Review of Side Effects (2013) by Michelle K — 04 Oct 2013

In writing this review I've tried to avoid SPOILERS, though they are implied by the content of the review. While I was riveted by the movie, enough for four stars certainly, ultimately Side Effects is a BIG PHONY (capitals for emphasis only).

I get the idea of the wool being pulled over the audience's eyes, the plot twist, and the completely unexpected 'gosh I never saw that coming.' But there are inherent RULES for movie making and one of them, perhaps the most important, is POINT OF VIEW.

Most movies have stars, for example. And typically the POV is that of one or more of them. When you see only one actor on the screen and s/he is going about his/her business, you are, as audience, 'eavesdropping' on the scene and, hence, typically, their expressions of emotions and the like are genuine, for them, in the scene.

Which means that while we expect a villain to appear innocent when he is around others, when he is on his own, he should not be appearing (to us the audience) as innocent. A bad movie will continue the charade of pretending the bad guy is really not the bad guy by having him still behave innocently when he is alone.

Side Effects clearly plays homage to Hitchcock and is transparently based on Vertigo. In that movie, there is the same set of plot twists. However, and this is a big however, the POV is ALWAYS that of James Stewart, who is duped by the behavior of the villainess, Kim Novak.

In Side Effects, the KN role is played by Rooney Mara whose POV the movie takes at the beginning. Hence, we, as audience, are duped NOT by her actions as seen through someone else's eyes, e.g. Jude Law, but by her actions as seen through HER own eyes, most pointedly when she is alone.

So in the 'famous' sleep walking scene if it is her just PRETENDING to be sleep-walking and her intention is to murder her husband why does she have to appear to US, the audience, as if she is sleep-walking.

After all, there really is NO ONE there in the apartment with them, is there? When Kim Novak goes through her charade of antics while being followed by Jimmy Stewart, it is for HIS benefit and because we see the scenes through HIS eyes, we are fooled.

This was Hitchcock's intention. But when Mara, the Kim Novak character, goes through the same set of actions but it is from HER point of view, why would she try to undertake actions designed to FOOL someone if the only someone is us the audience? Some viewers will think that the Director is to be applauded for this sleight of hand, but if they give it some thought, they will come to see that he is behaving 'dishonestly' according to the tried and true rules of movie-making.