Side Effects (Steven Soderbergh)

[TGM]

SIDE EFFECTS

Director: Steven Soderbergh

imdb

[TGM]

So this was really quite good. The direction was real slick, the movie was filled with real nice twists that I didn't see coming, and Jude Law and Rooney Mara give exceptional performances here (Catherine Zeta-Jones feels like she's trying too hard, however). My only issue would be with a hand-holding flashback near the end that feels out of place and only exists to cater to anybody in the audience too stupid to fit all the pieces together themselves. But other than that, I enjoyed this one quite a bit.

[plain]

Side Effects is quite good and a nice exit point for Sodie (for now). It effortlessly shifts between genres on a dime and exudes a cold blurred surface throughout that holds us close. It's essentially all of Sodie's trademark themes held within the confines of a legal thriller. Expertly shot and edited (naturally) as well, it moves like Contagion with its data in constant flux and even contains a little erotic De Palma DNA, eager to revisit it. Should play as one of his more rewatchable films, hell, at this point they're all rewatchable.

[EyesWideOpen]

If Soderbergh really retires I'm gonna be pretty sad. He's in my top five directors working today.

[transmogrifier]

I doubt Soderbergh would make my Top 25. I find his aesthetic really...boring.

[plain]

here's a quick non-spoilery review I've written up for anyone interested: http://serenecinema.wordpress.com/20.../side-effects/

[Izzy Black]

SPOILERS AHEAD

I have complicated feelings about this film. Soderberg is among my top 5 working directors today as well. Right near the top, even. So I went to the theater to see this with much anticipation and sadness that this would be his swansong.

The first half of this film is among the very best direction I've ever seen from Soderbergh. It's a masterful execution of mood, pacing, framing, performance, staging, and writing. The film is set up, at this point, as a taut critique of the pharmaceutical industrial machine by way of subtle gestures, conversational banalities, and understated dramatic situations. It does this without villainizing anyone; we empathize with the depressed Emily (Mara) as she cycles unwittingly through various drugs while at the same time confident that Dr. Banks (Law) means well, but recognizing that he is so casually entrenched in the now seamless procedural culture of diagnosis and prescription that he could hardly be judged as a villain somehow apart or outside of a system that itself is obviously more than problematic. The fact that Soderbergh does this so discreetly within the putative constructs of a genre film is simply a marvel to watch.

But then Soderbergh buckles and simply let's the genre film be itself -- giving way to a series of implausible twists and turns and letting all the hard questions raised in the first half slip away as the drug companies are saved by a third act surprise that puts all the blame on stereotypically conniving lesbian bitches that exploit a system that is perhaps broken and not entirely faultless, but one that ultimately only commits a small crime in the grander scheme of human hubris and deceit. Yawn.

I appreciate Soderbergh's long vigorous cinematic quest to experiment with the boundaries of genre form, and most if not all of my assessments of his late work in particular is especially sensitive to this approach. But unlike his more recent work, the form doesn't assert itself here over and above the story as, for instance, a reflection on the social/cultural role genre plays at large (Haywire qua male espionage thriller; Contagion as a rejoinder to the disaster film as cathartic fantasy), or its function as an actor's vehicle (Channing Tatum and Matthew McConaughey as actual/depicted sex icons in Magic Mike, or Sasha Grey as an actual/depicted sex worker in The Girlfriend Experience). The film has far more in common with late 90s/early aughts Soderbergh, such as Solaris and Out of Sight, in that the mood and formal devices are used as means of exploring the possibilities within a genre (it is concerned with the question: "What can be done?") rather than on the nature or meaning of genre itself (by exploring its more functional external implications or characteristics that is primarily concerned with the question: "What is being done (or why)?"). In other words, the self-reference isn't front and center (although there are some touches here and there).

