豆友推薦一年多了，一直在電腦了放著，看完第一感覺(jué)是女主的驚艷表演，第二感覺(jué)是咋有點(diǎn)像龍紋身呢？還有點(diǎn)紙牌屋女記者的趕腳。后來(lái)看完一查資料，還真是這么回事,姐妹花！妹妹戲路更寬一下下。但在（她）里的表演太花瓶了，根本沒(méi)印象。被害死的丈夫覺(jué)得很有型，一查原來(lái)是舞出我天地的男主。裘德洛和澤塔表現(xiàn)的也不錯(cuò)。其實(shí)劇情也是中規(guī)中矩的，看到一個(gè)小時(shí)的時(shí)候就猜到了女同的結(jié)果。也看了豆友的評(píng)論，其實(shí)從邏輯上來(lái)說(shuō)和諾蘭的盜夢(mèng)一樣是講不通死循環(huán)，只是盜夢(mèng)拍的更華麗，所以漏洞不容易發(fā)現(xiàn)而已?？傊且徊坎诲e(cuò)的片子，卻不可能成為經(jīng)典，但可能使大家肯定了魯妮·瑪拉的演技派地位。期待他主演的卡羅爾。

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

就是沖著心理懸疑的標(biāo)簽看的這部電影，結(jié)果發(fā)現(xiàn)其實(shí)也不是心理片。
畢竟學(xué)的就是這個(gè)心理學(xué)，邊看心里還邊批評(píng)藥物治療的壞處。
這里小科普一下，電影中的醫(yī)生其實(shí)都不是我們理解上的心理醫(yī)生（psychologist），而是精神科醫(yī)生（psychiatrist）。所以他們會(huì)給病人開(kāi)藥，而心理醫(yī)生基本上是反對(duì)用藥的。（有些地方可能不是分得很開(kāi)，但是我們學(xué)校分得很開(kāi)，而且教授們都非常反對(duì)甚至鄙視用藥。）
精神藥物的副作用不可小視，如果給18歲一下的患者用藥，甚至?xí)l(fā)更多精神疾病。一個(gè)極端的例子是一個(gè)8歲的男童發(fā)展到后來(lái)居然要每天吃八種不同的藥物來(lái)維持。
心理學(xué)家都建議采用心理疏導(dǎo)為主，藥物為輔的治療方式。簡(jiǎn)單來(lái)說(shuō)就是能不吃藥就不吃藥。一般來(lái)說(shuō)心理疾病上必須用藥物控制的是少數(shù)，大部分還是那句話“心病還需心藥醫(yī)?！?br>轉(zhuǎn)回來(lái)說(shuō)電影，所謂懸疑就是讓人意想不到。
這部片子有點(diǎn)像《一級(jí)恐懼》，都是借著精神病說(shuō)事兒脫罪的那么一掛。但是這部片子從頭到尾步步縝密，陷阱層層繞饒，相比之下《一級(jí)恐懼》要單純的多，不過(guò)人家本來(lái)講得重點(diǎn)也不一樣，沒(méi)可比性。
覺(jué)得這部片子最讓人意想不到的是居然最讓人覺(jué)得沒(méi)有利益鏈接的兩個(gè)人居然攪在一起，還是最讓人意想不到的關(guān)系。
因?yàn)榛旧暇褪菐讉€(gè)高智商的人在斗心機(jī)，斗演技，斗手段，最后看誰(shuí)斗得過(guò)誰(shuí)，所以最聰明的也是發(fā)際線最高的裘德洛獲勝（好像有什么不對(duì)。。。）。
本來(lái)就是懸疑片，我就攢點(diǎn)人品不劇透了。
自己看去吧。

