Transcript. Soderbergh. SideEffects. Berlinale. 12feb2013.

1.     Mara: [Cunty voice.] This is a little bit different.

2.     Soderbergh: I'll do it at the end, or are they going to send you away?

3.     Danke schön. ** pressconference begin? Could you please sit down so we can start this pressconference? Danke schön. Hinsetzen, bitte. Please sit down. Hinsetzen ,bitte. Danke schön. ** Interpreter: I would like to ask you not to use your flashlight. Danke schön.

4.     Ladies and gentlemen, welcome to the screening in competition on the sixtythird international filmfestival inBerlin, and we are veryproud to welcome his SideEffects. Have welcome for the producer ScottZBurns. Sound of applaud. And don't forget to mention he's also the writer. And have welcome forJudeLaw, playing Dr.JonathanBanks. Sound of applaud. Also, welcome playing the part ofEmily, RooneyMara. Sound of applaud. And have welcome for the director, good to have you back inBerlin, StevenSoderbergh. Sound of applaud. Before we open the questioning, I would like to address to thefirst question toScott, Mr.Burns. This has a story, History that you can take. Tell us about the research, the source. In the first, I guess it was your idea to direct it by yourself. Steven went in. Can you tell us a little bit about that?

5.     Burns: Yeah, I've started doing research on the area that turned into this movie about tenyearsago. I was working on aTVshow, which was created byPeterBurn. He didFridayNightLights. It was a show that was onNBC for a veryshort time. As part of the research, I went to BellevueHospital inNYC, which is thelargest mentalhospital inNY. And I followed a forensic psychiatrist namedDr.SashaBarday, who[m] you have noticed, as one of the coproducers of the movie. I learned a great deal about this intersection of Psychiatry and theLaw and psychoPharmacology. I felt that, if I sort of focus on that intersection long enough, I would have an interesting story to tell. So, I've worked on the story for a number of years and tried to get it started, but it's hard to get a movie made inHollywood, and it gets a lot easier when you have people like this. So, Steven had asked me, at one point, there was another movie that we were going to do together, that "fell apart". And he said, I like the script. We both saw it in a verysimilar way. We wanted it to be a psychological thriller, and he asked if I wanted to work on it with him, and I was thrilled to do that.

6.     Moderator: Your first question, could you please stand up?

7.     Hello. This is fromChannel**. Hi. My question goes to perhaps all of you. What were the great challenges in shooting this film? And my question forMr.Soderbergh, How does it feel to be back inBerlin? Thank you.

8.     Soderbergh: I was trying. I think I have been to this festival fivetimes?

9.     Moderator: Yes.

10. Soderbergh: I think so. Which is more than any festival I have been to, so obviously, I enjoy coming here. Well, I'll start first. I think the biggest. You all just saw the movie, yeah? Thebiggest challenge for me was the first thirtyfiveorfourtyminutes, finding the right balance for act-one. [Fuck act-one.] At least I thought was themostdiffcult, mostly in the postproduction. That was the part that scared me.

11. Mara: I don't know what themostchallenging part of it was. Sound of laughter. I don't know.

12. Soderbergh: Clearly, this pressconference.

13. Mara: Steven made the whole thing so easy that I can't think of one.

14. Soderbergh: Jude.

15. Law: Thebiggest challenge. I suppose it was overcoming, well, theReality that I wasn't going to attend medical school, in part, to prepare for the part. And I didn't have huge relationship with pharmaceuticals or understanding of them, so I suppose it was convincing myself that I could play a psychiatrist authentically.

16. Burns: Thehardest part for me, I think, was. I think that anytime you build a thriller like this, it's balancing off the relationship between thetwocharacters, and finding a way forRooney's ["]arc["] and Jude's ["]arc["] to ["]interlock["].[Fuck arc.] The kind of the balance that was the greatest challenge in writing that they made a lot easier for me when they started saying the words.

17. Moderator: Your question, please. Could you please stand up? Thank you.

18. Interpreter: ** from **. Interpreter: Magazine**, unfortunately, I cannot ask this question in english.

19. Could you please put on your headphone? Thank you.

20. From newspaper fromChile, unfortunately, I cannot ask this question in english. Mr.Soderbergh, I wanted to know from you. I mean, It is a great thriller. What I wanted to know corcenres the the question you all touched upon, that is, the question of pharmaceutical industry. It is veryimportant that you showed the way how certain patients are treated. This is the englishchannel. You should be able to hear me now. This is the englishchannel. No, you don't hear anything? This is the english channel, you should be able to hear me now. This is the english channel, can you hear me now?