As a result, the film stands or falls on the merits of its own execution of the story. The first half lays the groundwork for a refreshing critique, but Soderbergh almost sets himself up for failure with its nuance that the suspension of belief the genre requires for the third act is made all the more implausible. It blandly cashes out in old tricks and undermines whatever insight it might've had on offer in the beginning. I just wanted more from such a promising start.

Anyways, sorry if this review was needlessly heady. Soderbergh is one of my favorite directors and it's sad to see him go, so I had a lot of feelings about this one. I still recommend the film regardless. I'm hopeful there will be more charitable readings out there, which I look forward to reading, and like I said, the film does contain some of his best direction in my view.

[B-side]

I feel pretty similarly, Izzy. I think Soderbergh liked keeping the film within the confines of seedy genre fare a la Brian De Palma, but I do think it is all kind of awkwardly handled toward the end. Everything falls into place and squares away too easily in terms of who's to blame. Granted, the film is certainly not without ambiguity, and the ending attests to that with a sly wink. I like that, even after the long-winded explanations, we still don't really know if she's sick or not. You could argue anyone who plots to kill another person is obviously sick, but that's missing the point. She uses the ever-broadening definition of depression in her favor when explaining her actions, so I don't think Soderbergh or Burns meant to wrap things up too tidily, but questions did seem to fall by the wayside as the film progressed toward the finale, and maybe that's for the best.

[plain]

"Money, it's always about money."

[Boner M]

It's kinda funny that Soderbergh cited the "tyranny of narrative" as a motivating force behind his retirement: this works so much better as a mood piece in the key of despondency than a hitting-all-the-story-beats corporate thriller, which didn't work for me for all the reasons that Izzy/B-Side outline.

A shame, because Soderbergh's direction is so good - it reminds me that he's the closest thing in Hollywood to a Berlin School filmmaker, especially with his recent films. MISS U

[Qrazy]

It's kinda funny that Soderbergh cited the "tyranny of narrative" as a motivating force behind his retirement: this works so much better as a mood piece in the key of despondency than a hitting-all-the-story-beats corporate thriller, which didn't work for me for all the reasons that Izzy/B-Side outline.

A shame, because Soderbergh's direction is so good - it reminds me that he's the closest thing in Hollywood to a Berlin School filmmaker, especially with his recent films. MISS U

Then why doesn't he just make less expensive films where he doesn't have to worry about that?

[transmogrifier]

It's kinda funny that Soderbergh cited the "tyranny of narrative" as a motivating force behind his retirement: this works so much better as a mood piece in the key of despondency than a hitting-all-the-story-beats corporate thriller, which didn't work for me for all the reasons that Izzy/B-Side outline.

A shame, because Soderbergh's direction is so good - it reminds me that he's the closest thing in Hollywood to a Berlin School filmmaker, especially with his recent films. MISS U

I think he complains about the tyranny of narrative because he isn't very good at them. It's a convenient out.

[Boner M]

Then why doesn't he just make less expensive films where he doesn't have to worry about that?

Well, he's already done that. Here's the exact quote, fwiw:

It’s a combination of wanting a change personally and of feeling like I’ve hit a wall in my development that I don’t know how to break through. The tyranny of narrative is beginning to frustrate me, or at least narrative as we’re currently defining it. I’m convinced there’s a new grammar out there somewhere. But that could just be my form of theism.

[Rowland]

I guessed the twists early on, and there really isn't much to be taken from this outside of its surface narrative intrigue; as Israfel details, the first half sets up a far more interesting film than what this devolves into. And while Soderbergh is always an immanently watchable filmmaker, his style remains too clinical for the Hoblit-ian second half to really take off as it could.

