Review: The Children Act

The Children Act
Cert: 12A / 105 mins / Dir. Richard Eyre / Trailer



Disclaimer: I made the rookie error of assuming a film titled "The Children Act" would actually be about The Children Act. That it isn't, has caused me no small level of consternation and probably goes some way to accounting for my mood as the runtime increased. Anyway, here are my opinions on what the film isn't…

I'd thought that August was a bit early in the season for awards-bait, then as The Children Act - a film where a judge has to rule over a case where Jehovah's Witness parents are fighting for their right to withhold a hospital's recommendation of a blood transfusion for their son with leukaemia (who, incidentally, is also refusing treatment) - went on without managing to ask any difficult questions, I realised it's probably out now because it's not really a contender for any gongs.

Emma Thompson stars as the Fiona Maye, the put-upon judge, with Stanley Tucci as her dissatisfied husband Jack. Fionn Whitehead plays Adam Henry, the 17yr old to which the titular legislation applies, with Ben Chaplin and Eileen Walsh as his devout parents. The film also features appearances from pretty much everyone you'd expect from a production with Nina Gold in the casting-director's chair (although no Bill Nighy, this time).

But it's Emma Thompson everyone's come to see, and Judge Maye is the dramatic pivot around which everything revolves.

This is, let us not drive this one around the houses, a story more concerning the judge than the judgement. The court case itself is just one building block in the screenplay, that's not what the film is actually about. Which is fine I guess, but not being familiar with Ian McEwan's source novel (which he's also adapted for the screen), I have to say I found the title a little disingenuous. The film is called 'The Children Act', not 'The Turbulent And Tiresome Domestic Life Of A Judge Who Once Invoked The Children Act, A Law Which Was Already Established Before This Story Begins'.

When Maye begins singing in the hospital to the boy with leukaemia playing his grandfather's acoustic guitar*¹, you know this film's far too pleased with itself*².

Thompson's great of course, but then she could be reading the phonebook and still be magnificent. The problem is more than she starts the film in full 'Love Actually' mode, and has nowhere to take things after that. If the message of The Children Act is that the events of a case don't end once the court is dismissed, that's fair enough. If the message is that the background of a court case is more complicated or interesting than what's presented to the judge, then that's demonstrably untrue.

At one point in the third act, the treated and recuperating Adam confronts Fiona and fumes that her judgement was always going to be to save his life since that's the law, and that the case was a foregone conclusion. The problem is that the character here is also describing the story itself.

Perhaps the only interesting aspect is that the script doesn't present a coherent, measured argument from the Jehovah's Witness side in opposing the blood transfusion, only the re-stating of doctrine*³. I don't know if that's because as an audience member, my mind was already made up, or if it's because there just isn't a convincing argument. The filmmakers doesn't bash the religious organisation unduly, but in barely addressing the already-legally-decided debate, there's little left for the story to be interested in.

I'm not entirely sure who this film is for. I mean, it's clearly not aimed at me*⁴, but given the Grey-Pound™ trailers beforehand - and the number of seniors in attendance*⁵ - I suspect I may be somehow too young to get the most out of this. There's little about the film which screams 'pensioner audience', that's just who it appears to have been marketed at.

And then there's a bit at the end where Emma gets to sit on the edge of her bed delivering a monologue which is a recounting of the exact sequence of events that the audience has spend the previous 95 minutes watching. There's no new nuance or insight made clear by the sequence, it's just a recap. How marvellous.

Make no mistake, the moral-core of The Children Act has its mind made up well before the BBFC card appears. The only surprise is that it managed to annoy me, and not for the reasons I'd feared it would. Because, as if you hadn't already gathered, I'm not a person of faith. Liberal, humanist and logical in nature, I didn't expect The Children Act to change my mind, but I expected it to at least try...



I haven't seen it myself, but I'm told Collateral Beauty?



No.



No.



No.



Oh hell yes.



There isn't.



Level 1: That Deathtrooper and one of Saw Gererra's dudes is in this.