21. Soderbergh: No wonder, this is the wrong channel. Okay, thank you.

22. Interpreter: So, I'll try to keep it short. This is just about the question about the pharmaceutical industry. You just actually touched upon a veryintersting subject, concerning the treatment of certain patients. What I wanted to know was, I don't know, [You don't know what?] in how it is normally in pharmaceutical industries when they're introducing new pills and whole thing about the ad.s. I wanted to know whether you tried to, you know, not to show the whole process intellectually. I think it was somewhere in the middle level the way you explain it.  Oerhaps there is some connecteion between pharmaceuticals and psychologists. Are there actually just on this middlelevel in terms of theirEducation, or are there more intellectual. I don't know. [You don't know what?] Are they strictly controlled, because the subject,  the way you brought it up, it looks like a verysimple thing, the way they deal with it. Sound of laughter. [The fuck are you talking about?]

23. Soderbergh: Actually, I think Scott should answer this question. Laughter ofBurns.

24. Burns: Well, the relationship between pharmaceuticals and people inAmerica and, probably other people throughout the world and their doctors is obviously a verycomplicated one, and the movies sort of uses that as a background in, you know. I can only speak as someone writing inAmerica, [falsemodesty?] but there has been a tremendous proliferation of drugs of psychoPharmacology, and a lot of people [consume] these medications, and they see them onTV and in[advertisement], and [advertisement] is verysimple, and [advertisement] ["]suggest["] to you that your depression might be curedveryeasily. So, there's a [phenomenon] going on where we've sort of ["]declared a war["] [You don't know shit. Fucking dumbass.] on sadness inAmerica with these chemicals, and it's complicated because they help a lot of people. The movie certainly doesn't suggest that these drugs don't benefit some people, but I think the world in which that ["]goes on["] is a veryverycomplicated one. [He's afraid to speak againstPsychiatry and psychoPharmacology. It's complicated, the usual statement of someone who is an opportunist. The subject is complicated, therefore one is not qualified to discuss it or search solution.]

25. Moderator: First here, please.

26. German television, MDR. The question goes toJudeLaw. I would have loved to ask this in** on your set , but it's hard to get an interview there. Filming there withWesAnderson for some time now.

27. Moderator: Sorry, we're here for pressconference forSideEffects, not for other movies. Sorry for that.This is something different. We're talking aboutSideEffects. Sorry for that.

28. If you want to say something about it.

29. Hello, It's ** fromAthensGreece. It's me from **. I wanted to addressMr.Soderbergh aboutSideEffects basically. Sound of laughter. Main idea inSideEffects that I can see raises is somehowdeep exploration aboutAlfredHitchcock's notion of psychothriller. Did you check verymuch on this idea, this notion, you say? And, secondly, Mr.JudeLaw, how do they feel about being a character between the characters, between secrective, being supposedly a victim which is not, RooneyMara, a psychiatrist, who supposedly his therapist but become a victim?

30. Soderbergh: Well, I think one of the reasons that Hitchcockfilms are still relevants and still funs to watch is not only because of their technical facilities and all of the innovations he createds, but because all of them are about guilt, [Not all of them] and guilt is always interesting, and it's not ["]going anywhere["], and what I really liked about this ["]piece["] was a good deal with one of the things that he worked with a lot of which is the transference of guilt from one character to another. It's reallygood moviematerial, and I would imagine, on this kind of project for the actors is if your goal it moment to moment is to never know the outcome of what you are doing. This one made it a little ["]tricky["]. Right, right?

31. Mara: Yeah. Laughter ofMara. How did you feel about our encounter?

32. Law: I think we both decided, without telling each other, that we wouldn't do. We didn't  do awful lot of planning, did we, between us? I mean, we had a great script. Sometimes, a work for an actor is kind of straightforward. You stick to the page, you play it for real, and the ["]layers["] reveal themselves, you know, later. I think we both decided that we weren't going to try to construct some plan. I think we played ["]in the moment["], right?

33. Mara: Yeah, I mean, Scott made it reallyeasy. He kind of did it all that for us. He did all the planning and all the work.

