Thoughts.

  Watched the interview ofSoderbergh byFuckFaceCharlieRose onContagion. He never lets anyone finish a paragraph. It must be veryconveninent to act likeHowardStern and attain financialsecurity. Their meaningless sentences and rationalisations disgust me. And that fucking laughter. That fucking forced smile.
  Now onCNN. Association between labour and Autism? Every asshole has some bullshit theory and appears onTV. Study, inducindg, augumenting labour associated with risk. Nobody will remember that fuckface atDukeMedicalSchool two weeks from now.
  NecessaryIllusionThoughtControlInDemocraticSociety, InAnotherCounty.R1, RoadTripBeerPong arriveds.
  Would like to start a filmclub and an anarchistclub inHTX

Example. Asinine quoting.

Panaman Pictures ‏@PanamanPics
"Everything is the director's fault." - ‪@Bitchuation‬

    •    Répondre
    •    Retweeter
    •    Favori
9:55 AM - 12 Août, 13
Texte du Tweet
Répondre à @PanamanPics @Bitchuation

Henry Seo ‏@mrdurdenx 52 min 
‪@PanamanPics‬ ‪@Bitchuation‬ Taken out of context. Fucking dumbass.
Détails 


Chomsky. Transcript. reddit. The office ofChomsky. 11mar2010.

-->

1.     The first question here is from cocoon56. Do you currently see ["]an elephantroom["] ofCognitiveScience, just like you named one fiftyyearsago, I guess that's a reference to my critique of radicalBehaviorism, something that needs addressing that gets too little attention?

2.     Well, one thing that I think gets toolittleattention in the room ofCognitiveScience isCognitiveScience. Most of the work that's done just doesn't seem to me to bear onCognitiveScience. I could pick up a couple of journals here and give examples. CognitiveScience ought to be concerned, should be just a part ofBiology. It's concerned with theNature, the growth, the development, maybe ultimately the evolution, of a particular subsystem of the organism, namely the cognitivesystem, which should be treated like the immunesystem or the digestivesystem, the visualsystem, and so on. When we study those systems, there are a number of questions we ask. One question is of course, you know, what they are, Can we characterise them? But that's almost totally missing inCognitiveScience. I mean, take my own particular area of interest, Language. A ton of work in what's calledCognitiveScience on what they call Language, but it's veryrare to see some effort to characterise what it is. Well, if you can't do that, it doesn't make much difference what else you do. The second kind of question you have to ask about any organ if you like, some use the term loosely, subsystem of the body, is how it gets the way it is. So how does it go from some initial state, which is geneticallydetermined, to whatever state it assumes? And in investigating that topic, there are a number of different factors that you can take apart for analytic purposes. And one is the specificgeneticconstitution that's related specifically to this system. It doesn't mean that everypiece of it is used only for this system, but just whatever combination of genetically determined properties happens to determine that you have a mammalian rather than an insect visualsystem, for example, or a gutbrain, or whatever it may be. That's one. The second is whatever data are outside that modify the initial state to yield some attained state. And the third is: how do LawsOfNature enter into the growth and development of the system? Which of course they do, overwhelmingly. I mean, nobody, for example, assumes that you have a particular geneticprogram to determine that cells split into spheres, not cubes, let's say. That's due to, you know, minimisation ofEnergy, otherLawsOfNature. And the same holds throughout the course of development. Of course, the same is true for evolution. Evolution takes place with a specific physical, chemical channel of options and possibilities, and physicalLaws enter all the time into determining what goes on. And the third question is that, it's kind of like a whyquestion, Why is the system this way and not some other way? Well, there again, you go back into, at this point you really are facing, first of all, just historical accidents like, you know, an asteroid hit theEarth, but moresignificantly, how do the physical and chemical properties of the universe enter into determining that certain evolutionary changes take place under particular circumstances? Well, that's the array of questions that ought to be asked. It is veryhard to find any focus on these questions, at least in the areas ofCognitiveScience that I'm particularly interested in, like Language for example. What you have is extreme efforts, which are sometimes extremelystrange, to try to show that trivial problems for which we basicallyknow the answers and have for sixtyyears, can be somehow dealt with by massive dataanalysis. And so I could give examples, but, and, in fact, I've written about examples. But I think it's kind of [pointless] off track. I'd like to seeCognitiveScience focus on the topics that it ought to be addressing. Now, this is a verybroad brush, so a lot of it does, and there's verygood work inCognitiveScience, but it's, in my opinion, muchtoo restricted, and a lot of time and effort is spent, in my view largely wasted, on the peripheral issues which just don't make any sense which [when] you look at them, and efforts which just ["]collapse["], and constantly. In fact, many of them are a kind of a residue of the radicalBehaviorism that the field sought to overcome as it developed. I could give examples, but it's, a verygeneral, ["]broad brushfeeling["], unfair to a lot of verygood work. But we're trying to pick out tendencies which I think are [pointless] off track and missing things.