看海報(bào)的時(shí)候以為是愛(ài)情片，看到電影二分之一的時(shí)候以為是討論精神藥物的道德倫理片，看到四分之三的時(shí)候發(fā)現(xiàn)是偵探片，看到最后20分鐘的時(shí)候發(fā)現(xiàn)原來(lái)還是摻了lesbian愛(ài)情的偵探片。層層鋪墊，最后的結(jié)果確實(shí)帶來(lái)意想不到的感覺(jué)。
整個(gè)故事講得完整、圓滿，并沒(méi)有什么紕漏，但是仔細(xì)想想，這樣一個(gè)似乎很完滿的故事，卻有幾個(gè)疑問(wèn)。
1 Emily恨她丈夫的原因似乎過(guò)于牽強(qiáng)。看著對(duì)她好的不得了的丈夫被抓走，所有財(cái)富都沒(méi)有了，就要恨她丈夫？
2 Emily由異性戀變?yōu)橥詰俚脑驔](méi)有解釋，而且直接帶過(guò)解釋不足，當(dāng)然為了造成后期意想不到的效果，也沒(méi)有多花時(shí)間來(lái)解釋這個(gè)。
但是一個(gè)好的故事，是不應(yīng)該讓人覺(jué)得說(shuō)不通或者故事發(fā)展的牽強(qiáng)的。
3 Emily如此聰明的女孩，應(yīng)該想到如果她供出女醫(yī)生，她必然陷入兩難境地。如果她不承認(rèn)沒(méi)病，就如電影里一樣，她要一直被Jude Law監(jiān)管；如果她承認(rèn)有病，那她就犯有謀殺罪。作為能騙過(guò)很多人眼睛的Emily，應(yīng)該是有高智商的，但高智商的她為何會(huì)輕易相信Jude Law下的套？
4 Emily透過(guò)窗戶看見(jiàn)Jude Law和Catherine Zeta-Jones的談話，才相信Jude Law的謊話，而她正好看見(jiàn)他們的談話卻是Jude Law不能事先安排的，而這最關(guān)鍵的一棋Jude Law是不知道Emily是否看見(jiàn)的。所以這是編劇的安排，而不是Jude Law，這在劇本上就有了一個(gè)站不住腳的地方。導(dǎo)演也只站在了從編故事的角度，而不是從故事內(nèi)在邏輯出發(fā)。
總體來(lái)說(shuō)，還是不錯(cuò)的偵探片，開(kāi)始的時(shí)候能騙過(guò)觀眾，到最后才真相大白，只不過(guò)有點(diǎn)虎頭蛇尾。Rooney Mara的面孔很漂亮，可惜身體太單薄了，小腿是不是因?yàn)樾r(shí)候練舞所以不好看？另一位風(fēng)頭正勁的Kate Mara（在紙牌屋里出演）是她姐姐。歲月不饒人，Catherine Zeta-Jones也青春不再，想當(dāng)初是多么漂亮。Jude Law表現(xiàn)中規(guī)中矩，他的風(fēng)格就是很難突破。

我之所以不喜歡裘德洛演的醫(yī)生，主要是因?yàn)椋?br>
1、他在追求真相的路上，使的是陰招。
他不但在這對(duì)拉拉情侶中兩頭挑撥，故意造成假象，并利用人的脆弱乘虛而入讓兩人反目（恰好利用獄外女醫(yī)生關(guān)心自己情人這一讓人倍感溫暖的情愫來(lái)讓兩人反目，這樣的安排十足混蛋）。
此外，他還偽造測(cè)試結(jié)果，讓一個(gè)并沒(méi)有精神病（實(shí)際上他完全明白）的人忍受精神病的治療（這難道不是一個(gè)醫(yī)生最徹底的道德淪喪嗎？）。

2、他的這一切復(fù)仇行為，并不是為了那個(gè)無(wú)辜冤死的男人，而是為了自己被剝奪的生活，而且很大程度上是因?yàn)樗膱?zhí)念而陷入困境的生活。

更應(yīng)該看到的是，醫(yī)生這個(gè)身份在裘德洛那里只是為重獲自己個(gè)人生活的一個(gè)工具，這是自私的。而恰恰這種身份的工具性使用，是對(duì)職業(yè)道德的最大褻瀆。

真相要不要追求？當(dāng)然要，但是你不能以非人性、不道德的手段來(lái)追求真相，以暴易暴并不能提高你的合理性。
正義要不要執(zhí)行？當(dāng)然要，只是利益參與方從來(lái)都不會(huì)執(zhí)行真正的正義。

所以，當(dāng)裘德洛飾演的醫(yī)生最后竟然全身而退，從學(xué)校接回小孩和老婆一同離開(kāi)，我感到很震驚?？此扑氐搅苏５纳?，但是是以邪惡的方法，這個(gè)人怎么能不受到懲罰？

