The Children Act review

 Rating : 3/5
The Children Act review – flaws in Ian McEwan’s novel are cruelly exposed

Emma Thompson does her best as a high court judge called upon to make a life-or-death decision, but she can’t do anything about the preposterous plot

There is no questioning the angular complexity of the central character study, with all its unexpected harmonics and discords. Eminent high court judge Fiona Maye (superbly inhabited by Emma Thompson) is given to brusque certainties – her decisions in life are as final and binding as those she makes in court. There is a steely elegance to her; she’s an ermine robe with the claws still showing. Fiona is dedicated to and consumed by her job, at the expense of her marriage to academic Jack (Stanley Tucci). There’s a terrific scene early on when Jack is trying to tempt her away from work – a ruling on a pair of conjoined twins – with offers of dinner and theatre tickets. Fiona, oblivious, reads aloud: “Michael’s heart is normal and sustains them both.” She might as well be describing her marriage. Jack’s announcement that he is planning to have an affair coincides with one of the most difficult cases of her career.

Adam (Fionn Whitehead) is a 17-year-old boy who is refusing a life-saving blood transfusion on religious grounds. Fiona takes the unexpected decision to visit him in hospital; this brief, intense encounter sears itself into both their lives. She rules that he must receive the transfusion. The piano score tinkles, prim and plaintive.

But Adam feels that Fiona’s intervention at this moment links their fates. He starts sending her over-masticated poetry and leaving needy messages on her phone. He stalks her; he practically offers himself up for adoption. And this is where the story stumbles. These actions don’t feel like those of a teenage cancer survivor. They are a contrived plot device rather than the behaviour of a flesh-and-blood person. Adam’s instability serves to knock Fiona off kilter – and gives Thompson some of her meatiest scenes – but it does so at the expense of much of the picture’s sober credibility.

we have a small favour to ask. More people are reading the Guardian than ever but advertising revenues across the media are falling fast. And unlike many news organisations, we haven’t put up a paywall – we want to keep our journalism as open as we can. So you can see why we need to ask for your help. The Guardian’s independent, investigative journalism takes a lot of time, money and hard work to produce. But we do it because we believe our perspective matters – because it might well be your perspective, too.

The Guardian is editorially independent, meaning we set our own agenda. Our journalism is free from commercial bias and not influenced by billionaire owners, politicians or shareholders. No one edits our Editor. No one steers our opinion. This is important because it enables us to give a voice to the voiceless, challenge the powerful and hold them to account. It’s what makes us different to so many others in the media, at a time when factual, honest reporting is critical.

If everyone who reads our reporting, who likes it, helps to support it, our future would be much more secure. For as little as £1, you can support the Guardian – and it only takes a minute. Thank you.