I was curious about the release of Stephen Sodebergh’s
new film, Side Effects (2013), especially when I heard that there was a discussion of
mental illness within the film. The cast put me off at first as Jude Law, Rooney
Mara and Channing Tatum are certainly not my favourite actors, but I was
willing to give this film a go as I expected it would soon be getting a lot of
positive attention from the critics (much like Soderberg’s other films such as
Magic Mike). The film is a very tight dynamic thriller for most of the
duration, except the final act that is a little chaotic. The film is quite
successful at provoking debates on issues of mental illness and medication and
I will be discussing these for this blog.
The film follows a young woman,
Emily (Rooney Mara), as her husband Martin (Channing Tatum) is being released
from jail. Emily is seen struggling with symptoms of Depression and eventually
drives her own car into a brick wall, in a suspected suicide attempt. At the
hospital she meets the English Dr Jonathan Banks (Jude Law). Jonathan is
introduced to the film as he is brought into to talk to a man who has been
brought to him by the police. The policeman thinks this man is insane, but Jonathan
soon finds out that he speaks French much better than English, and whilst
conversing with him in French he also finds out that his father recently died
and he saw his ghost. Jonathan explains that this man is just grieving and it
is perfectly normal for a Haitian to see the ghost of their dead just after
they have passed away. I enjoyed this short scene as it showed that people, who
appear crazy to others, are in fact just in pain. With some patience you can
understand where the person is coming from and there is an ability to move
forward rather than the situation be aggravated by ignorance.
When Jonathan meets Emily, he is
unsure whether or not to hospitalize her, but decides to let her remain as an
out patient with her agreeing to come for therapy and to start taking an SSRI,
Zoloft. She is seen suffering from side effects such as sickness, which is often
seen with people who take Zoloft. Her boss, who is shown to be sympathetic to
her Depression, tells her that she had similar reaction to Zoloft and she had
more luck with another type of anti – depressant. Jonathan finds out that Emily
had seen another psychiatrist Dr. Victoria Siebert (Catherine Zeta – Jones)
before him, who prescribed her Prozac. This discussion of anti – depressants
here does give quite an accurate representation of what it is like for a person
with Depression. It is quite frustrating as it can take a while to get the
right fit in terms of medication, so they have to try several, with differing
side effects, but those with these problems should have faith as there are many
different types of medication out there so they will find the right fit for
them eventually.
Victoria says to
Jonathan that she recently started one of her patients on a new drug, Ablixa.
She says that she does this because the patients see the adverts on the TV for
the new drug and they believe in it as they see people getting better. I
remember when I went to New York
with a friend and one night we turned on the TV, I was so surprised that they
advertised for medication. It unsettled me a bit, as if medication was just
another product. This film seems to be critiquing this idea and the film could
be onto something here, is there an unhealthy relationship between Americans and medication?
Despite my agreement in the
critique of advertising for medication however, when it comes to mental illness
my opinions differ here. As the mental illness being discussed throughout the
majority of the film is Depression, I will focus with my issues in
relation to that. Depression makes you feel ashamed and like you are not worthy
of recovery. So the idea the idea of advertising making you believe in
something when you are dealing with the debilitating illness that takes away
all hope is quite insulting. For people who suffer with Depression, it is important
that think they will not be viewed as someone who saw an advert on TV and want
all their problems to be washed away by a miracle drug, but instead be safe
with their emotions taken seriously and given full support. There are far too
many people who are silent in their Depression due to many fears, one of them
being that they will not be taken seriously. Even though I disagree with
adverts for medication, as it could lead to people taking medication
needlessly, I think that when it comes to criticizing these adverts, one needs to
be careful that your argument does also contain respect for the sufferers of
the illness. Instead of suggesting that the brainless masses will watch these
adverts for anti – depressants and rush out to get their hands on some, maybe
instead the strongest argument against adverts for medication is that they are
trivializing anti – depressants, also suggesting that Depression is a trivial
illness, making it in line with cough medicine or headache relief. It could be what
is so disturbing about these adverts is a combination of the idea of a
medication reliant country and the trivialisation of serious illnesses. It also
touches on the idea of a country obsessed with side effects.
One of the things I found amusing
about the adverts for medication was that most of the advert is spent listing
possible side effects of the medication. This obsession with side effects is
usually to prevent court cases, and is an obsession that the film is trying to tap into. The film uses the fact that there is a lot of anxiety around the side
effects of medication, hence the title of the film, and taps into this to make an unnerving thriller for
anyone caught up in this anxiety.
Emily starts taking Ablixa, and
starts feeling very good. The only side effect seems to be that she sleepwalks.
Her husband is quite disturbed by her sleepwalking and this side effect worsens.
Martin comes in one night and calls out to Emily. She does not reply, and he
whispers under his breathe “Damn pills”. She is in the kitchen, cutting
vegetables, but looks like a zombie. She then stabs him to death. Here is where
the film starts to tap into the insecurities of many people watching. The film
uses the fear of medication. Many fear medication for mental illness in
particular. They fear it will mess with your mind and leave you far worse than
you were before. This could well be seen as a fair point of discussion and a
great way to start a debate about these issues. However, there is a worry that
someone who already holds a strong view against medication could see this film,
and despite the plot twist at the end, be much firmer in their beliefs in
trying stopping someone with mental health issues from taking their medication.
There are those who have been affected from their plans to see the doctor or
take their medication by those around them who think that taking medication or
getting help for mental illness will only result in them turning into a
vegetable, addicted to “happy pills” or in a mental hospital. The term “happy
pills” could not be more offensive, but it is surprising how much it is used.