[DavidSeven]

I guess this is fitting end for Soderbergh. The film is a microcosm of the later stages of his career. He establishes his aesthetic and tone early, but time and again, puts his weaknesses as a storyteller and developer of character on full display. Once and for all, we have final proof that Soderbergh just can't bring it all together. He actually fails this film in the first half, even though I enjoyed it more than the second. That's because it's impossible to give him credit for creating a naturalistic mood-piece to start the film, since we know that he knows where the film ultimately needs to go. He's not given this screenplay in chunks. He knows that his story is headed for implausible Hitchcock-ian turns that demand a layer of artifice be established early on. This film will appear ludicrous otherwise. His day-in-the-life of a call girl/male stripper aesthetic and disregard for professional-level acting (you for real, Catherine Zeta Jones?) is not going to serve this particular story. I'm positive that the second half of this film is stupid on the page, but Soderbergh makes us more aware of the stupidity by enveloping this nonsense in a naturalistic tone it's not suited for.

So, what are we left with? Effective mood-piece/naturalistic character study? Nah, that gets abandoned halfway through and never should have been established in the first place. Effective thriller? Nah, the movie ends too ridiculously to appreciate any of its narrative elements. Thoughtful contemplation of the effect that over-prescription of pharmaceuticals has on the mentally-ill? HA. No. Well, I guess that super soft-lighting and really digital-looking digital photography is so anti-Hollywood-establishment... we seem willing to forgive a lot of Soderbergh's failings as a filmmaker for our yearly dose of that. This one really puts that into perspective.

[Pop Trash]

I'm basically w/b-side and Izzy on this one as well. The first half seems so tied in with Soderbergh's usual fascination with capitalism/institution's effect on the individual that it's kind of a shame that it turns into a twisty Euro-trash thing by the end. I get what he's trying to do: incorporate these themes within the confines of the sexy thriller genre, but ultimately the take away is that all the characters are driven by a muddled mix of moxie, greed, and sex and it's not tied in enough with the overarching influence of Big Pharma on society. I suppose Scott Burns' screenplay is to be blamed for most of the problems here but I do wonder why this screenplay, of all things, was chosen to be what Soderbergh knew would be one of his final films, without significant rewrites.

[B-side]

Once and for all, we have final proof that Soderbergh just can't bring it all together.

Not even close. He can bring it all together rather adeptly. One less than great film doesn't make him a failure.

Well, I guess that super soft-lighting and really digital-looking digital photography is so anti-Hollywood-establishment... we seem willing to forgive a lot of Soderbergh's failings as a filmmaker for our yearly dose of that. This one really puts that into perspective.

What a silly and naive thing to say. Since when has anybody's enthusiasm for Soderbergh hinged on his "anti-Hollywood" soft lighting and digital photography. Also, digital photography is about as anti-Hollywood as explosions. It's the new norm. Soft lighting does distinguish Soderbergh from most American filmmakers, but it's only one aspect of a greater aesthetic and formal framework.

[transmogrifier]

What a silly and naive thing to say.

If you ever wonder why you seem to get into a whole bunch of arguments, it's because of things like this.

FYI.

[Izzy Black]

That's because it's impossible to give him credit for creating a naturalistic mood-piece to start the film, since we know that he knows where the film ultimately needs to go. He's not given this screenplay in chunks. He knows that his story is headed for implausible Hitchcock-ian turns that demand a layer of artifice be established early on.

(...)

So, what are we left with? Effective mood-piece/naturalistic character study? Nah, that gets abandoned halfway through and never should have been established in the first place.

Eh, I don't know about this. I think it should've been established, but the ending should've been changed to fit with it. The important thing to remember is that it seems like Soderbergh wanted to make a different kind of film than what was written. The screenplay in the first half was compatible with what he wanted to do, but he should've changed the ending to further fit those needs. Instead, we're essentially left with two films, which makes far a rather jarring experience.

I personally do give him credit for what he did in the first half. I'm not throwing Soderbergh under the bus on this one because he couldn't stick the landing. I'm a big enough Soderbergh fan and collector of his work that I plan on buying the Blu-Ray and revisiting this film. I could easily see myself watching the first half of this film just to soak in the incredible atmosphere, the mastery of the taut pacing, and Mara's wonderful performance in the early scenes, and then turning the film off around midpoint. I don't mind looking at the first half of this film as kind of short film in its own right.

