Side Effects

Now covered by Obamacare. 

From the very first shot, there’s something eerily off about “Side Effects.” With a music-box feel to the score as the camera swoops slowly toward an apartment window, you’re set on edge by how normal it all seems — until the film moves inside the apartment, where there’s blood on the floor and footsteps leading away.

Cut to three months before: Emily Taylor (Rooney Mara) happily greets her husband Martin (Channing Tatum) on the day he’s released from prison, where he served four years for insider trading. But soon Emily begins showing signs of depression and anxiety, and attempts to commit suicide by driving her car into a wall. 

At the hospital, she’s treated in the emergency room by Dr. Jonathan Banks (Jude Law), a distinguished young psychiatrist making a name for himself in New York City. He agrees not to admit her if she schedules regular appointments with him and starts taking medication. But soon the side effects of the pills cause everyone’s lives to spiral out of control. 

Thrillers like “Side Effects” are tricky to get right. Twists and turns are standard practice in the genre, but a thriller is only as good as its final (metaphorical) punch — anything less than just the right balance, and the whole film feels like a huge letdown. 

Well, this movie doesn’t quite get it right. After the movie has returned to the bloody attack in the apartment, “Side Effects” loses a bit of its momentum and never gets it back. And once the final act has untangled itself, it’s disappointing to see how the dust settles. 

But while the ending may not drive this film home, the strong technical execution lets “Side Effects” land on its feet. Cinematography is essential to the plot-convolution and character-building, commanding both the anxiety of the actors and the escalating drama. The creative use of focus and depth of field only heightens the ever-building tension of the movie. 

“Side Effects” wouldn’t be half as convincing if it weren’t for great performances from the cast, notably from Rooney, whose mesmerizing style intensifies Emily’s depression and drug-induced haze, giving the role some dimensional credibility. Her depth is offset by Law’s superficiality as Dr. Banks; his well-meaning but pill-pushing approach to medicine is a key element to both the plot and the subtext. 

Director Steven Soderbergh’s cinematic skill turns an otherwise uninspired script into something quite intriguing. Even in the moments when it drags, the film has an element of unpredictability to hold the audience’s attention. It’s only once the credits roll that it becomes clear it didn’t deliver everything it promised. 

The verdict: Though nothing to go crazy over, “Side Effects” is still a sleek and stylish thriller. 

Side by Side

The start of the 21st century can be marked as an era which ushers in new technologies at a breakneck speed.  This technology has changed not only the everyday lives of people, but how they are able to render the human condition through artistic mediums.  Whether it be molecular gastronomy for food or remixing and sampling for music; we’ve all seen artists adhere or dissent from these new innovations to justify their claim to the truth within a medium.  No movement is in a more precarious situation than the battle between digital and film within the movie industry. This ongoing battle is the subject of the inquisitive and compelling documentary, Side by Side.

The film documents the growth and history of both the photochemical and the digital process.  Keanu Reeves (in probably the best performance of his career…) interviews a collection of many cinematic giants including Martin Scorsese, David Fincher, David Lynch, Danny Boyle, George Lucas, James Cameron, Christopher Nolan, and Steven Soderbergh.  While some like Lucas, Cameron, and Lynch encourage the growth of digital and the rejection film, others, like Nolan and Scorsese, insist film is cinema at it’s purest form.

    The arguments go on and on: digital allows for instant feedback, as well as detail manipulations in mis-en-scene in post-production, whereas film is expensive and time consuming.  Digital allows for a wider array of stories to be told. Robert Rodriguez remembers the tedious and restrictive nature of shooting on film, saying his Sin City would not have been possible without digital.

But film advocates ask “Why trade my paints for crayons?”, arguing the quality of film will always be the standard. Without a filter, do the quality of films become progressively worse? In terms of quality, film is still hands down far superior, being able to capture both nuance and contrasts in the shot.  However, not many new film cameras are being made; meaning film has reached its peak. Digital technology, however, can only improve.  

     Side by Side is an explorative and unbiased look at cinema’s heritage and it’s future. It poses how should movies be made, how should watch them, and how should they be integrated into our lives.  Ultimately, Side by Side declares the medium may or may not matter, only the truth and heart that goes into story. Which format is better? That’s for you to decide. Just stack them against each other, side by side.