苦果

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

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……
 

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。

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。

看《Side Effects》，故事、明星等元素还在其次，这部电影最让人感兴趣的还是导演史蒂文·索德伯格。这是因为，这名好莱坞最有名的导演在宣传这部影片时宣布，《Side Effects》将是其最后一部上院线的作品。

在一个乔丹、舒马赫满天飞的时代，这种宣言是否靠谱我们不得而知。不过趁这一机会来回顾一下索德伯格倒也不是一件坏事。在很大程度上来说，《Side Effects》是索德伯格一生成就的结晶。

索德伯格少年成名，并且《Sex, Lies, and Videotape》于戛纳一举摘得金棕榈后，制作了一系列小成本实验电影，但这些电影多毁誉参半，而且影响不大。真正让索德伯格“步入正轨”的是《Out of Sight》。这部电影不但展开了索德伯格与乔治·克鲁尼的长期合作，而且也让索德伯格意识到，自己真正的长处是虽然无甚新意、但制作精良、很有风格的类型片。

2000年正是索德伯格在意识到这一点后，打造的事业高峰。《Traffic》和《Erin Brockovich》都不能算是有多么大的野心，但两者的共同之处都是制作水平非常高，这也是为什么这两部影片不但票房很好，还成功为索德伯格赢取了奥斯卡提名和最佳导演奖。

从那之后，索德伯格基本上锁定了自己的路线，大多数时间拍摄水平高的商业片，少数时间进行自己的探索。其中，《Ocean’s Eleven》系列、《Contagion》、《Magic Mike》等片可以算作第一类，《Che》、《Bubble》、《Eros》、《Solaris》则可以算作第二类。

对于一个好莱坞导演来说，最难做的事其实就是打造自己的一个班底。如果有了成熟的班底，那么其实这个班底的每部制作都应该有较为稳定的版本。比如，斯比尔伯格数十年使用同样的摄像、音乐、和制片，伊斯特伍德更是养了整整一个剧组。这也是为什么伊斯特伍德自己参演、没有指导的《曲线难题》水平也很不错：这个剧组除了导演换了人（导演本人是伊斯特伍德剧组原副导演和制片），其他都是原班人马。

和这些导演相比，索德伯格更为多才多艺：他不但出任自己电影的导演，而且经常出任制片、执行制片、编剧、摄像、剪辑等职务（很多索德伯格的粉丝都知道，经常在其电影中担任摄像的彼得·安德鲁斯其实就是索德伯格自己）。这样一来，索德伯格更能确保自己影片的水准。

当然，这不是说只要索德伯格出品的就一定是精品，像《Haywire》、《The Good German》都不是质量太高的作品。但总体而言，索德伯格的电影还是好片远远多过烂片，而且由于其制作水平，即使是烂片也不会特别垃圾。另外，由于索德伯格这几个字的金字招牌往往能够吸引到很多大牌，其烂片不会一无是处。

从以上角度来分析，我们可以在《Side Effects》看见很多索德伯格标准性的签名。从制作的角度来说，这部片子又是明星云集，幕后的参与者则包括了安德鲁斯以及索德伯格常用的编剧本恩斯。和一贯的索德伯格作品一样，这部片子也制作精良。

从内容上来讲，《Side Effects》则是索德伯格作品中常见的“混搭”商业片。如果用好莱坞管用的分类法一言概之，那么我们只能说《Side Effects》是一部悬疑片。但就《The Informant》这样较为优良的索德伯格影片一样，《Side Effects》又和标准的悬疑类型片有所不同。我们甚至可以说，就和《Side Effects》涉及的精神病内容一样，这部片子颇有“精神分裂”的特质，前半部分趋于写实（因此会出现很多对于戏剧意义不大的细节，节奏也颇为迟缓），后半部分则是标准悬疑（因此故事更为吸引人，但戏剧化和刻意的程度更高）。

对于如此一部混搭片来说，能够一直抓住观众的注意力实属不易，而且最后能够自圆其说也完成了其作为商业片的宗旨。按水平来说，这部片子在索德伯格的所有作品中应该算是中上。如果此片真是索德伯格的收官之作，那么也算恰当。