34. Law: Discussions about barometers of ["]numbers["]. What we will reveal when, because we were slightly, we shot it a little bit out of order, although not dramatically. So, I think we both had separate sort of plans withSteven on ["]colours["], or ["]numbers["], as it were, on the dial. We would ["]ramp it up["], depending on stages of our neurosis.

35. [Unclear.]

36. Law: Yes, but, obviously, we had to do that separately. They were ["]interwoven["] by Steven's work and Scott's work. We were doing our work separately. You're right, that's the joy of the piece, I think. They ["]interlock["].

37. Question on the other side. Way in the back, please. Yes. On the left.

38. Oui. **. Magazine**. Question, M.Soderbergh. C'est un film génial de [?] manipulation. Est-ce que vous avez soumis [?] ** que tout le film, on pense que ** comme ça. Interpreter: Well, throughout the whole movie, you think that things are developing in onedirection, and the course changes, and another situation appears. This is of course verymanipulative and brilliant, you know. Also manipulative to what it does, what it does to the audience.

39. Soderbergh: Yes. What I found reallycompelling about what Scott did was, While he was respecting these ["]pillars["] that laid underneath this genre, he was also constantly playing with our expectation based on our past experiences with these kinds of films, and I really felt that , at least inAmerica, with these kinds of films I really felt, at least inAmerica, it has been sometime since I've seen up the film structured this way, and also he does something that's not verytypical which is the film changes point of view. The movie starts out being aboutEmily. About halfway through, it starts to be aboutDr.Banks, and that laid on the top of the fact that it's really kind of each act is a different film in a way. It starts off as movieA, and it becomes movieB, then it becomes movieC. I just thought for story, this clear, there are a lot layers, there are alot of thing for me play with as a filmmaker.

40. Moderator: Question on the other side of the back, please.

41. Hi. Loved the trajectory [?]. Loved the the whole movie. There are twothings a little bit weak for me. One is the lesbianplot. Second one is, How can this guy be so calm when his whole life is falling apart basically.

42. Soderbergh: Were you calm?

43. Questioner: I think he acted prettyquickly. I think he acted prettyquickly.

44. Law: Sorry. Sound of laughter.

45. Questioner: For you.

46. Soderbergh: I don't know. I don't know how I'm supposed to respond.

47. Burns: I guess I'll respond to the lesbianpart. Sound of laughter. I guess that's my responsibility. I think, if you look at this movie, the movie subverts every sort of expectaion convention would normally have. If you look at the name of the movies which is SideEffects which sort of suggests that the movie is about the sideeffects of the drug, one of which is at turns out is actually financial, you are not expecting. So, I was trying to do throughout the movie is put everything, turn everything upside down, and, within the convention in the genre, you would expect that that relationship would malefemalerelationship, so I was actually continuing throughout, which is subvert that expectation as well. I think it was more about the genre than anything else. Also, I don't think that that part was about. Rooney's character was an opportunist, and it wouldn't have mattered. I think that comes clear to me, performence. She was about was finding an opportunity, and it was less about the sexuality between she and Catherine and more about theOpportunism, and so. Does that help?

48. Soderbergh: [Unclear].

49. Burns: [Unclear.]

50. Moderator: Question in the back in the middle, please.

51. Hi, **, German television. Mr.Soderbergh, there are twothings I would like to ask. First of all, you said that you won't be directingFilms anymore in an interview I read. Why is that so? And, second of all, concerning your latest movie, SideEffects,  what intereseted you more about making a film, a film about the issue of using antidepressant or making reallysurprising and good thriller.

52. Soderbergh: I'll answer thesecondone first. Yeah, I just like the idea of making a thriller as, as, near the twilight of my career. Sound of laughter. Thelast. No. I. Honestly, I wanted, however long this ["]break["] ends up being, I wanted thelast few things I did to be fun to make and to watch. And, so.

53. Mara: You just called it a break, rather than [instead of] retirement.

54. Soderbergh: Okay, whatever. So, it really. Even the film Scott and I, we were going to do before it ["]fell apart["] was going to be something veryfun and very["]upbeat["] for us to make. So, I don't know. [You don't know what?] I think, coming out the ["]other end["] ofChe really made me want to have more fun. [He didn't answer thefirstquestion.]

55. Questioner: Hello, KatharinaMaja from**. JudeLawcharacter, when he's asked, he says he's working inUSA, because inEurope, people who get treated for psychological problems are sick and ill. InUS, it's not like that. You also said that there are alot of advertisement in-theUnitedStates, and we don't have it here. I wanted to ask, Why you think it is like that in theUS. Why did you choose that as a movie?

