副作用

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……
 

        Side Effects，豆瓣得分7.4，Imbd得分7.1，聚集了Soderbergh御用男主角少女男神Channing Tatum、龙纹身女孩Rooney Mara、发际线日渐走远的Jude Law以及神级御姐女星Catherine Zeta-Jones。如果单纯看明星，这绝对是一部够本的大电影了。但是据说这还是大导演十分克制的结果，龙套角色也用了不少好莱坞熟脸。
        但是，按下播放键的一瞬间，请等一等，这不是一部传说中的剧情+惊悚+犯罪片么？这朦朦胧胧的大光圈儿是怎么回事？这舒缓悠然的配乐是怎么回事？这大片大片的空镜头在怎么回事？还有扎着蝴蝶结的礼物盒？还有航海范儿十足的帆船模型？是不小心点开了一部岩井俊二系唯美文艺片么？于是，我在第一次打开Side Effects时，观看了五分钟左右，宣布药效失效，果断关闭了页面。这种闷闷的腔调不对味儿哦。
        但是，昨晚在看完Kick Ass2后，电视机自动播放了Side Effects给我。于是耐着性子看下去，熬过了开头那段文艺范的段落，看到Three Months Earlier，Emily开车撞向墙壁的那一幕，终于勾起了我的兴趣，故事终于开始沿着罪案片爱好者喜欢的路线发展前进啦。
        小学生上语文课都会被中年女教师强迫着给文章划段落，Side Effects大抵也可以这样，分成三大段。
        第一段：我们面色惨白的女主角Emily 由于生活带给她的种种磨难饱受折磨，爱人入狱，破产无房，痛失爱子，等等等等，抑郁难当，于是撞车撞地铁，各种未遂，各种失控。于是，被送进医院见到我们即将秃顶的心理医生Jon，开始漫长的药物治疗。虽然各种抗抑郁药物都似乎带来了欢欣鼓舞和正常的生活，但是那些药物给人带来的副作用不容小觑。药物使Emily梦游，梦游中她左一刀右一刀地捅死了丈夫Martin.仿佛一根线缓慢地延展，至此突然收紧。可是，男神就这么死了？看刀位也没有怎么插中要害啊，真对不起他的大身板子啊！这是炮灰的节奏啊！这是龙套的气氛啊！
        电影进入第二段：审判。算起来，关于庭审的电影也看了不少了，远了说有12 Angry Men、Primal Fear，近来也有tvb《法外风云》热热闹闹地上演一场又一场的庭审戏，但是Side Effects中的这种还是比较少见的，梦中杀夫，到底算不算谋杀？检察官指出了两条路供选择：要么女主角是凶手杀人犯；要么女主角是医疗药物受害者，而给她处方的心理医生Jon难逃干系。无论选择哪一条路，都必须有人受到责罚。在这个案件中，法理上讨论的焦点在于，做过是否等于有罪，关键在于是否具有杀人动机。Jon一定悔不当初，为神马要当这个医药顾问，为神马要收下那五万美刀，为神马要当这个女主角的心理医生。他会作何抉择呢？要知道，他的抉择可是关系到这部电影是将走向探讨美国药物滥用、医药厂商无量的现实意义影片，还是将走向Erin Brockocich那样讨论社会公义的影片。但是这部电影都不是，还没等Jon做出选择，Emily就已借助媒体的力量，把案子抄上头版头条，让Jon迅速跌入人生的谷底，身败名裂，还差点妻离子散。所幸Jon有一颗坚强执着的心，誓不屈服，绝不认输，着手调查事实真相。那半面墙的图片、信息、资料啊，让人情不自禁地想到了Castle里Kate Beckett的那面用窗子遮掩的墙，想起Ten里每每有大案要案时南锐利小姐铺天盖地粘满的那一墙又一墙的便利贴。好吧，说了那么多废话，在这部电影里，真相到底是什么？
        Soderbergh在影片的第三段慢慢揭示了真相，那就是你之前所看到的一切都只是Emily假装的，一切都是假象。真相是爱慕虚荣的Emily为了基情和金钱，耐心等待四年而蓄谋杀夫。Jon只是偶然间被利用的冤大头，即使没有他的出现，也会有张三李四王二麻子被Emily和Siebert利用。一向饰演高大全角色的男主角会甘心么？当然不会，于是球球奋起反击，分别使用了反间计、杀鸡儆猴计、无中生有计等计谋，打败基友联盟，顺利地把Siebert大妈送到警察蜀黍的手里，把Emily送回到精神病院，把自己送回到幸福美满的和谐生活中。
        所以这是一部正义战胜了邪恶的高大上影片么？为什么看过之后有一种诡异的憋闷感、无力感和遗憾感？一定是因为看了太多快节奏暗黑系爆血浆的重口味罪案片，所以竟受不了这种娓娓道来，抽丝剥茧的风格了。特别是这种打着商业片旗号却散发着文艺片气息的电影，真的让人摸不着头脑了。
        不过，不得不承认的是，电影的剪接真的没话说，虽然闷闷的，但是没有一丝冗余镜头，每一个画面都恰到好处，干净利索得让人惊叹。
        所以，综上所述，Side Effects还是一部值得一看的电影。就仿佛导演在给观众服下一颗一颗又一颗粉红色的小药丸，让人穿过那层层毒雾，看到一个明亮温暖的新世界。而对于一个总说梦话还似乎曾经梦游过的人来说也真的很有警示作用，当我告诉小杨先僧，我看了一部梦游杀夫的影片时，我分明看到他颤抖了一下。

