電影的開篇從一段血跡開始，暗示了整部電影層層推進(jìn)真相的脈絡(luò)。

迎回久別的夫君后，女豬的小算盤就開始打了。在第一次自殺時(shí)，從她掉落物品來看，是出于對(duì)自殺的恐懼，從容赴死的人是不會(huì)心不在焉的，這里導(dǎo)演埋下一處暗線，細(xì)心的觀眾應(yīng)當(dāng)有所察覺。后來男豬找目擊證人時(shí)，證實(shí)了女豬撞車自殺卻系安全帶的自相矛盾。

細(xì)心的男豬不愧是心理醫(yī)生，在對(duì)女豬進(jìn)行診斷的過程中雖然女豬一直在說謊，但男豬看出她是個(gè)有希望的人，所以覺得她也就是個(gè)間歇性精神障礙。沒想到就這么被拉下了水。

而第二次自殺，女豬刻意和保安對(duì)視，讓保安注意自己，在保安“救下”自己時(shí)又留意了保安的胸牌，好在干完大事后有人證。在這里筆者認(rèn)為鏡頭處理的深意不足，完全可以給女豬一個(gè)盯住保安胸牌的眼神而不用把大大的胸牌給觀眾看。

而后女豬去找男豬緊急求心理治療，當(dāng)著男豬妻子面要求私聊。轉(zhuǎn)移的場(chǎng)所色調(diào)動(dòng)作環(huán)境什么的都挺曖昧，后來果然是計(jì)。

不久片頭的一幕出現(xiàn)了，女豬殺害親夫，故意踩在血跡上。警官詢問時(shí)故意裝不知道然后露出腳底的血跡讓警官懷疑其精神問題。

家庭事業(yè)蒸蒸日上的男豬，給女豬開了個(gè)精神抑制藥物，成了女豬轉(zhuǎn)移罪狀的道具，女豬的稱號(hào)“pill killer”像尖矛一樣指向男豬。而男豬怎會(huì)甘心就這么被一瓶藥毀一生，就在其他醫(yī)生、記者、警官都認(rèn)為塵埃落定之時(shí)，一場(chǎng)越庖代俎的調(diào)查由男豬展開。

這讓灑家想起了《生死狙擊》和《亡命天涯》，這幾部電影都是男豬莫名其妙被陷害，眾叛親離，在絕境中不屈不撓最終把真相大白于天下。

男豬抱著問號(hào)去刺探女豬，給女豬打鹽水卻說是鎮(zhèn)定劑，女豬假裝迷糊。在這里不能理解為什么女豬明明不困卻假裝困。男豬由此找到突破口，順藤摸瓜找到女豬的好基友，好基友卻以攻為守，這下徹底激發(fā)了男豬的斗志。此時(shí)女基友和男豬對(duì)峙那洋洋得意的樣子不時(shí)讓我想起我小學(xué)班主任。

常言道基友間的感情最純，男豬偏偏不吃這套，連蒙帶騙，挑撥離間。先是坑女基友說女豬什么都告訴他了，女基友就刺兒了，一番失態(tài)。男豬繼續(xù)趁熱打鐵刺激女豬，先帶女豬看電擊治療，又放女基友挑釁錄音前半段，后半段沒放出來，意思是女基友全招了。威逼利誘之下女豬不矯情了，為了自保想來個(gè)“beter deal”。

原來一切的開頭是女豬婚禮上丈夫被逮捕，這份刺激估計(jì)誰(shuí)都受不了。女豬深深的覺得男人真不靠譜，就在女豬迷茫之際和女基友擦出了火花，罪惡也因此點(diǎn)燃。

把基友交代給警方后女豬來男豬這得瑟你瞅我沒事呵呵呵。男豬豈能讓她繼續(xù)作怪，跟專業(yè)的玩不是找死，三言兩語(yǔ)把女豬投入了她夢(mèng)寐以求的精神病院。

