副作用

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……
 

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。

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。

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

這就是索德堡的封鏡之作嗎？

這部是老式的懸疑驚悚片，索德堡掌鏡之下製作質感不錯，但情節的翻轉其實滿廉價的，而謀殺情節的背後是當代的精神藥物文化，再勉強扯上一些銀行家內線交易的政治側寫，精神科醫生和病患的大鬥法但兩邊都算不上好人，甚至看到後來會覺得精神醫療體制可以比司法體制更可怕。最後真相的揭曉讓我有種導演回到九零年代初第六感追緝令大玩妖魔化的政治不正確。在類型的包裝之下說不上電影是否真的問了有意義的問題。

為了呈現吃藥後的晃忽感，電影花了不少時間讓女主角領著觀眾進入憂鬱症患者的生活中，但你會發現一切都只是晃子，末尾一連串像是幕後花絮的回溯鏡頭拆解了觀眾先前所看到的，但電影故事並沒有跟著其中一位角色的敘事觀點，所有的誤導都是針對觀眾而來的，只是當觀眾發現真相時實在說不上有什麼晃然大悟之感，一方面是翻轉早在預期之中，另一方面除了耍觀眾之外好像也沒什麼好說的。

當然如果硬要去說些什麼的話，片頭從城市空景拉近到女主角居住的窗戶，大概是要說城市生活被藥物所控制的寓言。片尾從精神病院的窗戶拉出去算是呼應，但意義已大不相同，角色從操控藥物的假像，真正進入被藥物與醫療控制的牢籠，電影並沒有正面地去挑戰藥物與人的關係，就是在邊緣轉了一圈，但嚇唬的意味是有的。而女主角的心理狀態也可說是被囚禁在物質慾望的幻像裏，但這和藥物的幻像是否真有什麼關聯也說不上，除了女主角從頭到尾都很迷懞。

想想是否對一部類型片要求太多？或許是電影中一片迷懞灰色的世界裏，觀眾沒法真正找到認同的角色，無論是否是逃避，商業類型片總會在故事中找到道德正確或實現正義的可能性，這種理想與現實的衝撞，無辜與有罪之間的界線，其曖昧張力總是吸引人的，但這種張力在這部片總覺得不存在。男主角在事件發生後失去了原本的工作和家人，但在他成功地"復仇"之後，他不知怎麼地就修復了與家人的關係，看似美好結局卻不算圓滿也缺乏餘韻與想像。