副作用

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。

为毕设忙了一个通宵，打盹儿到晚上和宝贝吃晚饭，随缘去电影院撞部电影看。
《side effect》，记得是《龙纹身女孩》的导演还是编剧指导的，几个月前看过它的宣传片，悬疑推理，且与化学医药相关，的确是我的菜。
用简短的话来概括电影故事的大概，就是两个女同性恋的阴谋与一个倒霉被卷入的男人的逆袭。
当然，故事不会这么简单潦草。如果将整部电影视为一个内涵丰富的样品，那我现在正在尝试的就是将样品中不同的有效成分分离提纯，一一甄别，以备他用。

Side Effect（副作用），本来是指药物在治疗疾病的同时，对身体造成的无差别伤害性影响。

人性面：
从何处来，往何处去？这是“人生之于选择”的命题。“The past behavior is a determinant of the future behavior.” 过去的记忆与经历给了人对未来选择的自由。

故事起点的两个女人，一个是因爱人劈腿而内心受伤的精神科医生（具体的title我不是很确定），另一个是生逢剧变而绝望无助的银行家妻子——这里我没有用平面设计师的职业身份来解读她。

精神科医生，通医理药理，精于解读人心变化、思维密码的技术。电影中，她是个事业型的女强人，精干稳重、果敢狡黠，像一只老练的妖狐。作为一个被爱人抛弃、遭到背叛的女人，精神科医生所累积的知识与技术赋予她把握自己命运的力量。她憎恨男人，爱上女人，运用智慧去追求金钱、地位。她要在这种深彻的异化过程中重新找回自己，以此来对抗过去痛苦的回忆，抚慰那个受了伤的自己。
银行家妻子，间接掌握了各种金融衍生品的技术，享受了一般人未曾企及的荣华。命运是开不起玩笑的，盛极而衰，云泥之变，爱人与富贵弹指云烟，从拥有到失去，她陷入了悲伤。经历了悲伤的五个阶段后，她接受了的现实是走了样的现实：有人或事害了她，毁了她，她要返还，要报复。相对于抽象的命运、时势、因果、造化，果然将一切归罪于某一个人更容易得到心安，这个人就是她的爱人——马丁。这估计也与她年少时父亲冷落带来的经历分不开。
瞧，两个同时视男人为眼中钉的女人走到了一起，以互利共生的关系互相利用，互相安慰，多么自然的结合！而这世上最可怕的事就是结盟。也许真的是“漂亮的女人都是天生的演员”，精神科医生的专业知识，加上美人胚子女影帝的演技，似乎诡计与阴谋的出现就只是个时间问题了。
接下来，go through all of the procedure，如果一切顺利，诡计得逞，那就是各得其所、死而无憾了。但毕竟是因为背叛与自利才走到一起，骨子里的猜忌克服不掉的，一旦发现在一起不再是互利，而是伴随着出卖与伤害，那么反水叛变就将成为必然。
结尾，两个坏心眼的女人都得到了制裁，可怜但也理所当然，这也算是对于广大内心光明的观众的一个交待。

故事中的男医生是个倒霉孩子，误打误撞成为了阴谋里的牺牲品。起初的他，为了追求对病人人性的关怀而来到美国，对罪犯展现的温柔与人性既体现了他专业医师的素养，也塑造了他温柔热忱的一面，我估计如果没有后来因缘际会坠入陷阱的事，他一定是个性善主义者。
接下来，故事的处理很明确，既然落入陷阱，那就只看你被玩得有多惨：妻离子散，朋友背离，媒体舆论的围堵，事业由盛转衰，以及他自己内心对于善恶的挣扎。
说句插科打诨的话，当他在yahoo上search到了那篇关于梦游副作用的paper时，我暗笑他会不会因为自己没有提前看paper就开药而感到忧桑呢~
当发现一切是个阴谋，自己是被坑得一无所有的时候，男医生也在经历悲伤。在一番痛苦挣扎后，他接受了现实，并选择了大步向前，展开反击，赢回自己失去的一切！——宁可一思进，莫在一思停。达成目的后，工作复归正轨，妻儿再入怀抱，他既完成了自己的复仇，同时履行了医师的职责，在事实正义的层面上，更达到了惩治罪恶的目的，一石多鸟，公私两全，只不过，他对于这个世界，还能如往昔一样，充满善良与热忱地对待吗？

技术面：
Kevin Kelly的《what technology wants》是我最近一阶段很喜欢的书，虽然我还没来得及将其读完。里面关于技术、信息、生命等命题的看法对我几乎在所有领域的思考都带来了很大的启发。
回归到这部电影，从某种意义上讲，整部电影侧面描绘了我们所处的这样一个技术时空的部分缩影。

从技术工具论的功利角度来看，我们人类作为具有主观能动性的个体，运用技术的力量，实现自己的愿望。君子善假于物也，站在巨人的肩膀上，因而令人类更强大，更有力量。而从语言产生之始，人类便开始通过想法、念头的交流，累积经验，创造新的技术。因此，“技术大爆炸”、“技术宅拯救世界”的现象取代了原本基因突变为动力推动物种发展演进的节奏。
技术的发展遵循由具体到抽象，从苹果电脑或宝马汽车，到生物医药、心里金融、程序管理、药物审核体系等等等等，技术在不断进行着越发深彻的进化。同时，技术所具有的“举一反三”与“触类旁通”的特性也在电影中得到体现，无论是两个女人通过金融衍生品与生物药理学结合编织的诡计，还是男医生借助司法体系的程序权威与自己才智知识组合之后生成破敌妙计，技术的跨领域应用、组合为整个世界提供了无限的可能。

回顾电影的开头是监狱的探视，由于缺少X-光机，一个女孩子不得不将包好的礼物拆开接受检查。这一镜头所体现的精神贯穿电影始终，即技术的系统制度化。当单一技术的丰富与繁荣进入一个系统制度的体系框架，一切运作都必须有序得当，不容例外，伦理价值上这种有序被上升为程序正义，而从技术角度看，这是技术高度发达后的具体体现，就如同细胞到器官，最后形成生命，一切自要根据时空的推移，遵循相应的规则定律。电影里看到了FDA药物审核、司法体系的一罪不两诉、确定责任追究时的因果关联图（类似quality management的课）等等都不外如是。这一理念的推动下，人被异化为各样的身份职能，作为律师、医生、合伙人、保安、停车场看门大叔等等。
插句题外话，人在社会系统软件中以不同身份职能进行异化，成为具体部件时，也或多或少，以异化了的姿态展现自己人性的光辉，男医生帮助病人时尽责的善良，保安扶住伪神经病跳火车时的担忧，律师争取1%神经失常的无罪辩护时的关心在意，公司女老板体谅银行家妻子抑郁而给假等等，这些东西，弥足珍贵。

电影取名为副作用，这是个有趣的设定。使用一种技术获取利益时，可能也伴随着极大的风险。回顾电影中的设定，“金融衍生品 + 生物药理学 = 赚钱 + 杀人 + 脱罪”，细致的技巧却将社会、经济、司法、医药，各大技术系统软件被挨个敲打了一遍，就好像寄生虫从宿主身上攫取营养一般。但寄生虫也有被宿主弄死的危险，只不过死法不一定是被拍死的。于是，杀人犯的银行家妻子虽然没有得到法律的制裁，却被困在精神病院里生不如死；幕后主谋女医师那瞒天过海造势捞钱的阴谋，却被污点证人的录音暴露了。

药品的极致追求就是避免副作用。技术的复杂与无穷变化，让我们更加接近这一目标，或更加遥远。

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

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……