Side Effects

[MacGuffin]

Exclusive: Steven Soderbergh's Next Film Will Be Scott Z. Burn's Psychological Thriller 'The Bitter Pill'
Source: Playlist

Whether he's retiring, or taking a hiatus, or whatever, Steven Soderbergh's made it clear in recent months that after his HBO Liberace biopic "Behind the Candelabra," with Michael Douglas and Matt Damon, we're not going to see a film from him for a while. But he's also seemingly keen to fit in as many films as he can into that timeframe, having added male stripper drama "Magic Mike" to his schedule earlier in the year.

But when his studio thriller "The Man From U.N.C.L.E." reached casting and budgetary roadblocks, Soderbergh bailed, seemingly blowing one of those precious retirement slots. But the least lazy man in Hollywood wasn't content to sit on his hands for a few months; he was keen to make a film in that period between "Magic Mike" and "Behind The Candelabra," and went to work on finding a film that could be ready to shoot early next year. And it looks like they've found it. 

The Playlist can reveal that Soderbergh has selected his next project, and it's one from one of his most frequent collaborators in recent years; Scott Z. Burns, the writer of "The Informant!," "Contagion" and the script for "The Man From U.N.C.L.E." The project is called "The Bitter Pill," (formerly known as "The Side Effects") and it's a psychological thriller that only a few months back, Burns was intending on directing himself.

Born out of research for Peter Berg's swiftly cancelled TV drama "Wonderland," the project, according to Burns, "deals with people and their moods. It's about how we as a society can't tolerate sadness and what that makes us vulnerable to." But it certainly leans towards a genre thriller. Our source compared the New York-set film to "Fatal Attraction," while Burns told us in an interview earlier in the year that, "It's definitely got a twist."

"It's a story where it's like if someone were listening to the conversation you and I were having and thought 'Hmmm, if that's the way that society is working how can I manipulate that, how can I use that?' And that's what the movie's about," Burns elaborated.

Burns wrote the project for himself to direct, and was planning on getting underway with casting any day now, but Sodebergh has been a fan of the script for several years now (since his version of "Moneyball" fell through), and when he left 'U.N.C.L.E,' was finally able to persuade his friend to let him take over. The project is being produced by Soderbergh's regular AD/producer Gregory Jacobs, and Lorenzo DiBonaventura, who was a big supporter of the director during his time at Warner Bros., and a number of big studios are currently circling the film including Summit and Paramount. A deal will likely be reached soon.

There's no word as yet on casting, but while we know that the filmmaker was keen to work with George Clooney one more time before he hung up his viewfinder, the lead in this film is for someone in their 30s. Either way, it's exciting news, and should be moving quickly if it's to make the spring shoot window before the Liberace project goes before cameras next summer.

[MacGuffin]

Megan Ellison's Annapurna to Finance New Steven Soderbergh Project, Open Road to Distribute
The director's latest film, a thriller dubbed "Side Effects," will be funded and produced by the young entrepreneur's company.
Source:THR

Annapurna Pictures and Open Road Films are partnering on Side Effects, the latest project from Steven Soderbergh.

The psychological thriller will be financed and produced by Megan Ellison's Annapurna Pictures and released domestically by Open Road Films. The distribution deal is a bit of surprise since reports, now proved premature and erroneous, had the film going to Summit. (The film was being chased by several bidders.)

The project, which a few weeks ago was being circulated under the title of Bitter Pill, is described as a thriller set in the world of psychopharmacology. Soderbergh stepped up to direct it after exiting Man From U.N.C.L.E.

Scott Z. Burns wrote the script and is producing with Gregory Jacobs and Lorenzo di Bonaventura. Ellison, Marc Butan and Ted Schipper are executive producing.

The moviemakers hope to nail down a cast in the coming weeks and start shooting in April. Open Road is planning a wide release in the first half of 2013. Filmnation is handling international sales and will introduce the movie at Berlin's European Film Market.

[MacGuffin]

Rooney Mara Joining Steven Soderbergh's 'Side Effects'
The cast also includes Jude Law and Channing Tatum.
Source: THR

Rooney Mara is joining the cast of Side Effects, Steven Soderbergh's latest movie which is set in the world of psychopharmacology, THR has confirmed.

The movie is hoping to nail down financing this week. The project ran afoul some ill winds when the previous financing entity, Megan Ellison's Annapurna Pictures, dropped out.

That hasn't stopped Soderbergh from working to assemble a top-tier cast, which includes Jude Law and Channing Tatum. Catherine Zeta-Jones is also circling a role. 