*¹ A guitar they bury with the boy in the end. Oh spoilers, sorry. But yeah. That's a nice acoustic he's got there, and it's an antique as well. As a cherished family heirloom with its sentimental value far above the monetary, obviously the first thing you'd do would be to stick it underground at the first opportunity, right? ^{[ BACK ]}

*² Oh, and that bit in the finale where the gruff security guard is standing outside the concert venue with four sets of doors between him and our heroine gently playing the piano and singing with no amplification, when he cocks an ear, throws down his fag then comes inside to watch reverently and coo compliments afterward? Fuck. Right. Off. ^{[ BACK ]}

*³ Right then, actual dialogue exchange from the film:

Fiona: I want to hear it in your own words. Why won't you have a blood transfusion?

Adam: Because it's wrong.

Fiona: Go on...

Adam: God has told us it's wrong.

Fiona: Why is it wrong?

Adam: Why is anything wrong, My Lady? We just know it. Murder, torture, lying, being unfaithful in your marriage... and how do we just know it? It's in our hearts. God has put it there.

Fiona: Is transfusion like torture?

Adam: They're both wrong. I wish I could make you see this. Blood isn't just a biological thing and it isn't just a symbol. It's life itself. It's what we are.

And that's it. That's pretty much the argument, from the proverbial horse's mouth, other than a court scene with Adam's father repeating the same ideology about blood. No-one points out that murder, torture, lying and infidelity are all inherently destructive actions arising from selfish behaviour and resulting in a victim. No-one asks how saving the life of a terminally-ill person is a similarly malicious act. No-one asks if, by extension, all surgery, medical treatments and medications are therefore equally sinful as they're interfering with God's pre-laid lifespan. No-one asks if God might actually want His subjects to be around for a little longer, so that they can do more of His good work than they would otherwise be able. No-one points out that if blood is so sacrosanct and what makes us special, why aren't Jehovah's Witnesses all strict vegans (or at least strict vegetarians), since animals have been given blood, too. Do animals not count? Is that it? Was Noah wasting his time, then? Yeah?

None of this is addressed because the film called 'The Children Act' is about a middle-aged person elsewhere having a domestic breakdown. Which is fine, but don't frame the whole movie like it's got some greater meaning... ^{[ BACK ]}

*⁴ At one point, Maye talks about Newcastle being the only place where she was "wild and free". And yet upon arriving in the jewel of the North East, our favourite judge doesn't immediately head down to the Bigg Market and glass someone in a way she knows will be legally watertight. Another opportunity wasted. ^{[ BACK ]}

*⁵ Today's audience-participation consisted of two walkouts during Slender Man and four walkouts during BlacKkKlansman. Meanwhile, The Children Act made up the numbers somewhat by having four late arrivals - all 'seniors'. The latter pair of these arrived twenty minutes into the film. Twenty minutes. That's 47 minutes after the time on the website, the foyer-screen and indeed the ticket itself. Who in the name of actual fuck looks at their ticket, their watch, notices the disparity of just under an hour and then thinks 'yeah it's okay, we probably haven't missed anything important'? ^{[ BACK ]}

DISCLAIMERS:
• ^^^ That's dry, British humour, and most likely sarcasm or facetiousness.
• Yen's blog contains harsh language and even harsher notions of propriety. Reader discretion is advised.
• This is a personal blog. The views and opinions expressed here represent my own thoughts (at the time of writing) and not those of the people, institutions or organisations that I may or may not be related with unless stated explicitly.

Review: Dunkirk

Dunkirk
Cert: 12A / 106 mins / Dir. Christopher Nolan / Trailer



Well it's hard for me to absolutely rave over Dunkirk, not least since all I've seen for the last fortnight is pull-quotes telling me how life-altering an experience it would be, setting the bar unreasonably high. It's not. It's very good and certainly a unique film, but while he thankfully steers clear of the open-goal mawkishness of the genre, Nolan's project almost feels held back by its run-time and Certificate 12A compliance*¹. This is a beautiful looking piece of work, with Hoyte Van Hoytema's cinematography and the outstanding sound design stealing the show from the on-screen performers*² (Hans Bjnerno's aerial camerawork is particularly balletic).