影片中瑪拉深邃的眼神仿佛黑洞般吸收了觀眾的思想，令人無(wú)法停止思考卻沒有答案。裘德洛飾演的醫(yī)生心思縝密正義感十足，演技爐火純青不愧是多次奧斯卡提名的男人。

看《Side Effects》，故事、明星等元素還在其次，這部電影最讓人感興趣的還是導(dǎo)演史蒂文·索德伯格。這是因?yàn)?，這名好萊塢最有名的導(dǎo)演在宣傳這部影片時(shí)宣布，《Side Effects》將是其最后一部上院線的作品。

在一個(gè)喬丹、舒馬赫滿天飛的時(shí)代，這種宣言是否靠譜我們不得而知。不過趁這一機(jī)會(huì)來回顧一下索德伯格倒也不是一件壞事。在很大程度上來說，《Side Effects》是索德伯格一生成就的結(jié)晶。

索德伯格少年成名，并且《Sex, Lies, and Videotape》于戛納一舉摘得金棕櫚后，制作了一系列小成本實(shí)驗(yàn)電影，但這些電影多毀譽(yù)參半，而且影響不大。真正讓索德伯格“步入正軌”的是《Out of Sight》。這部電影不但展開了索德伯格與喬治·克魯尼的長(zhǎng)期合作，而且也讓索德伯格意識(shí)到，自己真正的長(zhǎng)處是雖然無(wú)甚新意、但制作精良、很有風(fēng)格的類型片。

2000年正是索德伯格在意識(shí)到這一點(diǎn)后，打造的事業(yè)高峰?！禩raffic》和《Erin Brockovich》都不能算是有多么大的野心，但兩者的共同之處都是制作水平非常高，這也是為什么這兩部影片不但票房很好，還成功為索德伯格贏取了奧斯卡提名和最佳導(dǎo)演獎(jiǎng)。

從那之后，索德伯格基本上鎖定了自己的路線，大多數(shù)時(shí)間拍攝水平高的商業(yè)片，少數(shù)時(shí)間進(jìn)行自己的探索。其中，《Ocean’s Eleven》系列、《Contagion》、《Magic Mike》等片可以算作第一類，《Che》、《Bubble》、《Eros》、《Solaris》則可以算作第二類。

對(duì)于一個(gè)好萊塢導(dǎo)演來說，最難做的事其實(shí)就是打造自己的一個(gè)班底。如果有了成熟的班底，那么其實(shí)這個(gè)班底的每部制作都應(yīng)該有較為穩(wěn)定的版本。比如，斯比爾伯格數(shù)十年使用同樣的攝像、音樂、和制片，伊斯特伍德更是養(yǎng)了整整一個(gè)劇組。這也是為什么伊斯特伍德自己參演、沒有指導(dǎo)的《曲線難題》水平也很不錯(cuò)：這個(gè)劇組除了導(dǎo)演換了人（導(dǎo)演本人是伊斯特伍德劇組原副導(dǎo)演和制片），其他都是原班人馬。

和這些導(dǎo)演相比，索德伯格更為多才多藝：他不但出任自己電影的導(dǎo)演，而且經(jīng)常出任制片、執(zhí)行制片、編劇、攝像、剪輯等職務(wù)（很多索德伯格的粉絲都知道，經(jīng)常在其電影中擔(dān)任攝像的彼得·安德魯斯其實(shí)就是索德伯格自己）。這樣一來，索德伯格更能確保自己影片的水準(zhǔn)。

當(dāng)然，這不是說只要索德伯格出品的就一定是精品，像《Haywire》、《The Good German》都不是質(zhì)量太高的作品。但總體而言，索德伯格的電影還是好片遠(yuǎn)遠(yuǎn)多過爛片，而且由于其制作水平，即使是爛片也不會(huì)特別垃圾。另外，由于索德伯格這幾個(gè)字的金字招牌往往能夠吸引到很多大牌，其爛片不會(huì)一無(wú)是處。

從以上角度來分析，我們可以在《Side Effects》看見很多索德伯格標(biāo)準(zhǔn)性的簽名。從制作的角度來說，這部片子又是明星云集，幕后的參與者則包括了安德魯斯以及索德伯格常用的編劇本恩斯。和一貫的索德伯格作品一樣，這部片子也制作精良。

