副作用2013

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。

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。

  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。

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