Side Effects
Steven Soderbergh has never been a filmmaker to take a conventional look at genre or storytelling; that’s part of why he’s been such a favorite of cineastes and critics since he burst on to the scene with his 1989 indie darling, “sex, lies, and videotape.” Even when he’s gone into more typical studio projects such as the “Ocean” trilogy or “Erin Brockovich,” there’s always been an edge and outside-the-box way of thinking that distinguished them from lesser films of the same type.
That’s part of why so many of us movie geeks are saddened by the possibility of Soderbergh making “Side Effects” his final feature film. Even his “worst” films (“Haywire,” “The Underneath,” and “Full Frontal,” in my opinion) have something about them that’s fascinating, be it a performance, a mood, or a visual style. Going back to his post-“videotape” films, the criminally-undervalued”Kafka” and “King of the Hill,” and through “Out of Sight,” “Traffic,” “Solaris,” “Contagion,” and “Magic Mike,” Soderbergh consciously never repeated himself, resulting in one of the most varied, and rewatchable, careers in modern film.
“Side Effects” is a Hell of a way to go out, if he doesn’t make another feature film. Written by Scott Z. Burns, who also wrote two recent, great Soderbergh films (“The Informant!” and “Contagion”), “Side Effects” is a companion piece of sorts with “Contagion,” as it looks at the idea of personal health in a much-larger perspective. The film focuses in on Emily Taylor (Rooney Mara, mesmerizing), a young woman whose rich, priviledged lifestyle was pulled out underneath her when her husband (Channing Tatum, three-for-three in stellar performances for Soderbergh after “Haywire” and “Magic Mike”) is arrested, and in prison for four years, for insider trading. She takes a downward spiral emotionally that lands her in therapy, and the world of anti-depressant medication, as she tries to put together a living without him. When he gets out, they think that things will get better, but Emily’s depression continues to consume her, and after an attempted suicide, puts her in the care of a psychiatrist (Jude Law, dynamic) who puts her on an experimental drug with some lethal side effects. It’s not long until Emily’s husband is dead, and the doctor’s world is crumbling around him, as it appears his perscriptions for her might have led to the husband’s murder.
This is Soderbergh is true, off-beat thriller mode, a la “The Informant!,” “Kafka,” and “Bubble,” a potent, small-down thriller he did in 2005. Even though there’s considerable talent involved both behind, and in front of, the screen (including Catherine Zeta-Jones as Emily’s previous doctor), this feels like a low-budget drama, where the financial stakes are low, but the artistic freedom is limitless. That allows Soderbergh and Burns to dig deeper, play around with time and narrative, and have fun turning the audience’s heads sideways as they try and figure out the labyrinthine story. Working with Burns with this type of subject matter has inspired Soderbergh, making his choice to retire from feature filmmaking all the more disappointing (both this and “Contagion” are among his best films). Still, few filmmakers get a chance to go out swinging for the fences, and Soderbergh hits a triple with this provocative head trip.