這個(gè)世界并不是一個(gè)非黑即白的世界，但因此而模糊了黑白卻不是一個(gè)理智的人應(yīng)該有的思考和行為。

看到好幾篇評(píng)論都說(shuō)裘德洛主演的醫(yī)生喬恩如何如何無(wú)辜，如何如何被兩個(gè)腹黑女人搞的名譽(yù)蕩然無(wú)存，家庭破裂生活一團(tuán)糟，最終又如何如何代表正義將兩個(gè)心狠手辣的女拉拉虐翻！實(shí)現(xiàn)大逆轉(zhuǎn)，然后帶著妻子繼子，過(guò)上了幸福安康的生活。
可是，為毛樓主看完卻是另外的感覺(jué)？難道是我打開(kāi)的方式不對(duì)，于是樓主重新看了一遍，發(fā)現(xiàn)了其中的一些小細(xì)節(jié)能夠證明裘德洛演的醫(yī)生其實(shí)根本就是隱藏在本片中最大的壞蛋。
第一處疑問(wèn)
影片48分處，調(diào)查員來(lái)詢問(wèn)裘德洛主演的醫(yī)生，其中問(wèn)道為什么裘德洛在英國(guó)接受教育卻來(lái)美國(guó)行醫(yī)。裘德洛的回答是在英國(guó)如果一看精神病醫(yī)生會(huì)被歧視。所以為了自己的職業(yè)發(fā)展，他不得不來(lái)到更為開(kāi)放的美國(guó)。
真的是這樣嗎？
第二處疑問(wèn)
影片56分處，裘德洛的同事（或許是主管之類的）基恩，就是那個(gè)滿頭白發(fā)的老頭對(duì)裘德洛說(shuō)艾米麗是個(gè)美麗的女人，如果是男人的話，裘德洛斷然不會(huì)如此幫助。被裘德洛否認(rèn)。（真是裘德洛的真心話嗎？）隨后他又說(shuō)了關(guān)于艾莉森的事情。原來(lái)，早在英國(guó)時(shí)，裘德洛剛剛成為實(shí)習(xí)醫(yī)生，就曾經(jīng)同一名叫做艾莉森的女病人有過(guò)糾纏。從后面他和妻子的談話中我們可以知道（影片的57分-58分），那名叫做艾莉森的病人揭露裘德洛曾經(jīng)帶她去過(guò)倫敦，甚至還在車?yán)锿l(fā)生過(guò)關(guān)系。當(dāng)然，按照裘德洛的話，艾莉森有精神分裂癥，那些說(shuō)法都是她一廂情愿的幻想。
真的是這樣嗎？

第一個(gè)細(xì)節(jié)
影片77分鐘，拉拉醫(yī)生希伯特郵寄裘德洛和艾米麗之間的通奸照片給曼哈頓的醫(yī)療行為調(diào)查處，從照片中我們可以看出，裘德洛和艾米麗之間并非是他上面所說(shuō)的對(duì)艾米麗沒(méi)有任何企圖。雖然這是女醫(yī)生和艾米麗設(shè)的圈套，但裘德洛如此容易上鉤，清楚地說(shuō)明了他并非自己說(shuō)的那么高尚，同時(shí)也在側(cè)面說(shuō)明他并非是第一次，那么在若干年前的英國(guó)，在那名已經(jīng)自殺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說(shuō)的那樣青白。我們也有理由懷疑他來(lái)到美國(guó)并非是他說(shuō)的英國(guó)醫(yī)風(fēng)不開(kāi)放。
第二個(gè)細(xì)節(jié)
影片82分鐘，裘德洛交給艾米麗一份人格測(cè)試表格，在86分鐘處，我們看到裘德洛正在涂這份表格，99分處，一切塵埃落定，艾米麗來(lái)到裘德洛的辦公室，裘德洛隨手打開(kāi)的那份文件，就是之前的人格測(cè)試表格，然后我們從兩人之間的對(duì)話了解到那份表格是用來(lái)測(cè)試是否患有精神分裂癥的。（別忘了艾莉森的病也是所謂的精神分裂癥。）
到此我們可以預(yù)見(jiàn)到，接下來(lái)的日子艾米麗將會(huì)在精神病院中度過(guò)?？赡苋舾赡曛笏矔?huì)像英國(guó)的艾莉森一樣選擇自殺吧！
而我們的裘德洛醫(yī)生，則同妻兒一起重新開(kāi)始了幸福的生活。
由上面的兩個(gè)疑問(wèn)和兩個(gè)細(xì)節(jié)推斷，裘德洛演的醫(yī)生并非我們?cè)谟捌吹侥菢诱x，其實(shí)他的內(nèi)心中最為邪惡。影片中裘德洛常說(shuō)的那句話——對(duì)未來(lái)行為的最好預(yù)測(cè)，就是過(guò)去的行為，其實(shí)這也是在說(shuō)他自己，他曾經(jīng)對(duì)艾莉森做過(guò)的事情，現(xiàn)在輪到了艾米麗身上。