3.     The second comes from thesilentnumber. What are some of your criticisms of today'sAnarchistMovement? How to be as effective as possible is something many anarchists overlook, and you're perhaps themostprolific voice on this topic, so your thoughts would be veryinfluential.

4.     Well, I don't agree with the last comment, but my criticisms of today'sAnarchistMovement are a little bit like the critique ofCognitiveScience. What is today'sAnarchistMovement? I mean, there's quite a lot of people, in fact, you know, an impressive number of people, who think of themselves as being committed in some fashion to what they callAnarchism. But is there anAnarchistMovement? I mean, can one think of, you know, is there something like, say, during the day. Twentyyearsago, I happened to be inMadrid. That happened to beMayDay. And there were huge demonstration, MayDaydemonstration, hundreds of thousands of people from theCMT, the old anarchistlabourorganisation. Well, you can have all kinds of criticisms of theAnarchistMovements inSpain and so on, but at least there was something to point to, there was something there, there was something to criticise or to support or to try to change or whatever. But today'sAnarchism in theUnitedStates, as far as I can see, is extremelyscattered, highlysectarian, so each particular group is spending a great deal of his time attacking some other tendency, sometimes doing useful, important things, but it's extremelyhard to. I think what is, this is not just true of people who think of themselves as anarchists, but of the entire activistleft. Count noses. There's plenty of people, I mean, more than there were at any time in the past that I can think of, except for maybe, you know, tiny, ["]pyoosh["], verybrief moment late[19]60s, or CIO organizing in the[19]30s, and things like that. But there are people interested in all sorts of things. You know, you walk down the maincorridor at this university, you see, you know, desks of students, veryactive, veryengaged, lots of great issues, but highlyfragmented. There's verylittle coordination. There's a tremendous amount of Sectarianism and intolerance, mutual intolerance, insistence on, you know, my particular choice as to what priorities ought to be, and so on. So I think the main criticism of theAnarchistMovement is that it just ought to get its act together and accept divisions and controversies. You know, we don't have the answers to. We have, maybe, guidelines as to what kind of a society we'd like, not specific answers. Nobody knows that much. And there's certainly plenty of range, of room for quitehealthy and constructive disagreement on choice of tactics and priorities and options, but I just see toolittle of that being handled in a comradely, civilised fashion, with a sense of solidarity and commonpurpose. As to how to be as effective as possible, yeah, that's exactly the point, what should we address? You don't have to give a list of severe problems that the world faces. Some of them are extremelysevere. So, for example, there are really questions of species'ssurvival literally, at least two, maybe more. One of them is the existence of nuclearweapons. Somebody watching fromMars would think it's a miracle that we've survived for thelastsixtyyears, and it's extremelydangerous right now, so I can't see how that can fail to be a priority. And the other is a looming environmental crisis. And that is something that anarchists in particular should be verydedicated to addressing, because it involves. On the one hand, it does involve questions of Technology, like, you know, can you get solarpower to work, and so on. And the antiSciencetendency inAnarchism, which does exist, is completelyselfdefeating on this score. [Accurate] I mean, it is going to take, it is going to require sophisticatedTechnology and scientificdiscoveries to create the possibility for humansociety to survive. I mean, unless we decide, well, it just shouldn't survive, we should get down to, you know, onehundredthousandhuntergatherers or something. Okay, except for that. If you're serious about, you know, the billions of people in the world who, and their children and grandchildren, it's going to require scientific and technological advances, but it's also going to require radical social change. I mean, there's been a, particularly in theUnitedStates, but it's true elsewhere, too, there have been, you know, massiveStatecorporate socialengineeringprojects. Veryselfconscious. They don't hide what they are doing, since the SecondWorldWar to try to construct a social system that is based critically on wasteful exploitation of fossilfuels. You know, that's what it means to suburbanise, to build highways and destroy railroads, and so on through the whole gambit of planning that's been undertaken. Well, you know, that means verysubstantial social changes in order, and anarchists ought to be thinking about it. You know, thinking about it doesn't just mean I'd like to have a free and just society, you know, that's not thinking about it. We have to make a distinction if we want to be effective. That's the question, If we want to be effective, we have to make a distinction between what you might call proposals and advocacy. I mean, you can propose that everybodyoughttoliveinpeace.loveeachother, weshouldn'thaveanyhierarchy.everyoneshouldcooperate, and so on, okay? It's a nice proposal, okay for an academicseminar somewhere. Advocacy requires more than just proposal. It means setting up your goals, proposal, but also sketching out a path from here to there, that's advocacy. And the path from here to there almostinvariablyrequires small steps. It requires recognition of social- and economic-Reality as it exists, and ideas about how to build the institutions of the future within the existing society, to quoteBakunin, but also to modify the existing society. That means steps have to be taken that accommodateReality, that don't deny its existence. Since I don't like it, I'm not going to accommodate it. These are theonlyways to be effective. You know, you can see that if you look at, you know, the serious, substantial anarchistjournals. Like, take, say, Freedom inEngland, which maybe is the oldest or one of the oldest anarchistjournals, that's been around, you know, forever. If you read its pages, most of it is concerned with mild reformist tactics. And that's not a criticism. It should be. It should be concerned with worker'srights, with specific environmentalissues, with problems of poverty and suffering, withImperialism, and so on. Yeah, that's what it should be concerned with if you want to advocate longterm, significant social change towards a more-free and -Just society, and I can't think of any other way to be effective. Otherwise, the insistence on purity of proposal simply isolates you from effectiveness in activism, and even from reaching, from even approaching your own goals, and it does lead to the kind ofSectarianism and narrowness and lack of solidarity and common purpose that I think has always been a kind ofPathology of marginal forces, the left in particular. But it is particularlydangerous here.

