副作用2013

    从一个在酒吧打工的穷学生，到有房有车有游艇的阔太太。被一夕打回原形，进而抑郁可以理解，但将一切归罪于老公，炮制出这么一处杀人闹剧，就实在是不可救药了。Banks医生最后将Siebert医生绳之以法后，没有照约定放过Emily，就是因为，“对未来最好的预测就是过去的行为。”这个谁都可以背叛的女人不值得帮助。
    这个女人没有朋友，不然也不会在低谷的时候无人倾诉，Siebert医生轻易将其掰弯，并毫不费力的成为同谋。也是Emily有奶便是娘，有稻草便能救命的自私心态使然。
    但我依然觉得作为一个拥有专业知识的心理医生，想要靠诋毁抗抑郁药品操控股价，总会有比杀人更好的办法。Siebert医生的计划与其说单单只是为了商业欺诈，倒不如说更主要的是想除掉Martin，而将Emily占为己有，捞些钱只是顺手。至少她对Emily的感情明显要强过Emily对她。她是真心想双宿双栖的，可惜和Martin一样，所托非人。
    Emily有抑郁症，她的自杀很可能是临时起意，或者下意识产生，因此从撞车时候系着安全带，公司播放着汽车碰撞试验视频，就能推断出一切是阴谋，多少还是有些牵强。
    比之更牵强的是这个计划成功的关键更多的取决于他们陷害医生的智商。尤其是对于Emily，这个计划首先需要坐实她是个精神病，其次也要确定她是个杀人犯。而这个医生必须是能力足够做到将她无罪开释，并治愈出院，却不能察觉蛛丝马迹发现阴谋。这样的要求太过苛刻。而如果阴谋失败，无论是被当做杀人犯，还是精神病，Emily的一生都会被监禁。这样的计划，一个如此自私的女人居然会同意执行，多少也有些异想天开。
    关于Dierdre，无论是当提及Alison事件的时候的质疑，还是Emily照片如此明显的摆拍，都会令她震怒。至少说明她对Banks医生并不是那么信任。一个带着孩子的女人，肯定有过一次伤害，再次信任一个男人，并且是在很多证据对他不利的时候还会信任，需要很大的勇气和爱。
    所以看来看去本片中最善良的女人，还是Martin的妈妈，这个对于亲手杀死自己儿子的女人还抱以极大同情，并会为她发声的母亲，在得知真相后的一巴掌，也同时打出了观者的愤怒。
    Catherine Zeta-Jones的确显老，但如果你是在看完《破碎之城》不久看的本片，还是多少回复些希望。而对于Rooney Mara，你如果只看过《龙纹身》，就等着惊艳吧。

花絮：
1.Steven Soderbergh最初想让Lindsay Lohan出演Emily，并对她试镜了三次。但最终出品方感觉Lohan自身的法律方面的问题会影响电影进程。最终Rooney Mara入替。
2.出品时的报道是，本片将会是Steven Soderbergh作为导演的最后一部电影。
3.Rooney Mara为拍摄本片，推掉了《刺杀本拉登》的邀约。
4.Blake Lively原本是本片的女一号，但制片公司放弃了投资本片，直到Rooney Mara顶替出演后，才重新投资。
5.到2005年为止，大约有68个记录在案的梦游杀人案件。
6.Justin Timberlake曾被考虑出演Martin。
7.Emily Blunt, Olivia Wilde, Imogen Poots, Alice Eve, Amanda Seyfried 和 Michelle Williams 都被考虑主演本片，Blake Lively曾被确定，但最终被Rooney Mara取代。
8.地铁站里抗抑郁药Ablixa的大幅海报上的女人，是英国女演员Alexa Brown。

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

  如果不算上那部电视单本剧《烛台背后》的话，《副作用》可以算作是索德伯格实际意义上的最后一部银幕作品。从《传染病》、《制胜一击》、《魔力麦克》再到《副作用》和《烛台背后》，索德伯格的退休五部曲已经基本告罄，而用来先行代表整体作结的《副作用》正如它展示的故事主题一般精致严肃——在灰暗的雾霾中探索人的罪与罚。索德伯格开给观众的这颗苦药丸确实物有所值，良药苦口。这是一位成功导演的优质谢幕。
  《副作用》的主创和索德伯格的其他几部退休作品相似，有着星光熠熠的阵容，名角们都很看重这最后的合作机会，本片汇集了鲁妮玛拉、裘德洛、凯瑟琳泽塔琼斯和索德伯格近期的御用男主查宁塔图姆，个个演技了得，讨人喜欢，即使它的内容是忧郁沉重的。电影讲述了鲁妮玛拉因为服用药物而出现了精神疾病，并因此杀死了刚刚出狱的丈夫查宁塔图姆，玛拉的主治医生裘德洛在治疗中渐渐发现了异样，最终明白了一切其实是玛拉和其同性情人——心理医师泽塔琼斯的阴谋设局。这是一个具有古典好莱坞惊悚悬疑电影色彩的故事，浑身上下散发着希区柯克和比利怀尔德的气息，大部分戏份均是室内戏，通过对话带动叙事，用夸张的打光来影射人物心理，演员的演出具备舞台剧表演的优雅和从容。索德伯格用昏黄色和灰白色作为《副作用》影像的主色调，再配之以冷暗的具象，让整部电影那焦虑压抑的情绪体现在了每一帧的画面之中。鲁妮玛拉是影片的绝对主角，琼斯和塔图姆因戏份较少，所以发挥的余地不大，至于裘德洛，则就像他在索德伯格的《传染病》中意外抢戏一般，这次他的光彩也几乎被玛拉抢走了。鲁妮玛拉继续用自己的超群演技震惊四座，如果说《龙纹身的女孩》对她来说是一瓶强劲的烈酒，那么这次的《副作用》于她而言则是一杯浓浓的苦咖啡，从刚开始的柔弱迷茫，到中段的狂躁和恐惧，再到最后计谋被戳穿的邪恶与狡猾，鲁妮玛拉塑造了一个可悲却又可憎的女主，这个塑造是十分立体的。
  不知道索德伯格今后离开导演这行的道路会怎么走，但可以肯定的是作为一名电影导演，他是成功的。从揭幕美国九十年代独立电影运动的那部《性谎言录像带》的一鸣惊人开始，很少有人可以像他那样同时游刃有余的驾驭艺术和商业。如今其退休在即，我们未来也只能从他的作品年表中体会那份有关光影的智慧，深陷其中，不能自拔，而这，也许就是大量服用他的电影所产生的副作用。

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。

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。

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……