副作用

大年初一出来逛街，恰逢周日商场晚上7点就早关门，于是决定看一个片子。在STAND UP GUYS 和 SIDE EFFECT里面最后选了后者。

因为前期没有看过影评，也没有看过预告片，所以除了主演是谁基本上没有任何了解。对鲁尼的扮相真是惊艳，完全看不出龙纹身的女孩的影子。顺便吐槽龙纹身的女孩，那部电影除了记得一大堆欧洲人不标准的英语之外什么都没记住。

看这部电影的忠告是，熬过前半段半个多小时，后半段就是死去活来了。

开始10分钟，我以为这是讨论如何帮助刚刚出狱男人共创未来的故事；20分钟，我以为是一部探索女人内心如何逃离外在带给自己的抑郁的故事；30分钟，我以为是一部讨论心理医生治疗方法，以及药物滥用的故事；40分钟，我以为是辩证司法公平和人性与社会的选择的故事；50分钟，我以为是讲一个女人如何设计谋杀并且算计身边的人的故事；60分钟，我以为是一部找寻事实真相还原事件本质找到自己清白的故事。

在后来半个小时，剧情一再逆转，出乎我的意料。居然一个故事都没有猜对。

前半个小时的节奏实在太文艺了，像《like crazy》，像《Melancholia 》。实在没有办法不让我联想到难道我又要坐一个半小时看一个女人使劲哭，想着都想撤了。直到裘德洛先生满脸胡茬神经兮兮在家研究整个案件的进展的时候，我才意识到后面确实有好看的了。

男观众表示，永远不要相信一个发疯的女人。

确实疯了，就算没有任何医疗诊断证明鲁尼扮演的爱美丽这个姑娘的心理疾病。但是她确实是个疯子。

赞一下鲁尼小姐的演技，确实一个女疯子的样子。前半段柔弱，迷糊，无力，犹豫‘；事件披露出来以后，眼神里都透着狠劲，不愿再被关在医院里面的歇斯底里。

裘德洛先生是最后的赢家。唱响了伟大的主旋律，好人最终会善始善终。坏人不是死，就是在牢狱里好好过一辈子。

为了不剧透，坚决不告诉大家这是一个什么故事，自己去看吧。还挺有意思的。3星半。新春快乐。

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

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。

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。