The project, which was known as Bitter Pill at one point, is a thriller set in the world of and centers on a troubled and depressed woman (Mara) who is coping with the imminent release of her husband from jail and begins to take a new prescription drug, an act that causes unforeseen consequences.

Open Road is the domestic distributor for the feature, which is eying an April 2012 start and a release in the first half of 2013.

Scott Z. Burns wrote the script and is producing with Gregory Jacobs and Lorenzo di Bonaventura. Ellison, Marc Butan and Ted Schipper are executive producing.

Mara last week received an Oscar nomination for her performance as Lisbeth Salander in Columbia's adaptation of The Girl with the Dragon Tatoo.

[MacGuffin]

Trailer

[MacGuffin]

[Frederico Fellini]

This looks pretty good. I gotta say, after MAGIC MIKE and 21 JUMP STREET, I'm actually starting to like Channing Tatum... Feels weird.

Also, that trailer gives me a bit of a Fincher vibe. We'll see if it measures up.

[Pwaybloe]

Heck yeah this looks good.  Fincher and Soderbergh have been merging styles the last few years, so it's not a surprise it looks "FinchBergh-like".

[MacGuffin]

Steven Soderbergh Talks His Preferred Digital Cameras, 48 FPS, Whether Digital Can Ever Match IMAX Quality, Kickstarter, and More
by Adam Chitwood; Collider

This year we will see, quite possibly, the final two films from one of the most fascinating and innovative filmmakers of our time: Steven Soderbergh.  The director first burst onto the scene in 1989 with Sex, Lies, and Videotape, and in the following years he became a pioneer of independent cinema.  His filmography is one of joyous variety, and he's proven skilled at everything from big commercial hits (the Ocean's trilogy), to serious dramas (Traffic), to comedies (The Informant!), and even small-budget experimental films (Bubble).

Steve recently sat down with Soderbergh for a 45-minute interview in anticipation of his upcoming psychological thriller Side Effects.  As the conversation is both lengthy and absorbing, we'll be sharing a small portion of the interview each day this week before unveiling the full thing on Friday.  Appropriately, we're kicking things off with the filmmaker's thoughts on his preferred digital camera, his thoughts on 48 frames-per-second, whether digital can ever match IMAX quality, what Kickstarter means for today's burgeoning filmmakers, and more.  Hit the jump to read on.

Here's Part 1 of the interview.  Look for the full conversation later this week, and check back tomorrow for Part 2.

Steve: I'm just curious about your take on the whole Kickstarter thing right now.  I mean it's a very exciting time for everything.

STEVEN SODERBERGH: Yeah.  Look, what's great about all this technology and things like Kickstarter is that it enables me, finally, and without any bad feeling at all, when people come up to me now saying, "I want to do this." I can just go, "There are no excuses anymore."

I'm waiting for the person, say a big filmmaker, who has a problem with the studio and needs $50 million, do you think it's possible for someone to really put together this mega budget thing that the studios would never approve and actually get it going on Kickstarter?  Do you think that will ever happen?

SODERBERGH: I wouldn't be surprised if we see that happen at some point on a scale that's significant.  I'm not even clear- now how does this work exactly?  I put money into a Kickstarter thing, do I get it back?

Basically when someone creates a Kickstarter, say it's for 30 days, I believe that's what it is, so say they want to target $100,000, everyone puts in money, until they reach the target you are committing to something that is not going to be taken, like a credit card will not be charged anything until they reach the target.  Once they reach that target then the money gets funneled into the account they set up and I guess it's like the honor system, like you're just believing that they're going to do what they say.  From what I understand most people, most people, are pretty honest about this.

SODERBERGH: Don't they explain to you like, "Oh, if you put in this money, you're going to get a shirt?"

There are levels.  It could be like $10, you get this, $50 you get this, and ultimately there will be a few that are very expensive that really give you a lot of VIP perks and that's where they can really get ahead.

SODERBERGH: But it's mostly not designed to pay people back their money.

No, it's about getting something made; like a product or a film or a documentary.

SODERBERGH: Right.

I put in money for a really cool thing this British inventor made to help deactivate landmines; it's like a plastic device, a big ball that can really save a lot of lives and for me that was worth my money.  So I'm hoping it works out.

SODERBERGH: Interesting.  Look, like I said what I used to say to people all the time was, "Don't wait for permission." Now it's shocking what you can make for nothing, you can make incredible looking shit now.

Yeah.

SODERBERGH: It's great.  That's the good news, anybody can make something.  The bad news is everybody is.

