"Side Effects" and "Behind the Candelabra"

These are the last two Steven Soderbergh films for the foreseeable future, since Soderbergh has announced his retirement. "Side Effects" was theatrically released back in February and just hit home media. "Behind the Candelabra" was produced by HBO as a television movie and premiered over Memorial Day weekend. I managed to catch one of the repeats last week. The films have nothing to do with each other, except, perhaps, that they can be seen as examples of Soderbergh's occasional genre experiments. "Side Effects" is a psychological thriller, a little more of the Brian De Palma than the Hitchcock variety. "Candelabra," on the other hand, is a campy examination of the romantic pairing of the famously extravagant pianist Liberace, and a young man named Scott Thorson, who gets caught up in his fame and excess. I don't have enough to say about them to warrant individual reviews, so I'm writing them up together here.

"Side Effects" is one of those films that is more enjoyable the less you know going in, so I'll stick to the basics of the premise. A young woman named Emily (Rooney Mara) suffers from depression and is being treated by a psychiatrist, Dr. Banks (Jude Law). Her condition proves difficult to combat, and Banks is convinced to put her on a new drug, which leads to some very bad consequences. Channing Tatum and Catherine Zeta-Jones are also in the mix as Emily's husband and one of her former psychiatrists respectively. "Side Effects" depends entirely on the performances of these four actors, and they all deliver. Rooney Mara is particularly impressive as the afflicted Emily, whose state of mind is so important and so difficult to ascertain. The film only works as written because of Mara's ability to keep us guessing. Jude Law also does a lot of commendable heavy lifting, as he becomes our central POV character for a good chunk of the film.

I can admire "Side Effects" for its craft and its ambitions. However, I didn't enjoy this one very much. All the characters are pretty terrible people, which meant I didn't care one way or another what happened to them. As good as the machinations of the plot played out, their impact was muted because I found it hard to connect with one side or another. Rooney Mara's Emily is fascinating, but remote, a puzzle of a woman whose claimed motivations sound like they could be just another layer of deception. Dr. Banks is initially positioned as the good guy, but quickly becomes just as despicable as everyone he believes is machinating against him. "Side Effects" too often feels like it's going through the motions, giving Soderbergh a chance to play with familiar genre conventions. There are some original ideas in the mix, and I enjoyed the early discussions of mental health treatments and medical ethics in particular. However, once the mystery elements kicked in, that all faded into the background very quickly. "Side Effects" is a very good film, but you get exactly what you'd expect..

"Behind the Candelabra" is more fun. Those of you hoping for a conventional Liberace biopic may be disappointed, because the movie focuses solely on the relationship of Liberace (Michael Douglas) and his much younger lover Scott Thorson (Matt Damon) during the late 70s and early 80s. Liberace is still famous and beloved, but getting on in years when he and Thorson first meet. The story is told entirely from Thorson's POV, and much of it concerns his gradual descent into drugs and emotional turmoil as the relationship goes from blissful to bitter to bizarre over the years. Buying into Liberace's lifestyle of easy hedonism and excess takes its toll, and the movie follows the arc of so many other drug memoirs and cautionary tales about the good life. What separates "Candelabra" from other made-for-TV tell-alls is that it has a great sense of humor about itself. You've got Michael Douglas, Matt Damon, and several other familiar faces willing to make themselves look utterly ridiculous in all manner of makeup and garish 70s fashions, and turning up their performances to gloriously campy heights.

I wish I was more familiar with Liberace, because I had trouble gauging Michael Douglas's performance. How much were Liberace's mannerisms and the voice exaggerated? The flamboyant persona works wonderfully when he's onstage performing, but is less convincing when he's not. Or is that the point Soderbergh and Douglas were trying to make? Ultimately "Candelabra" shows some affection for Liberace and what he stood for, but only after gleefully getting us acquainted with all of his secret vices and indulgences and bad habits. A word of warning - if you're not comfortable with onscreen sexuality of the same-sex kind, you may want to give this a pass. Nothing ever gets pornographic, but the portrayal of Liberace and Thorson's sex life is pretty candid. At times I thought it was a little too candid, but it did help to give the picture an unusual degree of intimacy. Even if you find these people ridiculous, as I did, you'll find yourself sympathizing with them.

"Behind the Candelabra" seems an odd choice for Soderbergh to end his filmmography with, but then his filmmography is full of outliers, so I guess it's fitting. I'm not sure if "Candelabra" is a good film. I suspect it may be a bad film with really exceptional execution. However, it's definitely a memorable one, and worth seeing. I'm a little less inclined to recommend "Side Effects," but only because there are so many other films like it. If you're in the mood for psychological thriller, it should certainly fit the bill. And if this is really it for Soderbergh, I think it's safe to say that he quit while he was ahead. So good for him.

Happy watching.
---