电影的开篇从一段血迹开始，暗示了整部电影层层推进真相的脉络。

迎回久别的夫君后，女猪的小算盘就开始打了。在第一次自杀时，从她掉落物品来看，是出于对自杀的恐惧，从容赴死的人是不会心不在焉的，这里导演埋下一处暗线，细心的观众应当有所察觉。后来男猪找目击证人时，证实了女猪撞车自杀却系安全带的自相矛盾。

细心的男猪不愧是心理医生，在对女猪进行诊断的过程中虽然女猪一直在说谎，但男猪看出她是个有希望的人，所以觉得她也就是个间歇性精神障碍。没想到就这么被拉下了水。

而第二次自杀，女猪刻意和保安对视，让保安注意自己，在保安“救下”自己时又留意了保安的胸牌，好在干完大事后有人证。在这里笔者认为镜头处理的深意不足，完全可以给女猪一个盯住保安胸牌的眼神而不用把大大的胸牌给观众看。

而后女猪去找男猪紧急求心理治疗，当着男猪妻子面要求私聊。转移的场所色调动作环境什么的都挺暧昧，后来果然是计。

不久片头的一幕出现了，女猪杀害亲夫，故意踩在血迹上。警官询问时故意装不知道然后露出脚底的血迹让警官怀疑其精神问题。

家庭事业蒸蒸日上的男猪，给女猪开了个精神抑制药物，成了女猪转移罪状的道具，女猪的称号“pill killer”像尖矛一样指向男猪。而男猪怎会甘心就这么被一瓶药毁一生，就在其他医生、记者、警官都认为尘埃落定之时，一场越庖代俎的调查由男猪展开。

这让洒家想起了《生死狙击》和《亡命天涯》，这几部电影都是男猪莫名其妙被陷害，众叛亲离，在绝境中不屈不挠最终把真相大白于天下。

男猪抱着问号去刺探女猪，给女猪打盐水却说是镇定剂，女猪假装迷糊。在这里不能理解为什么女猪明明不困却假装困。男猪由此找到突破口，顺藤摸瓜找到女猪的好基友，好基友却以攻为守，这下彻底激发了男猪的斗志。此时女基友和男猪对峙那洋洋得意的样子不时让我想起我小学班主任。

常言道基友间的感情最纯，男猪偏偏不吃这套，连蒙带骗，挑拨离间。先是坑女基友说女猪什么都告诉他了，女基友就刺儿了，一番失态。男猪继续趁热打铁刺激女猪，先带女猪看电击治疗，又放女基友挑衅录音前半段，后半段没放出来，意思是女基友全招了。威逼利诱之下女猪不矫情了，为了自保想来个“beter deal”。

原来一切的开头是女猪婚礼上丈夫被逮捕，这份刺激估计谁都受不了。女猪深深的觉得男人真不靠谱，就在女猪迷茫之际和女基友擦出了火花，罪恶也因此点燃。

把基友交代给警方后女猪来男猪这得瑟你瞅我没事呵呵呵。男猪岂能让她继续作怪，跟专业的玩不是找死，三言两语把女猪投入了她梦寐以求的精神病院。

影片中玛拉深邃的眼神仿佛黑洞般吸收了观众的思想，令人无法停止思考却没有答案。裘德洛饰演的医生心思缜密正义感十足，演技炉火纯青不愧是多次奥斯卡提名的男人。