The film follows three groups of people (beginning separately one week, one day and one hour before the Dunkirk evacuation) as their story threads gradually intertwine in the heat of battle. A British soldier desperately trying to leave the beach before attacking enemy aircraft kill him and his comrades, a small pleasure cruiser which sets off from Weymouth to assist in the rescue mission, and a trio of Spitfire pilots headed across the English Channel to help take out the attacking Nazi forces. Chronologically it's not a 'regular' film, and I felt a little resistance from the audience I was seated with*³, particularly since once the timelines begin to converge it briefly makes less sense, not more. Overall, while the period-detail is exquisite here*⁴, the story is more about feeling and tension, and the realising (of course) that the people who lived through those moments didn't know how it would all turn out.

But I particularly liked that a film of this scale only ever tells its stories from an individual (or small group) perspective. The grandiose morale-boosting and general flag-waving of most war epics is all but absent. If anything, the film succeeds thoroughly in presenting the misery and confusion of armed conflict. Dunkirk is to the war-movie genre what It Comes At Night is to horror; eschewing the tradition of self-contained narratives to be more of a visual tone-poem.

Unusually for Nolan's work, I'd have preferred the film to be about half an hour longer, or at least more tightly knit, to do more justice to the individual unfolding stories.

Although if we'd had that extra screen-time, I'm pretty sure it would have gone towards an extension of Sugary-Tom's Scenic Sky-Tours…

[ Spoilery-bit: highlight to read ]
Seriously though, not withstanding the question of 'could a Spitfire glide for that long after its engine has cut out?', what's Tom's game here? I'd assumed he was trying to keep the plane in one piece and land it for repair and re-use, since it had only ran out of fuel. But then he gently lands on the far end of the beach, torches it and awaits capture by Ze Germans. If he's trying to keep the machinery out of enemy hands, why not just parachute out earlier and let it crash? Plus, if he'd bailed out by the pier, Commander Branagh could have picked him up instead of an armed Nazi escort. Because there's no fucking way they're letting him live after his antics up there.



Difficult to say as I've not really seen anything like this, tonally.



For the big screen and big sound, absolutely.



I have absolutely no doubt that this is the film Christopher Nolan wanted to make, and that is a great thing.



Nope; Inception.



Nope.



Not that I heard.
Poor show.



Level 2: Not including a plethora of level-1 stunt performers, this film stars that Mark Rylance, and he's in the upcoming Ready Player One alongside Ben 'Krennic' Mendelsohn, Hannah 'First Order Officer' John-Kamen and Simon 'Plutt' Pegg.





*¹ Is it wrong of me to want a 15-rated version of this film? To really ramp up the carnage? I wasn't expecting Hacksaw Ridge, but there's a film that doesn't flinch from the terror of warfare. ^{[ BACK ]}

*² While the ensemble cast are on generally fine form here (even Tom 'The Mumbler' Hardy who - naturally - is given a flight-mask to talk through), I can't not say that Mark Rylance plays civilian rescuer Mr Dawson like it's the first time he's read his lines, and Barry Keoghan plays his young charge George like he hasn't been given a script. Both are far better than this and the film succeeds in spite of them, not because.
There. I said it. ^{[ BACK ]}

*³ Bless them though, I've moaned about the cinema-etiquette of senior audiences in the past, but this lot were on best behaviour. Not a rustling wrapper or mid-movie conversation to be heard. ^{[ BACK ]}

*⁴ Although as I was leaving, I overheard one patron saying to her friends "the only thing was, the seats on that train in the end looked too modern!", referencing a post-evacuation scene back in Blighty. It was all I could to to keep myself from interjecting 'That's probably because you've sat on them. Train companies were still running that same stock (albeit refurbished) in and out of London until the late 1990s'. I'm not even a train geek, I just used to commute on the rattly bastards… ^{[ BACK ]}

DISCLAIMERS:
• ^^^ That's dry, British humour, and most likely sarcasm or facetiousness.
• Yen's blog contains harsh language and even harsher notions of propriety. Reader discretion is advised.
• This is a personal blog. The views and opinions expressed here represent my own thoughts (at the time of writing) and not those of the people, institutions or organisations that I may or may not be related with unless stated explicitly.