Popular Culture Review Vol. 25, No. 1, Winter 2014 | Page 15

The 1988 Show 11 years pass, how is it that identity is maintained? Mind and behavior are lofty notions, abstract ideas about apparently immaterial things that constitute who we are. But there are, of course, physical ways to alter them. And 1988 is, in fact, the year that two important narcotics went into wide release that some would argue challenge the continuity of identity no matter how it is defined. In January of 1988, the New York City police department held a press conference in which they discussed a dangerous new drug that had appeared in the city and seemed to be growing in popularity. Though the drug had gone by many different street names, the NYPD called it “crack,” and the name stuck. Physiologically, crack cocaine is a chemical that causes massive amounts of dopamine to be released in the brain, thus creating a euphoria that typically lasts five-to-ten minutes. Without immediate further use, however, dopamine levels fall far below even normal range, thus—somewhat ironically—initiating a deep depression. Interestingly, depression is the illness that the second major drug of 1988 was meant to combat, as it was, coincidentally, also in January of that year that the FDA gave its approval to Eli Lilly to begin marketing Prozac. Prozac is a triple reuptake inhibitor—a drug that, in part, blocks the breakdown of dopamine in the brain, thus keeping levels high: the same end goal as crack, but, one hopes, with safer methods and side-effects. By the end of 1988, Prozac was a cultural pharmacological phenomenon and had brought in a record $350 million in profit for Eli Lilly. Though crack has been in countless movies since its introduction to the streets, it strangely took Hollywood 25 years to make a movie that centered on the question of whether or not we are still ourselves when on antidepressants. For better or for worse, this is one of the main themes of Steven Soderbergh’s Side Effects (2013). Can a medicine make us sleep walk through life and turn into a different person? Or might we not even truly be the people we seem to be in the first place? Identity, Soderbergh seems to be arguing, is never stable, whether chemically altered or not. The person you love might not be the person you think he or she is at all. Apart from the question of whether or not we are still ourselves when taking mood-altering chemicals, there is a further social and political point that crack and Prozac have in common. Prozac, especially before it had a generic form available, was prescribed almost exclusively to the white upper-class. And crack, though chemically identical to the powdered cocaine used mostly by white Americans, was criminalized and pursued more doggedly by law enforcement due, at least in part, to the fact that it was used almost exclusively by poor African Americans.