Side Effects (2013) is a film, a psychological thriller [my favorite genre] written by Scott Z. Burns and directed by Steven Soderbergh. It stars Jude Law, Rooney Mara, and Catherine Zeta-Jones; with a heavy dose of cultural and social commentary. Wherein mental health care breaks bad. Let’s talk about it.
The Plot and Theme.
The Plot is unrealistic. I say this because I’ve studied and worked in the Field (of mental health) as well as been a patient. Is the story as told possible? Yes. However, it’s very unlikely because there are many safeguards in place to prevent such an unfolding. That said, I think Burns’s larger point, that of the big idea, or Theme is very much what goes on. I’ve seen it! Been in the room, too.*
As I watched this movie, twice, I see Burns’s big idea is that the Field of mental health care has broken bad. In other words, instead of helping patients – it is hurting them. Because money/profit, both individual and institutional, drives behavior.
The Title: Side Effects.
On the surface, the Title of the film Side Effects, refers to a fictional anti-depressant drug’s side effect of sleepwalking. Which in real life can be true. However, from that the author runs wild. The APA (American Psychological Association) has published a scathing critique. In it, the APA says the film itself does great harm to the practice of psychiatry and mental health care. Moreover, that effect is worse than the 1975 film One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest, regarding the public perception of the treatment of mental illness.
However, I see “side effects” as being many sided. Moreover, not just about the drug. At its core – side effects can be understood as “The road to hell is paved with good intentions.” Specifically, how the pursuit of happiness can lead one to depression. Subsequently, that can lead one to seek relief from that pain. Eventually leading, in this film’s case, to the ultimate pain of death, incarceration, and loss of mind. All legal, via institutions designed for our well-being and progress toward happiness. Which seems, to me, to be the case now.
I think Scott Burns was trying to weave all of that into this film. Perhaps, that was just too big a bite of the shit sandwich that is our life now. After all, the Pharmacology Field began during the Civil War, as a means to find a relief from the physical pains of war wounds.
The “side effects” of that has led us here – to a state of being where there is a pill/drug to relieve all manner of pain – physical, mental, psychological, and emotional. So we are told via the advertising industry. (Another theme of the film.) Which will satisfy our pursuit of happiness.
The Characters.
I found all of the characters unlikable. Which is a problem. However, the acting is good. No one was sympathetic; but all self-focused. No heroes here. Now that’s depressing! Because it rings true. Except for a few bit players.
The Style and Setting.
The story takes place in contemporary New York city. However, it could be any large city. Mostly, the story is told through dialogue and non-verbal personal communication. The timeline is not lineal and the plot twists (many) can be surprising.* The soundtrack did neither add nor detract from the film. I thought.
In Conclusion.
In conclusion I’m glad I found this film. Or it found me? (Free on YouTube.) I think it nailed the fact that money and profit drive behavior, despite the best intentions of people – whom are all searching for love and happiness.
Indeed, Side Effects shows how mental health care breaks bad.
Have you seen it? What has been your experience with the Field of mental health?
- While in graduate school (1998, Social Work) I wrote a scathing paper regarding the practices of psychiatrists and other health care providers that I witnessed. It matches the critique of same in the film. Doctors and other health care providers are not saints; but people. Driven by the same motives we all are.
- I didn’t even mention all of the plot twists. Side effects–indeed!
One thought on “SIDE EFFECTS: Mental health care breaks bad”