Morally ambiguous characters in a deceptive, complex thriller plot.
|In “Side Effects”, Emily (Rooney Mara) is feeling hopeless, suffering from prolonged effects of abandonment issues, unsure how to proceed in her life. Her husband, Martin (Channing Tatum) has just come home from prison, serving time for insider trading. But Emily doesn’t know what she should be feeling; Emily doesn’t know how to feel what she should be feeling. Psychiatrist Dr. Jonathan Banks (Jude Law) is exactly what the doctor ordered. || ||2013 |
Directed by: Steven Soderbergh
Screenplay by: Scott Z. Burns
Starring: Rooney Mara, Jude Law, and Catherine Zeta-Jones
For those of us who watched “Contagion” (2011) and wanted to focus only on Jude Law’s morally ambiguous blogger, Alan Krumwiede, we have finally gotten our wish. Law’s morally ambiguous Dr. Jon Banks and Mara’s psychologically ambiguous Emily are the only two main characters. There is only one story to follow.
It starts off with some strange camera angles (Steven Soderbergh serving as his own director of photography as he has for the majority of his films) but then settles down as a thriller, or what will become a thriller once we get to know the characters better. Emily has tried many antidepressants in the past but most leave her with undesired side effects: nausea, dizziness, or lack of a sex drive. Won’t Dr. Banks please prescribe her something different? Sure, how about Ablixa, the new medication which Dr. Banks is being paid to try out on patients.
And although we now think we know in which character evil lies, we do not. Dr. Jonathan Banks is singularly the most complicated, interestingly created character in recent times. He’s modern, selfish, compassionate, professionally-oriented, family-oriented, has respect for the legal system, and will go to extremes to distinguish between right and wrong. He’s the focus of this character-centric, film noir thriller which uses Mara’s Emily as the vehicle for the plot.
A crime is committed. It’s bad, really bad. But the question is not who did it, the question is, who is guilty? In answering that question the film weaves from deception through twist to deception, never ceasing our questions of what is morally right, what is morally wrong and who is guilty? The screenplay is incredibly well-written, creating characters that amaze us, disappoint us and deceive us all the while being a part of an interesting and complex story. The dialogue fits with that theme, using words like “hopeless” to tie multiple characters together - conceptually not physically.
It’s more of an edge-of-your-mind thriller rather than an edge-of-your-seat thriller. Never really scared, always questioning the moral and psychological behaviour of these characters. The ending takes some strange, sexually-charged turns, and perhaps a bit more conclusive than I was originally expecting, but don’t worry, you can still question where the line is between right and wrong and when each character crossed it.