5.     Which gets to the next sentence, fromBerserkRL. It's a long question, but I'll just summarise it. As far as we favour a Stateless society in the long run, it would be a mistake to work for the elimination, I've said that it would be a mistake to work for the elimination of theState in the short run, and we should be trying to strengthen theState, because it's needed on the check of power of large corporations. Yet the tendency of a lot of anarchist research, my own, too, is to show that the power of large corporations derives fromStateprivilege, and Governments tend to get captured by concentrated privateinterests. That would seem to imply that the likelybeneficiaries of a morepowerfulState is going to be thesamecorporateelite we're trying to oppose. So, if business both derives from theState and is so good at capturing theState, why isn't abolishing theState a better strategy for defeating businesspower than enhancing theStatepower would be? Well, there's a verysimple answer to that. It's not a strategy, and since it's not a strategy at all, there can't be a better strategy. The strategy of eliminating theState is back on the level of let'shavepeaceandJustice. How do you proceed to eliminate theState, okay? Can you think of a way of doing it? I mean, if there were a way of doing it in the existing world, everything would collapse and be destroyed. You just can't do it. I mean, there is nothing to replace it. If there was a rich, powerful network of, you know, cooperatives, community organisations, workercontrolled industry, you know, extending over the whole country, and the whole world, in fact, yeah, then you can talk about eliminatingStates. But to talk about eliminating theState in the world as it exists is simply to keep yourself in some remote academicseminar or small group, you know, saying, Gee, this would be nice. It's not a strategy, so there can't be a better strategy. We are faced withRealities. What is described here, and in fact it's true, I've written plenty about it, too, is that we have a number of systems of power, closely interlinked. One of them's corporatepower, businesspower. That's by far themostdangerous of all. That means, effectively, unaccountable privateTyrannies. A second, prettyclosely linked to them, is Statepower. And the comment is correct, as the commentator says, I've written about it, too, a lot, that Statepower tends to be overwhelminglyinfluenced by concentrated privatepower. Okay, those are real problems. Now we face strategies. So, for example, say, take, say, Healthcare, okay? Right on thefrontpages. What's the strategy for dealing with the fact that tens of millions of people can't get, thebestHealthcare they can get is to be dragged to an emergencyroom when it's toolate to do anything? I mean, that's a real problem, and that's a huge part of the population. Second problem is that in a privatised, unregulatedHealthcaresystem like theUnitedStates. I shouldn't say like, because it's the only one. In a privatised, unregulatedHealthcaresystem where the drugcompanies are so powerful that theGovernment isn't even allowed to negotiate drugprices, in that kind of system. First of all, Healthcare is strictlyrationed by wealth, verystrictly, and secondly, it is designed in such a way that the federal budget is going to be destroyed. You just take a look at the tendency lines. There won't be anything left for schools, for SocialSecurity, for workersafety, anything. What'll be left is for the military. That's untouchable. It keeps going up. Another problem we've got to look at. Obama has thebiggest militarybudget since theSecondWorldWar. But as long as that is over there, untouchable, another ["]elephant in the closet["], the radicallyinefficient privatised, unregulatedHealthcaresystem, is extremelyharmful for people, except for the wealthy. You know, they do fine. And is also going to destroy everyone else. So what do we do about it? Well, it's not a strategy to say, Okay, let's abolish theState. That doesn't do anything about it, and in fact it's just a gift to the corporateStatepowersector because it offers nothing. A shorttermanswer is to do what the large majority of the population has wanted for decades, namely, to develop a sensible nationalHealthcaresystem of the kind that everyother industrialcountry has, one variety or another. Well, it happens to be a large majority opinion, so you don't have to break down many walls to organise people about it. It has been for decades. It's stronglyopposed by the corporateStatenexus, but that's not unbreakable. You know, bigger victories have been won. We could go into details, you know, like what you do about the fact that the democrats have sold out for obvious reasons on even minor palliatives like a public option and so on. What do you do about the fact, a veryconcrete fact. There was just an election inMA which surprised everyone totally, almostcompletelymisrepresented, but I won't go into that. But one of the striking things about the election was that the unionmembers, Obama's natural constituency, most of them didn't bother voting because there was tremendous apathy in the poor, workingclassareas. The election was won by the wealthy suburbs. But of those who voted, most of them voted forScottBrown, the republican, against the democrats, shooting themselves in the foot incidentally, bcause one of the first things that happened is to knock off one possibly prounionmember from the NationalLabourRelationsBoard. But