56. Law: I think the line is specific to the english relationship. It's not aboutEurope. [It is indeed about the english relationship.]

57. Burns: When he's questioned, it is not aboutEurope. It's about why he leftEngland,  notEurope, so.

58. [Unclear]

59. Law: Oh, it is? It's one of the interesting ["]layers["] to the [“]piece[“] and indeed to the part, I think, that he upsticks [?] and move toAmerica. You want to ["]peel["] his past as film progresses. Some of them, I think, his ambition. I think he feels that the career for a psychiatrist inNY or in theStates, are more, for the want of a better word, glamorous. You ask me, What is my opinion on advertising of pharmaceuticals inAmerica? I guess. I think Scott kind of answered that. I hold thesameopinion as he. I think it can be quite alarming. In the work, preparation for this, I've met with several doctors and patients who have had their lives ["]turned around["], and people's ["]turned around["] through the accurate and effective diagnosis and prescription, but at the same time, [favourite phrase ofSoderbergh] it's obvious that we have a tendency nowadays to look for a ["]shortcut["]. Advertising, [Advertisement] you know, which we all know, could have certain bias, has effect on our relationship with pharmaceuticals isn't a necessarily good thing, I don't think. I mean, I'm not. I don't even take [consume] headachepills. So, I'm not really necessarily one to discuss it, because I don't really have that relationship with pharmaceutical drugs.

60. Moderator: Maybe, Jude, adding to this question, maybe you can tell about another work withDr.Barday, who also turned in the end as executiveproducer of the movie? Maybe Scott could tell more about working with him, because I guess he had a great impact on the movie.

61. Burns: Yeah, SashaBarday. When I met him, he was running forensicPsychiatry inNYC, and he worked with us throughout the movie. He was on set most days. The sideeffects of the other medications that are mentioned in the movie are ["]pulled out["] of their advertising and off of [removed from] their websites and those are the things that the people frequently encounter, and Sasha helped us with the psychoPharmacology, but he also help you then learning and talking them about how someone with depression normally presents when they go to therapy, and how therapist begins to manage that relationship.

62. Law: His input was incrediblyprecious. He was verygenerous with his time, and with his experience, and also his contacts, you know. He let us into his practice office uptown[Manhattan]. He threw open the doors inBellevue[Hospital], and we felt verywelcomed by him. His influence on me was immense.

63. Question in the middle, please.

64. I'm from **. I have shortquestion forMr.Jude and Mr.Steven. Mr.Jude, in this film, I see you really mature, really a great actor. John from films you made before. How did you manage to enter this. Really, really. No, really, you're reallygood.

65. Law: Thanks. Sound of laughter.

66. I just saw it, so. I just wanted to know how much took you to become so good.

67. Law: Fortyyears. Sound of laughter.

68. Mr.Steven, When we go to the movies, we go to see Fellini, Hitchcock. We go to seeSoderbergh. But this film is verydifferent from the ones you made before. Something new.

69. Soderbergh: Well, I hope so, because I've always tried to approach each film as if it ["]destroys["] all the films that come before it. And this was, as I said, it's the kind of film I haven't made before, and I was hoping to. I wanted to make. I wanted to something veryvery"lean". I wanted it to be all "muscles". I didn't want extra shot, extra moment, I just want it to be as clear and clean as I can make it. I think there was a painter, I think it was [JohnDavid]Wissler[?], who said, It takes endless labour to eradicate all traces of labour, and that is, was my approach. And, so, in that regard, it was fun and challenging. I restricted myself to doing things in a verysimple way, and it was fun to work that way.

70. Law: I have to answer your question? Sorry, I was ["]miles away["]. Sound of laughter. Well, you know, I think, when you act inFilm, I think you rely on awful a lot of elements to align. You wait for the right part, in the right hands at the right time, the right people, all of that has an massive influence on the outcome. I was lucky to already have a relationship with-Steven and -Scott fromContagion. I mean, I'm kind of repeating myself. It was a great [“]piece[“]. It was in great hands. It seemed like a right time for me take on a part like this. I think. Sadly, it's quiterare that you get to, to steal Steven's phrase, kind of ["]lean["] character. Character intelligent, complicated, mature, straight to the point without any kind of, you know, paraphernalia, or, with anything other than the challenge of portraying someone honestly or, as you say, maturely. I mean, unfortunately, fewerandfewer films like that seems to be being made for mature audiences with mature characters in it, and I think maybe why you enjoyed it the way you did.