I'm curious about digital cameras.  Right now every director and cinematographer I talk to uses either the ARRI Alexa, the RED Epic, or recently the Sony F65, I'm curious your take on the digital cameras that are available right now.

SODERBERGH: I have a long history with RED so I'm partial to RED.  I like the way it looks, I like the way it works, I like its size.  The Sony camera that's a nice image, but the thing is a boat anchor.  When I first saw the Panavision Genesis I knew that wasn't going to work because it was bigger than a Panaflex.  The whole point is we want it smaller.  The thing about the Epic, which can record full resolution without being connected to anything, you know, we have that shot in Side Effects where Rooney puts her foot on the gas, I just stripped everything off the body and stuck the camera behind the gas pedal.  Normally you'd have to saw a hole in the car to get that shot.  That's the shit I want.  I want to be able to put it wherever I want.  That combined with the sort of ethos of that company, which is that they are constantly upgrading. They've got a new sensor coming out, the Dragon, that's fucking insane, like it's a whole other level in terms of dynamic range, resolution, it's crazy.  I've seen the tests on it, it's nuts.  These guys just stay up really late and they're just never satisfied and they're constantly pushing it.  So I look at it as...if you're conservative you should probably use something other than the RED, if you're someone who likes to live dangerously and push stuff then you should be using the RED because that's where it's at its best.

A lot of these cameras, you use them and they have text there saying, "Don't do that.  Don't do that." Whereas with RED we'll shoot stuff that will come back, Jim Jannard will look at it and go, "Wow, I didn't know somebody was going to do that with our camera.  Great, lets figure out how to turn what most people would look at as a problem into our next firmware upgrade." They're just constantly tweaking.  And it's a great story too because its him, he's like Howard Hughes; he had the idea, he had the money, he put the super group together, they went and did it and that's the way innovation happens, you know what I mean?  And he's a gearhead, he's a camera guy.  A lot of these things you look at and you go, "Clearly the people who designed this have never had to use one of these." Because if you knew you were going to put that on your shoulder you wouldn't design it that way.  Jim was a photographer.  He really canvased a lot of people and said, "What do you want?  What do you want in this?" And literally talked about how big should it be?  How much should it weigh?  What should it look like?  What should the weight distribution be?  What kind of lens masks do you want?  He was trying to make something that you could use with your hands that felt intuitive.  So I'm really happy that I ended up being a part of that narrative of the development of that camera because it was exciting to watch and the product itself has completely changed the way that I've been able to work.  My only regret is I wish I had it ten years ago.

When do you think digital cameras are going to hit the resolution or the ability that anyone using film is going to say, "It's time to switch?"

SODERBERGH: They've already done it.  Film people are just in denial.  They've already done it.  They passed them a couple years ago.

Okay, let me ask you this question, when do you think digital cameras will get to doing what IMAX can do, if ever?

SODERBERGH: Oh, they will.  I mean the new Dragon 6k is crazy.  Take the new Dragon sensor, put a Master Prime on it, shoot it at a decent F-stop, and do a line pairs test where you have this chart that has a series of lines on it...and let's see.

Because I don't know the resolution of the Dragon sensor versus what the RED Epic is doing right now, is it like 50% better?  Is it 20%?  Is it 100%?

SODERBERGH: I don't know, it's a lot.  It's noticeable.

I'm wonder if Mr. Jackson is going to shoot with that when he does the additional photography on The Hobbit.

SODERBERGH: I don't know, if you were going to blend, I don't think he would want to blend it with the Epic.  I don't know.  I mean, Peter's off on a frolic of his own.

While we're talking about this, I definitely want to know your take, if you don't mind talking about it, on the high frame rate that Peter's doing.

SODERBERGH: There's a technical reason why I think that frame rate is weird and it has to with your brain's ability to scan beyond a certain rate.  The point is I find it looks weird.  There was an article written a couple months ago by a neuroscientist explaining why it is always going to look weird.  Your brain is never going to rewire to have this look "normal" because beyond a certain frame rate you lose the ability to take it all in.  So it's always going to look like video, it's never not.  And I find that weird.

I saw it twice, once at Warner Brothers and once in IMAX and I found the IMAX presentation to be much better, but I'm curious if the high frame rate might be more applicable towards documentaries, because it really is taking the glass out of the window.  I'm not sold on it, but I'm also not against it.  I think its maybe more applicable for certain genres.

SODERBERGH: Yeah, maybe.  It interferes with my suspension of disbelief is my personal issue.