they had reasons, and the reasons are veryclear, just read the labourpress. The reasons are that Obama made it veryexplicit that he was willing to compromise or give up on everything except onething, taxing unionmembers for theirHealthcareplans. So, sure, people are enraged about that. I mean, why shouldn't they be? It's not an anarchist position. It's just a simple, elementary, human position. Well, okay, if you're interested in the longtermproject of the questioner, namely dissolvingState- and corporate-power, you should be paying attention to that and you should be organizing workers on that. You shouldn't leave it toRushLimbaugh to organise people with real legitimate grievances, you know, that's the way toFascism. You should be out there organizing them themselves, on their concerns. You know, their concerns can be related to, and easily related to, muchlonger term anarchiststyleprojects, but that's where anarchists should be working. And the same is true in everyother part of the society. I mean, look, some of the things that are going on now are kind of surreal, but would offer real opportunities for anarchist organizing. So let me take another one. The tendency in theEconomy for thelastthirtyyears byStatecorporateplanning, and these things don't happen from out of the blue, has been towards financialising theEconomy. And corollary to that is undermining domestic production, okay? The two go together. So, for example, the share of financial institutions inGDP, you know, grossdomesticproduct, was maybe threepercent back in1970. Now, it's approaching onethird. And, concomitantly, productive industry is being dismantled, which is fine for the owners, you know, great with them if they can produce in, you know, Mexico or inChina or something, but it's terrible for communities and workers. At the same time, it's finally being recognised, even by the corporateélite, which has been fightingbitterly against it for years, that there's a real environmentalcrisis coming, and they're going to lose what they own. So they want to do something about it. And so what they're now kind of timidlysaying is, Well, we shouldn't, not be theonlycountry in the industrial world that doesn't have highspeedrail. We should have highspeedrail, a minimal but significant move towards dealing with a severe potential crisis. Well, right at this moment theGovernment and the corporations are dismantling productiveindustry, say in-Michigan and -Indiana, by closing GMplants and so on and sending the production abroad, or, you know, they're doing that. That's one thing they're doing. The other thing that's happening is that Obama's transportationsecretary is inEurope, inSpain, using federalstimulusmoney, namely taxpayermoney, to try to get contracts for spanishfirms to provide highspeedrail that theUnitedStates needs. Can you think of a better. I mean, it's hard to think of a moredramatic criticism of theStatecorporate socioeconomic system. Here are communities and workforces being destroyed, while we, while their taxmoney goes to purchase inSpain what they could be producing themselves. Now, if you can't organise about that, you're really in trouble.  You're not a movement at all. Of course, should the. Take, say, the workers in GaryID, or FlintMI, and so on. Do they have to just sit and watch this happen? No, they can take over the workplaces, the factories. They can run them themselves. They can convert them. It's been done before with much greater conversion during theSecondWorldWar to wartimeproduction. They don't needStatesupport for that, because that's the only institution that exists and the only one that people can influence. You can't influence a privateTyranny. You can influence theGovernment. It's often been done. It would take some support, but nowhere near as much as ["]bailing["] out GoldmanSachs, and so on. It would take some, it would take a lot of popular support, but it can be done. I mean, it can even be done within the framework of conservative economic theory, which is prettystraight about this. I mean, you read textbooks on corporations that say, well, you know, it's not graven in stone that they should work only for the benefit of shareholders, which means a tiny percentage of wealthy shareholders. They can work in the interests of stakeholders, meaning workforce and community. And they're not going to decide to do that, but the workforce and the community can decide it for them. Those are perfectlyfeasible efforts. In fact, it's been done. You know, there are cases where it's been done. There's cases where it's even been tried on a verylarge scale. Like, USSteel came close to succeeding, and could with morecorporate support. Well, you know, these are. I could go on with this, but these are real organizing strategies which combine shorttermefforts, which confront real problems that people face in their everyday lives, with longtermobjectives like creating part of the basis for a society based on free association and solidarity and popular control and so on, and it's sitting right there in front of our eyes. Those, in my view, are the things we should be looking at, not abstract questions like should we try to destroy theState, for which we have no strategy. My feeling is that's the kind of direction in which thinking ought to move. It doesn't mean giving up your long-term goals. In fact, that's the way to realise them. And if there's another way to realise them, I've never heard of it.