71. Question on the right, please.

72. Afternoon. I have a question for Mr.Soderbergh. Did you have much involvement to the score, and, if you did, could you describe the process that you went through withMr.Newman to find the right sign for the film?

73. Soderbergh: This is thethirdtime I've worked withThomasNewman. He was one of the first calls I made actually after Scott agreed that we could move forward started. But we did move forward, because I was veryconcerned he would be busy, because he is verybusy, and as it turned out he said that, you know, I'm scoring theBondfilm. It's a big job. Do you think it would be a problem if you wait until later in the year for me to start work. So what we ended up doing as we shot the film in april and may. We sort of got cut together, then sat on the movie for a couple of months while we waited forTommy to finish theBondfilm. And any compose, I think, would tell you that hearing a temp score for thefirsttime on a movie that you're about to work on is the most frightening moment. For two reasons, one, one being that trying to determine whether or not the director wants you to actually just duplicate the tempsscore and then, if that's not the case, if they are open to another interpretations of the score completely. Sound of sneeze. Bless you. Sound of laughter. In this case, fortunately, I think Tom has toomuch intergrity to say because he had to workquickly. He reallyliked thetempscore. He liked the approach. I made it veryclear to him that I didn't want him to imitate it exactly, that it was the feel that I liked, which was. I didn't want ["]fullblown["], orchestral, traditional thrillerscore. I wanted something a little moreambiguous, something a little moreerotic [?] and he ["]locked into["] that veryquickly. I don't think there was a single piece of the music for the movie that I ever rejected or have him go back and try again. What I did ["]end up["] doing is, in a couple of cases, move some of the pieces around and use them in the different areas [scenes] and for different purposes [from] they were originally written. But, it was. He's, he's reallygood.

74. Your question in the back, please. Could you please stand up?

75. Interpreter: I have to apologise. My english is not just good. I have a question toMr.ScottBurns that is . How did you that, in parallel to the movie, you also worked onContagion and TheInformant. How did you do that in parallel [simutaneously]? And I have a question that goes toSteven andScott, and that is, Steven could imagine because. I heard that Scott was supposed to be the director of the movie, and could Steven imagine that Scott could stand in for him while he's taking a break.

76. Soderbergh: Yeah. Somebody tried to get you to sign my autograph.

77. Burns: Yeah, I guess that's already happening outside.

78. Soderbergh: Yeah, that's good.

79. Cough ofMara.

80. Burns: The answer to thefirstpart of your question, you know, it's sometimes the way things come out in the world aren't necessarily the way that they come out as a writer. I started writing this movie tenyearsago, it was in some sort of version of this about fiveorsixyears ago. We were sort of ["]hunting["] around, trying to find the cast, trying to find financier. It struggled, and when Steven asked me, I was thrilled, because, if you can get over the notion that you're not directing the movie, having someone you work with before, whom you have such high regard for, who has been collaborative. It was not hard for me to say that, you know, I would be thrilled to have him directed, and remains one of the best decisions I've made. This movie was written well in advance ofContagion. So kind of went, I wrote TheInformant first. The second, and Contagion sort of ["]came["] together veryveryquickly. So, I wasn't reallyworking them, on them in parallel [at the same time] so I can't really take credit for any progression that might exist.

81. So, final question. Please, back on the right.

82. The cunt from number41: I have a question toMr.JudeLaw. There was this word on the wall of sadness. Do you think that europeans compete differently from sadness than americans? Do they different methods, like filmfestivals, maybe, for something like that? Deal with sadness? I mean, you know about both sides, I guess. You lived inAmerica. [Another stupid question.]

83. Law: I don't know. [You don't know what?] I think it's. I think it's universal issue, actually. I think there's another way of interpreting it, which is looking at our need to look for shortcuts, our need for overcoming things that stop us from getting on with work fiddling with our iPhones. I think that's becoming a universal problem. You know, there's a metaphor in the message of the piece that isn't necessarily aren't affected by the pharmaceutical world.

84. Moderator: What would be the festival withoutSideEffects? It is great to have you here. It's wonderful to have you on the competition ofthesixtythirdinternationalfilmfestival. Thanks for being here, and good luck with the movie.