[Gold Trumpet]

spoilers

I love Soderbergh's filmmaking. Over the past few years, he's become our Allan Hollinghurst in that he perfectly knows how to write a cinematic sentence. I go to Hollinghurst and his novel The Line of Beauty whenever I want to reference a novel that is perfect with the sentence. Simple as that for a statement because there isn't a grander style at work where we can say he is borrowing from a documented theory or approach and the reference would qualify. Sure, if Soderbergh is doing thriller, it's almost impossible to elude a Hitchcock moment here or there, but Soderbergh isn't going out of his to be the typical "auteur". Like Hollinghurst, he just knows how to communicate the scene as well I know someone doing so.

For what Side Effects is, the filmmaking is pitch perfect.  Not only does Soderbergh link the scenes together well by cutting out typical things by like introducing exterior shots first, but he has a beautiful way of keeping you connected to how seamless the story feels between scenes and events. Soderbergh will find a way to make focusing on a prop for just a moment feel important to the dramatization. The gradual rhythm of the camera and cutting got me to focus on edits more than a usual film. When Mara's character drives a car into a wall, the shot of just her foot pushing the gas was enough of a divergence from the film's norm that I felt the incoming onslaught of something bad happening. In another film where the editing has a ton of different shots per scene, that simple cut and edit doesn't feel as important. I always feel too many films are detailed in their editing patterns to just be detailed. it's a story norm today to be have a lot of cuts so the attention span isn't lost. Not a great rationale. Soderbergh really makes every edit and composition count.

On the other hand, the film is a thriller with a twist at the end. For me, the perfect twist ending to a thriller was Kurosawa's High and Low. It was left field from the story, but it still matched perfectly with the environment of the drama leading to the conclusion. When it was revealed who it was and why, the revelation was like an, "Of course!" moment since it played into the sociological possibilities of the story. Side Effects is a little long winded with its twist ending, but what it has is a good dramatic inclusion of certain social trends which create political situations. In the story, Jude Law's character loses everything when he is tied to a murder case involving his patient. It's not proven he is responsible , but dominoes with others begin to fall as well and you see why he is pushed out of his practice. Protective of his livelihood, Law begins to look into the facts of the murder and discovers a conspiracy which was perpetrated to take advantage of certain holes in the pharmaceutical industry and how people can react to the side effects of drugs. Considering the rise of prescription drugs today, the story is certainly worth telling. Side Effects is excellent because it has a story that can highlight some complexities of the issue and not totally bow down to casual-reference-art to only appear serious.

I say the ending is long winded because the twist requires too much story. First, there is a build up of Mara's character being depressed and suicidal and accidentally killing her husband while sleep walking. It's all a ruse and the plot was a development in the making for years by Mara and her previous psychiatrist. What makes sense is the ability to con your way to money through the illusion of how bad drugs can affect those afflicted with mental illness, but the story feels like it's stretching itself thin by taking Zeta Jones character (very thinly detailed) and all of sudden giving her roundness with a fully filled out story which involves new histories for herself. Of course this detail only really exists through dialogue explanation and a few flashback scenes, but it's meant to be deep enough to allow the story to change the necessary trajectory and head to an exciting conclusion. For me, when a film gets a few revelations deep into its story, the film has to be a little more restricted with how carefree it gets with changing character diagrams.

[ElPandaRoyal]

I'd go as far as to say this is the best Soderbergh I've seen since Che. A great thriller/modern noir that had me litteraly open my mouth in surprise more than once. But it's much more than a trick thriller, it has a lot of social commentary and it's so fun at the same time. Also, what Gold Trumpet wrote about his influences, there were a few moments where it reminded me of De Palma thrillers like Sisters and Dressed to Kill and I do believe they're very conscious yet also very subtle, but added a lot to the fun of the whole thing. I was very very pleasantly surprised with this, mostly because apart from it being a thriller about pills, I was in the dark the whole time. I sure hope Soderbergh gets his cinematic juices running again in no time.

[picolas]

this movie is such a twisty sneaky sticky trap.

everyone is really, really excellent. except for tatum but that's fine.

i wonder if there's a better movie hidden underneath all the twists, or if sodes had eliminated three or four twists, what might have been... i was enjoying the ideas of the first third, which are more or less erased by the final third... but i do like this version. perhaps the most ingenious twist of them all is how side effects plays with and against my expectations of the kind of movie soderbergh would make.

i'm disappointed by the thomas newman score... between this and skyfall he's getting incredibly generic. distractingly obvious stuff.

i'm not sure if this movie can be rewatched... but i intend to find out. REBOOT