The medication used does not warp your mind; it helps the unbalance of
chemicals that causes Depression. You will not end up in a mental hospital
unless you are a serious threat to yourself and others. On top of this,
medication is never the sole treatment available. It is advised that you also
get therapy and come off the medication when the time is right, with
supervision from a doctor. None of these reassuring factors are featured in the
film, probably because they want to create suspense and reassurance will not
fit in well to the film.
Is the film brave then in
touching on these issues? On the one hand the film is brave in touching a
subject that can lead to strong reactions. On the other, the film does seem to
be stating that this is for entertainment (to create suspense), lessening the edge of the points
they are making. They touch on the subject enough so that the issues are
raised, but not so much that they can get into trouble for doing so. This is
probably due to Sodebergh, whose previous films have also debated controversial
topics including one of his earliest films Sex, Lies and Videotape (1989). So
by now, Sodobergh knows how to raise debates on a subject without a huge scandal.
After Emily has killed her
husband, there is a question of whether she is responsible or if it is the medication.
Jonathan is then called into questioning from the police. He is asked as to why
he came to the USA to
practice, instead of staying in the UK. He replies that he came from Durham and says: “Where I
come from, if you’re seeing a therapist the assumption is that you’re sick.
Here the assumption is you’re getting better.” As he delivers this line
Jonathan looks quite smug, with the police also seeming happy at his response.
What exactly is he implying here? That the UK
is backwards compared to the USA
in terms of therapy and dealing with mental illness? Although therapy is very
popular in the USA,the UK
are so backwards in their relationship to therapy. I think it was the idea of
smug Americans nodding their head to that as if Durham was some backwards
English village that annoyed me. In fact Durham is a city home to one
of the world’s top 100 universities. Therapy is becoming more and more
acceptable here in the UK,
and accepted that when you go to a therapist, you are most likely to have an
illness, but want to get better. Going to a therapist is therefore a step in
the right direction, which takes strength and a desire to move forwards. Hopefully,
this will be the view held by the majority of people in the near future.
Jonathan tells Emily that she is
not at fault for what she is going through and that she is just “a victim of
circumstance and biology”. Emily herself describes what she is going through
similar to a “poisonous fog”. Both of these descriptions of Depression are
accurate and yet they somehow seem to underestimate the pain a person with
Depression must go through and the strength it takes to try and overcome it.
For instance one cannot imagine a doctor stating such a brash statement to a
patient, that they are just “a victim of circumstance and biology”, to a diabetic
for instance. It is far more complex than that. However, it was a statement
that he made to ease the guilt of his patient, which is a valid point as it is
not the person’s fault that they are now suffering a period of Depression,
despite blaming themselves being one of the symptoms of this illness. On top of
this, the analogy to fog is one I hear often, but do not think this is
sufficient as implies no strength from the patient as when the fog eventually
lifts, it is by miracle rather than by hard work from therapies such as CBT.
There is another interesting
debate raised, which is how much is Jonathan to blame? Another psychiatrist
that Jonathan asks for advice poses the question “Would you have treated her
any differently had she been a man?” Suggesting that because she was an
attractive young woman, Jonathan indulged her in her fantasies a bit too much.
He did after all prescribe her a drug, for which he did not even know the
possible side effects. Despite the film portraying him to show that he was
doing his best for her at the time, and after when he tries to find out what really
happened, it is interesting to question the level of authority he is given with
his patient and whether or not this is right to leave one psychiatrist with so
much power and overall judgement over their patients. Despite this, his crazed
obsession in finding out the truth does prove to be worthwhile of his time, so
he is not crazy but right. So the authority of the psychiatrist is not
questioned to a very large extent.
The question he is so intent on
proving is whether or not Emily is guilty of the murder of her husband. Was it
the drug or was it in fact her all along? If you do not wish to know the answer
of this question, skip the next paragraph.
When the question is answered,
Emily turns out to be quite deceptive; it seems that Emily has had a different
mental health issue all along. This twist unsettled me a bit. The difference
between her being a person with Depression and being Schizophrenic in the
film’s eyes is somewhat distorted. With Depression, she was at risk of killing
herself. With Schizophrenia she was in danger of killing others. Not only this
but to use her being schizophrenic as a final development of the film is sort
of abusing her mental health problems for the benefit of a final dynamic twist.
Is it ethical to use mental health problems in this way? In my opinion, no. Yet
psychological thrillers have used mental illness for a long time in order to
make their thriller seemingly more complex and stimulating. Is this then a kind
of mental health exploitation? Where mental illness is being used purely for
suspenseful edgy entertainment, this could most likely be the case. However,
this film is not purely exploitative as it expects an intellectual and active
viewer, to engage with the films debates and not to simply take it at face value.
Overall, the film is gripping and
well made. There are some good performances, from Jude Law, Catherine Zeta
Jones and Rooney Mara. The cinematography is finely executed so that the film
looks great as well. The debates raised in the film are not delivered with
clear cut answers, which could be a way of avoiding controversy, but also gives
the viewers a chance to engage in the debates raised and make up their own minds.
Despite not being a fan of the way the film used mental illness in the final
chapter of the film, in which it seemed that it could be just another edgy
twist to the film and almost mental health exploitation, I did enjoy engaging
in the debates the film raised. I would recommend watching it to make up your
own mind as this is an intellectually made film that will have very differing
opinions from viewers.
No comments:
Post a Comment