Side Effects (M). Director: Steven Soderbergh. Starring: Jude Law, Rooney Mara. 106 minutes
Reflecting on the case of Cardinal Keith O'Brien, the former leader of the Catholic Church in Scotland who resigned amid accusations of sexual misconduct, journalist Catherine Deveney observed in The Guardian that it was power, and not homosexuality, that was at issue; commentators who accused O'Brien's detractors of a 'homophobic plot' misunderstood 'the nature of the power a spiritual director has over his seminarians'.
Deveny is right, of course. When a relationship is based in power, the party with the greater power has an ethical obligation to not act in any way that could be against the interests and wellbeing of the other. That is why sexual behaviour within relationships where power is inherent and necessary, such as between teacher and student or doctor and patient, is always ethically indefensible. And power free of ethics is a deeply unsettling thing.
It may not be immediately apparent, but just such a consideration of power is at the core of Side Effects, a new thriller from the prolific American filmmaker Soderbergh. In it, an upwardly mobile psychiatrist, Jonathan Banks (Law), prescribes experimental anti-depressant medication to an emotionally troubled young woman, Emily (Mara), for which he has received payment from a pharmaceutical company.
That Emily gives her consent only partly diminishes the ethical dubiousness of this commodification of her mental health. He is her doctor after all, the powerful party in the relationship. She trusts he has her best interests in mind, and his actions inherently betray this trust. This all comes to a head when a side effect apparently caused by the drug leads to tragic consequences for Emily, and professional devastation for Jonathan.
This is where things get tricky. Jonathan begins to suspect Emily has played him for a fool. He sets out to undo her, playing both detective and vigilante. As a self-appointed crusader for justice, Jonathan is the closest thing Soderbergh offers us to a hero. But, whether he is right or wrong about Emily, he is so unerringly self-interested, and so increasingly ethically compromised, that it is difficult ever to sympathise completely with him.
Truth be told, there has always been something a bit off about his interactions with Emily. His attention to her at the expense of his wife and stepson seem inappropriate, rather than workaholic in nature. At one point we learn that a former patient claimed he had