实他的内心中最为邪恶。影片中裘德洛常说的那句话——对未来行为的最好预测，就是过去的行为，其实这也是在说他自己，他曾经对艾莉森做过的事情，现在轮到了艾米丽身上。

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