6.     NoamChomsky's question to-redditcommunity.

7.     I guess the question that comes to mind that just grows out of these comments is there's a verylarge number of people who are committedsincerelyandrightly to the kind of longtermobjectives that anarchists have always tried to uphold. And the question is, Why can't we get together and decide on, and instead of, you know, instead of condemning one another for not doing things exactly the way we do, why can't we try to formulate concrete proposals which combine twoproperties. One, dealing with the real problems that people face in their immediate, daily lives. If you're going to get anywhere, you're going to have to deal with those, and it's not just for tactical reasons, it's also out of simple humanity. So, on the one hand, those, while maintaining as your guidelines the conception of the kind of Just and free society that you would like to bring into being through these steps. And sometimes the two are veryclose together as in the case that I mentioned, like takeover of a productive enterprise by a workforce and communities, which is not, you know, it's a feasible objective, and one that has great deal of appeal or would have if it were put forward, as do others, and combines both longtermvision and the shorttermdealing with real, existing grievances and problems. And there are quite a few things like that. So the question is, Why not focus on that rather than on abstract questions, such as what's thebeststrategy for destroying theState? Answer, Well, no best strategy, because nobody's proposed any.

Thoughts.

  Fucking broke and bored.
  Might travel toLACA. Probability that I will not.
  List. FruitvaleStation. ActOfKilling. SpectacularNowThe. Aint'ThemBodiesSaints. Her. Passion.
  I will never work inAdveritsment or Publicrelation. The act will rot my spirit towards the betterment of humanity. JoelleEid and CaitlinKaluza are fucked.
  Once the bookshelves are placed.
  Soderbergh ignored my request for a piece of information. "I've been busy." Usualbullshit.
  SundanceCinema in general wastes its resource, possiblybecause the face ofRobertRedford is fucked withbotox.
  CraigZobel, RyRussoYoung, AlexKarpovsky, AntonioCampos. Ramblingon.com. Fucking meaningless conversation. CraigZobel is a fuckingprick.

Thoughts.

  Fucking bored.
  Received a clapper used bySoderbergh in the production ofKStreet. Would like to buy REDCamera. 80 000 USD? Don't give a fuck when I start. Must study Math. and Phys. first. Fucking bored. Practice in translation started. Plan. Postoffice. JamesWatson.textbook. DVDreturn. Food? BBQ? Maybe. SpectacularNowThe2013 released soon. Nobody has the right to tell the palestinians that they have no right. If theUnitedStates say it doesn't exist, it doesn't, because they run the show. Hey, Pikachu. What kind of pokemon are you? I'm not a pokemon. Light and shadow. Editing. Angle. Actors. Exposure. Theories and experiments. Fluorescent and natural. Sunset and sunrise. Cloud. How to estimate time by the length of shadow. WoodyAllen. BlueJasmine. Clear the todolist. Idea. Script. MyDarkPlaces or LeslieNelsentypemovie. with a woman. Priority must be Math. and Phys.

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.