#70 - Side Effects (2013) Review

Side Effects (2013), Steven Soderbergh
3.5/5

This is a surprisingly excellent psychological thriller. The performances are excellent by Rooney Mara who plays Emily and Catherine Zeta-Jones as Dr. Siebert. Jude Law and Channing Tatum are average at best and this film is really dominated by the female characters. Exploring some interesting themes it is beautifully shot and not overly dramatised. The writing is great and the twists a little obvious, but still intriguing to capture your interest. The first 2 acts are great and it comes a bit apart by the third. Overall a beautifully shot excellent psychological thriller.

***SPOILERS***

During the first act I was captivated by the films intense exploration of the culture of depression in America. Emily's character was sympathetic and captivating to watch which of course was the film's intention to draw you in much like Dr. Banks experience. The film excellently portrayed the culture of depression and how it permeated every aspect of their lives and how willing everyone was to reach for a pill for their problems including the bombardment of messages in the media. The exception to this was Emily's husband Martin (Channing Tatum) who objected but he ended up killed and everyone was more than willing to turn a blind eye and blame drugs or illness and leave it alone. It beautifully shows the failings of a psychopharmaceutical approach to mental health and the problems of over simplification of complex life and emotional problems.

The character of Dr. Jonathan Banks played by Jude Law effectively conveys his journey and he transforms from trusted and empathetic to seeming more and more paranoid and erratic. This is tempered beautifully by other information provided by the film leaving it ambiguous for much of the film. The film is restrained and limited information keeps the audience guessing although it comes to the obvious conclusion. 

Unfortunately all the good work in the first act that dealt beautifully with the problems of the field of psychology are negated in the third act. Emily's character is transformed from the passive female victim into the archetype of the female seductress murderess woman-as-monster. This is added with the slightly distasteful (distasteful as in cheap use of lesbian relationship as a plot device) use of the lesbian relationship between Emily and Dr. Siebert which is less than surprising. Once again generating a sense of fear of women as Other and Monster especially if then don't desire or need men. Emily even states in the film that little girls start learning to pretend around the same time little boys start lying. This unfortunately devolves the films female characters into stereotypes. Dr. Siebert (Zeta-Jones) is also a bad depiction of women, although her role could have been a man without much difference. She falls to temptation of the young female patient and is the scorned party and tries to threaten Dr. Banks. It also portrays women as inherently manipulative and taught by society and culture to be sexual and employ lies and fabrication in order to get what they want.

As well as the negative portrayal of female characters as manipulative monsters it also depicts the field of psychology negatively. Unfortunately the earlier work on issues of depression and over medication are reduced down to a plot device. And while Dr. Banks fluctuates from paternal father protector of Emily into a paranoid mess during the second act he becomes Dr. Frankenstein representing science as monster. He uses his medical knowledge and techniques to manipulate both Dr. Siebert and most of all Emily. Also of note is the problematic use of his saline test on Emily which "proves" nothing other than the power of suggestion that is the placebo effect. This itself proved nothing, if this was a real case, many people when told they are imbibing alcohol or drugs and given a placebo act and behave genuinely as if affected by the substance and doesn't support a case of malingering. 

This is largely problematic as Dr. Banks becomes both hero and monster. He is depicted as being highly unethical in his treatment of Emily and also there was a case for negligence as Dr. Banks failed to even research thoroughly the potential side effects of a drug treatment even once Emily and Martin came in complaining about the side effects. Unfortunately this is all too realistic as the majority opinion in psychiatry is the placid acceptance of side effects as better than the severity of illness, regardless of lack of improvements. Also the film accurately depicts the undue influence on both patients and Doctors by pharmaceutical companies. 

The end of the film is most disturbing, the male "hero" Jonathan (Law) triumphs, and returns to his family wrapping up the narrative nicely by resuming the archetype of male hero and also the trope of man woman and child together. Both female characters are punished for their transgressions. Dr. Siebert is punished for her foolish love and being manipulated by Emily her lover, playing the fool and becomes the hysterical woman as she tries to escape the police. Emily's punishment is worse as she is shown at the end of the film in the psychiatric institution indefinitely and perhaps shows for the first time in the film as genuinely depressed which is oft described in the film as hopelessness is when you have no concept of a future. However while this might seem an apt punishment for the villain of the film, I still argue that Emily is the victim of the system. Unable to be retried and convicted for her husband's murder she is instead sentenced to a worse fate, similar to that of McMurphy in One Flew over the Cuckoo's Nest, by Ken Kesey, where she is punished by forced hospitalisation and medication and potentially "shock treatments" ie. ECT (electro-convulsive therapy). 

The ending is problematic as it depicts the mental health system as a means of punishment and while this might seem archaic it actually rings true. Emily's fate seems worse as there is no cure for insanity and no fixed term of imprisonment. On reflection this film poses a dark and threatening tone on the field of mental health. Once again painting the treatment of mental illness as pill popping magic bullet solution, or punishment. Overall this film explores some dark and disturbing themes regarding the criminal and medical (mental health) fields in society. In addition is also implicates the problematic notions of depression as "faking" and oversimplifies it as over generalised and less severe with over diagnosis. It also depicts the unfortunate approach of psychiatry as mere labelling and control over patients, itself a mere fabrication. In the end this is a thought provoking and interesting film.