SIDE EFFECTS Pathologizes Everyone

Side Effects is a movie about the business of psychiatric medications, fraud, insanity and the failure of the criminal justice system. It’s a complex movie with many plots and twists, and is captivating from start to end.

From a very creepy, melancholic opening, we are taken three months earlier into the story. Emily Taylor (Rooney Mara) visits her husband Martin (Channing Tatum) in prison – he was convicted for insider trading. Soon after, he is released after four years, but when he returns home, he finds his wife in a very bad state. Emily is depressed and suicidal. She is assigned a new psychiatrist, who decides not to institutionalize her, but instead puts her on anti-depressants. She tries several, but none seem to work for her, until she tries out the new and hip Ablixa. The unfortunate side effect? Very violent sleepwalking.

The movie leads us through the process if criminal justice and the effect a crime on the career (as well as the mental wellbeing and life) of the psychiatrist, leads us through coercion, more fraud and a few big plot reveals. The movie asks us: what does insanity mean? How easy it is to manipulate and fool the system?

The star of this movie is, without a doubt, Rooney Mara. Her doll-like, innocent features in combination with the creepy music and yellowish filters make for a subtle, eerie feel. Mara is very convincing in her role as Emily Taylor, giving a haunting performance in portraying her character’s mental issues.

Interestingly, Catherine Zeta-Jones, who plays the evil psychiatrist “Dr. Siebert” (why a German name? Why?!), was much less convincing. In my opinion, she was unsuitable for the role of super smart psychiatrist – she seemed to be struggling to deliver the psychiatrist’s lines and was more preoccupied and concerned with being drop-dead gorgeous than giving the character a less cliché bad guy attitude.

Jude Law, on the other hand, did a great job as the exhausted, frustrated and obsessed psychiatrist, Dr. Banks. I don’t think I’ve seen him on a roll like in this role in a long time.

In any case, the screenplay and particularly the dialogue was well-written, with enough interesting twists to make a story which would initially sound boring (insider trading in the psychiatric medicines business?) be entertaining. My praise goes to director and cinematographer Steven Soderbergh, who has created a film with great thematic insights, but also some beautiful shots from unexpected viewpoints with interesting lighting, lending an extra dark feel to the movie.

Discussion

The following paragraph contains major spoilers, so beware!

In Side Effects, there were a few moments that really stood out to me. For instance, already at the beginning of the movie, they make law enforcement and the criminal justice system to look like they are extremely black and white, you’re either insane, or you’re not, you’re guilty, or you’re not. This movie is all about the gray area in between. The psychiatrist, here, is the ferryman that guides them (and us, really) through the grey area, even if they do resist.

This starts in the scene where we’re introduced to Jonathan Banks, who saves a distraught Haitian from a rather intolerant officer.

(09:11) Banks: “He saw his dead father driving the taxi.”
Officer: “What?”
Banks:  “He saw the ghost of his father. He was a cabbie.”
Officer: “So I was right. He’s nuts.”
Banks: “No. It’s grief. Just grief painting pictures in his brain.

Later, the assistant district attorney (Michael Nathanson) tells psychiatrist Banks (40:20):

“Well, this goes one of to ways, doesn’t it? See, either she’s a murderer, or she’s a victim of her medical treatment. In which case, you’re the target of a big civil suit. Either way, someone gets punished. Her or you.”

Here, the ADA expresses a notion I find really interesting: someone has to be punished for a crime. And it doesn’t even matter who, as long as someone is punished. Why then, do we punish? They give us the idea, here, that punishment is almost just for show.

Then at 43:47, Banks’ wife asks him, in bed, what’s going on. He tells his patient has been arrested for something bad. She asks:

“Did the person do it? Are they guilty?
Banks: “In this case, those are two very different things.”

They go on to ask these questions – how can you prove criminal intent if the person wasn’t conscious, how easy is it to fool the criminal justice system, how easy is it to fake madness?

These questions are highly critical, which I can’t but appreciate. Sometimes the criminal justice system is so black and white, just as is portrayed here in Side Effects, and we, society, just accept it. Moviemakers, through fiction, have the power to make the audience to reconsider their norms and values.

This is why I was so disappointed with the ending. When, in the end, Banks, almost in a “eureka” moment, an afterthought, knew what was wrong with her, diagnosed her, and shipped her off to a mental institution for real. Banks gets his whole life back, and hurray, criminal justice prevailed once more, even if it was seriously sidetracked and needed a vigilante psychiatrist to find the truth for them.

Why couldn’t Emily be perfectly sane? I think that would definitely have added to the whole story.

Oh well. I can’t complain though, this was a decent movie.

What did you think of Side Effects? What are your ideas about the questions this movie posed?