副作用

看海报的时候以为是爱情片，看到电影二分之一的时候以为是讨论精神药物的道德伦理片，看到四分之三的时候发现是侦探片，看到最后20分钟的时候发现原来还是掺了lesbian爱情的侦探片。层层铺垫，最后的结果确实带来意想不到的感觉。
整个故事讲得完整、圆满，并没有什么纰漏，但是仔细想想，这样一个似乎很完满的故事，却有几个疑问。
1 Emily恨她丈夫的原因似乎过于牵强。看着对她好的不得了的丈夫被抓走，所有财富都没有了，就要恨她丈夫？
2 Emily由异性恋变为同性恋的原因没有解释，而且直接带过解释不足，当然为了造成后期意想不到的效果，也没有多花时间来解释这个。
但是一个好的故事，是不应该让人觉得说不通或者故事发展的牵强的。
3 Emily如此聪明的女孩，应该想到如果她供出女医生，她必然陷入两难境地。如果她不承认没病，就如电影里一样，她要一直被Jude Law监管；如果她承认有病，那她就犯有谋杀罪。作为能骗过很多人眼睛的Emily，应该是有高智商的，但高智商的她为何会轻易相信Jude Law下的套？
4 Emily透过窗户看见Jude Law和Catherine Zeta-Jones的谈话，才相信Jude Law的谎话，而她正好看见他们的谈话却是Jude Law不能事先安排的，而这最关键的一棋Jude Law是不知道Emily是否看见的。所以这是编剧的安排，而不是Jude Law，这在剧本上就有了一个站不住脚的地方。导演也只站在了从编故事的角度，而不是从故事内在逻辑出发。
总体来说，还是不错的侦探片，开始的时候能骗过观众，到最后才真相大白，只不过有点虎头蛇尾。Rooney Mara的面孔很漂亮，可惜身体太单薄了，小腿是不是因为小时候练舞所以不好看？另一位风头正劲的Kate Mara（在纸牌屋里出演）是她姐姐。岁月不饶人，Catherine Zeta-Jones也青春不再，想当初是多么漂亮。Jude Law表现中规中矩，他的风格就是很难突破。

就是冲着心理悬疑的标签看的这部电影，结果发现其实也不是心理片。
毕竟学的就是这个心理学，边看心里还边批评药物治疗的坏处。
这里小科普一下，电影中的医生其实都不是我们理解上的心理医生（psychologist），而是精神科医生（psychiatrist）。所以他们会给病人开药，而心理医生基本上是反对用药的。（有些地方可能不是分得很开，但是我们学校分得很开，而且教授们都非常反对甚至鄙视用药。）
精神药物的副作用不可小视，如果给18岁一下的患者用药，甚至会引发更多精神疾病。一个极端的例子是一个8岁的男童发展到后来居然要每天吃八种不同的药物来维持。
心理学家都建议采用心理疏导为主，药物为辅的治疗方式。简单来说就是能不吃药就不吃药。一般来说心理疾病上必须用药物控制的是少数，大部分还是那句话“心病还需心药医。”
转回来说电影，所谓悬疑就是让人意想不到。
这部片子有点像《一级恐惧》，都是借着精神病说事儿脱罪的那么一挂。但是这部片子从头到尾步步缜密，陷阱层层绕饶，相比之下《一级恐惧》要单纯的多，不过人家本来讲得重点也不一样，没可比性。
觉得这部片子最让人意想不到的是居然最让人觉得没有利益链接的两个人居然搅在一起，还是最让人意想不到的关系。
因为基本上就是几个高智商的人在斗心机，斗演技，斗手段，最后看谁斗得过谁，所以最聪明的也是发际线最高的裘德洛获胜（好像有什么不对。。。）。
本来就是悬疑片，我就攒点人品不剧透了。
自己看去吧。

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。

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

我之所以不喜欢裘德洛演的医生，主要是因为：

1、他在追求真相的路上，使的是阴招。
他不但在这对拉拉情侣中两头挑拨，故意造成假象，并利用人的脆弱乘虚而入让两人反目（恰好利用狱外女医生关心自己情人这一让人倍感温暖的情愫来让两人反目，这样的安排十足混蛋）。
此外，他还伪造测试结果，让一个并没有精神病（实际上他完全明白）的人忍受精神病的治疗（这难道不是一个医生最彻底的道德沦丧吗？）。

2、他的这一切复仇行为，并不是为了那个无辜冤死的男人，而是为了自己被剥夺的生活，而且很大程度上是因为他的执念而陷入困境的生活。

更应该看到的是，医生这个身份在裘德洛那里只是为重获自己个人生活的一个工具，这是自私的。而恰恰这种身份的工具性使用，是对职业道德的最大亵渎。

真相要不要追求？当然要，但是你不能以非人性、不道德的手段来追求真相，以暴易暴并不能提高你的合理性。
正义要不要执行？当然要，只是利益参与方从来都不会执行真正的正义。

所以，当裘德洛饰演的医生最后竟然全身而退，从学校接回小孩和老婆一同离开，我感到很震惊。看似他回到了正常的生活，但是是以邪恶的方法，这个人怎么能不受到惩罚？

这个世界并不是一个非黑即白的世界，但因此而模糊了黑白却不是一个理智的人应该有的思考和行为。