[Qrazy]

Well, he's already done that. Here's the exact quote, fwiw:

The tyranny of narrative is a non-problem that many directors circumvent. If he's worried about that he should make non-narrative films at lower cost. He has the clout to do this, just not the balls.

[Qrazy]

Agree with DavidSeven.

[Izzy Black]

The tyranny of narrative is a non-problem that many directors circumvent. If he's worried about that he should make non-narrative films at lower cost. He has the clout to do this, just not the balls.

It's clearly not as simple as a conflict between narrative and non-narrative for him. He even suggests that the tyranny of narrative wasn't quite as frustrating before, doubtless because he likes to experiment with narrative rather than throw it away completely. Take this with the fact that he feels like he's exhausted himself creatively in terms of what he can do with narrative, then you get a greater frustration with narrative in general and it's not clear that kicking out narrative completely is the right solution for him. As he said, he's curious about a whole new grammar, finding a different direction that surely isn't simply set up as a false dichotomy between one or other.

[Qrazy]

It's clearly not as simple as a conflict between narrative and non-narrative for him. He even suggests that the tyranny of narrative wasn't quite as frustrating before, doubtless because he likes to experiment with narrative rather than throw it away completely. Take this with the fact that he feels like he's exhausted himself creatively in terms of what he can do with narrative, then you get a greater frustration with narrative in general and it's not clear that kicking out narrative completely is the right solution for him. As he said, he's curious about a whole new grammar, finding a different direction that surely isn't simply set up as a false dichotomy between one or other.

So then MAKE that film, plenty of other directors do. What's stopping him? His quote reminds me of Greenaway's ramblings about the tyranny of the frame. If you feel limited by your medium then change it. Shoot your entire film in a circular aspect ratio if you feel like it.

If you feel there's a new grammar there then find that grammar and express that grammar. Although frankly the statement of a whole new grammar is just posturing bullshit, particularly from a guy who has shot plenty of superficial, throwaway genre films. If he feels like he's exhausted himself creatively with narrative that's an expression of his own failing as an artist and has little to do with cinema at large. His state of the cinema speech only has merit insofar as it relates to what can get studio backing or be put out in theaters. If he wanted to though he could make a film for 100K (throwaway money for him) and create any new grammar he wished to. The problem is he has nothing to say, not the tyranny of narrative.

[B-side]

If you ever wonder why you seem to get into a whole bunch of arguments, it's because of things like this.

FYI.

I don't wonder. I know. If you can't handle being called out for what you say, then don't say silly shit.

[Izzy Black]

So then MAKE that film, plenty of other directors do. What's stopping him? His quote reminds me of Greenaway's ramblings about the tyranny of the frame. If you feel limited by your medium then change it. Shoot your entire film in a circular aspect ratio if you feel like it.

I think part of the point is he's saying he doesn't know how to. He's out of ideas. That's why he wants to step away.

If you feel there's a new grammar there then find that grammar and express that grammar. Although frankly the statement of a whole new grammar is just posturing bullshit, particularly from a guy who has shot plenty of superficial, throwaway genre films. If he feels like he's exhausted himself creatively with narrative that's an expression of his own failing as an artist and has little to do with cinema at large. His state of the cinema speech only has merit insofar as it relates to what can get studio backing or be put out in theaters. If he wanted to though he could make a film for 100K (throwaway money for him) and create any new grammar he wished to. The problem is he has nothing to say, not the tyranny of narrative.

Yes, I think that's partially true. I think he thinks that it is in part his failure as an artist. Other artists might be able to deal with those challenges better than him. That's why he wants to get inspiration from painting and other artistic endeavors. Hopefully he'll find that spark that he's looking for and come back and make an exciting new film. I sure hope he does.