從內(nèi)容上來講，《Side Effects》則是索德伯格作品中常見的“混搭”商業(yè)片。如果用好萊塢管用的分類法一言概之，那么我們只能說《Side Effects》是一部懸疑片。但就《The Informant》這樣較為優(yōu)良的索德伯格影片一樣，《Side Effects》又和標(biāo)準(zhǔn)的懸疑類型片有所不同。我們甚至可以說，就和《Side Effects》涉及的精神病內(nèi)容一樣，這部片子頗有“精神分裂”的特質(zhì)，前半部分趨于寫實(shí)（因此會(huì)出現(xiàn)很多對(duì)于戲劇意義不大的細(xì)節(jié)，節(jié)奏也頗為遲緩），后半部分則是標(biāo)準(zhǔn)懸疑（因此故事更為吸引人，但戲劇化和刻意的程度更高）。

對(duì)于如此一部混搭片來說，能夠一直抓住觀眾的注意力實(shí)屬不易，而且最后能夠自圓其說也完成了其作為商業(yè)片的宗旨。按水平來說，這部片子在索德伯格的所有作品中應(yīng)該算是中上。如果此片真是索德伯格的收官之作，那么也算恰當(dāng)。

前兩日聽Market place在講side effects里面影射醫(yī)藥界行業(yè)潛規(guī)則的新聞, 我當(dāng)時(shí)還以為這電影和promised land差不多是啥個(gè)人挑戰(zhàn)大企業(yè)的題材。結(jié)果今天一看劇情半途峰回路轉(zhuǎn)，結(jié)尾讓我大跌眼鏡。

整個(gè)事件和藥業(yè)公司基本木有關(guān)系。前半段那個(gè)批判資本主義財(cái)團(tuán)的基調(diào)被后半段“真正的壞蛋是兩朵百合”這個(gè)半路殺出來的設(shè)定攪得渣都不?！? 應(yīng)該很多人走出來都在想“尼瑪這片子到底想說啥?！?這種不協(xié)調(diào)的設(shè)定和有些刻意最求的sensational效果也難怪影評(píng)不喜歡。

不過我覺得后半段意外地帶感?。。。?！看Jude Law 死整兩個(gè)壞蛋的過程真是有股出了口惡氣的感覺。這年頭太多“壞人都是高智商高情商一手遮天萬(wàn)全準(zhǔn)備的變態(tài)有錢人，受害者都是弱小無(wú)辜勤懇工作遵紀(jì)守法的弱市民”的設(shè)定。所以，遇到不公的，倒霉的事情除了等待蜘蛛俠鋼鐵俠蝙蝠俠之類的英雄來救，就只有像國(guó)產(chǎn)片兒一樣靠蒼涼的背景音樂和灰蒙蒙的遠(yuǎn)距離鏡頭來暗罵社會(huì)黑暗人心不古。被別人欺負(fù)為什么就只能坐以待斃呢，以牙還牙，全力反擊總比哭天搶地自怨自艾好吧。 暗算拿MD的醫(yī)生，進(jìn)監(jiān)獄的監(jiān)獄，進(jìn)瘋?cè)嗽旱倪M(jìn)瘋?cè)嗽?，都是活該。老?shí)生活的普通市民也不是好惹的呢。不過被欺負(fù)的對(duì)象是Jude Law也是我對(duì)主角方有無(wú)線認(rèn)同感的重要原因之一。

雖然劇情經(jīng)不起推敲的地方不少，故事講得也有些唐突，但是被上司同事欺負(fù)了， 特別是被暗算了以后，看這個(gè)肯定覺得特別解氣，哪里管這么多呢，所以還是推薦之……

PS. 進(jìn)去之前我以為導(dǎo)演是Steven Spielberg，出來之后細(xì)想感覺不對(duì)?；仡^一看是 Steven Soderbergh。不認(rèn)字就是活該……
 

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