There is a moment early in John Madden’s Onwards and Sideways that contains the whole of what the film means to accomplish. Tony Evans, played by Rhys Ifans, is performing as Captain Hook in a primary school’s Christmas pantomime of Peter Pan. The stagecraft is benign, almost quaint—children in the audience giggling at the theatrical villainy. And then a young girl asks him a question that will change the trajectory of his life: why is his right hand frozen? Tony brushes it off. It’s theater, after all. The hand is part of the character, part of the artifice. But the question hangs in the air like a warning he cannot quite hear.
This is where the film begins, not with diagnosis but with denial. With the peculiar English instinct to soldier on, to treat the body’s betrayals as mere inconveniences to be managed with a cup of tea and a stiff upper lip. It takes his sister Liz—Monica Dolan, all exasperated certainty—to push him toward a neurologist. Professor Ridge, played with clinical compassion by Rory Kinnear, delivers the verdict: Parkinson’s disease. And then the doctor offers something worse than the diagnosis itself: a timeline. Five good years. Perhaps five years before the illness really takes hold.
It is at this precise juncture that Paul Mayhew-Archer’s screenplay performs its strangest and most essential magic. In the waiting area of the same medical building, at nearly the same hour, another stranger is receiving the same diagnosis. Emma Dretzin, a pianist and composer and single mother of two, has just learned that she too will spend the next five years watching her body negotiate with a disease that offers no redemption. The odds of this convergence are astronomical. And Madden, who has spent a career orchestrating moments of emotional precision in films like Shakespeare in Love and The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel, seized upon this improbability as the story’s generating principle. Two people, diagnosed on the same day, in the same place, who will then spend the next 115 minutes—and five years of diegetic time—learning what it means to be fundamentally altered by a truth they cannot escape.
The film’s genius lies in understanding that this synchronicity is not a sentimental device. It is a philosophy. Two strangers meet not at a moment of hope but at the precise moment when hope becomes irrelevant. They confide their shock and dismay in each other, sitting among pamphlets that offer guidance on how to live with something for which there is no solution. Emma introduces herself with the kind of humor that masks terror: “Emma with the tremma.” She is the apparent optimist of the pair, the one who will joke her way through catastrophe. Tony is the widower, a man who has already learned the language of loss but who has not had to speak it in several years. And in that fluorescent-lit room filled with the ambient dread of medical facilities everywhere, something shifts between them. They recognize in each other not a romance—not yet, perhaps not ever in the conventional sense—but a kind of recognition that transcends the normal protocols of human connection.
What follows is the precise substance of what makes this film remarkable: the way Madden and his two performers understand that performance is not something separate from reality but is, in fact, the only vehicle through which reality can be articulated when language fails.
Rhys Ifans brings to Tony Evans an almost devastating quietness, a sense of a man whose entire emotional vocabulary has been reduced to a series of small, precise gestures. As the film progresses across its five-year span—marked by increasingly dramatic title cards that function almost like stage directions—Ifans allows his physicality to become the text of the narrative. His limbs grow sticky, adhesive, resistant. His face stiffens into something that resembles a mask, though it is the opposite of theatrical artifice; it is the literal betrayal of the autonomic nervous system. And yet, within this diminishment, Ifans delivers what are perhaps some of the most quietly devastating performances of his career. The humor emerges not as relief but as defiance. The dry wit cuts through the accumulating horror of corporeal decline, and we find ourselves laughing at jokes we feel guilty for laughing at, which is precisely the film’s intention.
Ifans’s greatest achievement is in the way he expresses exhaustion—not the exhaustion of activity but the exhaustion of existing within a body that is actively becoming foreign to him. Watch his shoulders in the later scenes, the way they curve inward as if bracing against some internal storm. Watch his eyes, which retain their fullness long after his body has begun to calcify. This is a performer working at the peak of his craft, and what he communicates through silence and restraint is far more devastating than any monologue could be.
Laura Linney undertakes a performance of an entirely different register. Where Ifans channels internal collapse, Linney stages a public struggle against disintegration. She begins as the apparent cheerleader, the woman who will transform catastrophe into narrative, who will find meaning in meaninglessness. But Mayhew-Archer’s screenplay, informed by the writer’s own living experience with Parkinson’s, understands something crucial: optimism under siege inevitably corrodes. Linney charts this corruption with surgical precision. Her eyes perpetually plead with her body to remain compliant, to not fail her in the way she knows it will fail her. There is a particular cruelty in watching an actor of her caliber forced to inhabit a body in mutiny.
Emma’s gambling becomes the film’s most honest accounting of what happens when the mind tries to outrun the body’s diminishment. Medication affects impulse control. The future becomes so unbearable that she seeks the small dopamine hits of online betting, transforming one kind of loss into another, more controllable form of risk. It is a descent into self-destruction that could have been rendered as moral judgment, but Linney refuses that interpretation. Instead, she makes Emma’s addiction comprehensible as a form of resistance, a way of asserting agency in a situation where agency is being systematically removed.
The film’s most stunning sequence involves Emma giving a presentation to children about Parkinson’s disease. The scene is shot with an almost devastating seamlessness, and within a span of mere minutes, Linney manages to cycle through virtually every physical symptom of the disease. We watch her struggle with simple motor tasks, watch her voice fail, watch the tremor intensify. It is technical virtuosity in service of emotional truth, and it devastates because we understand that what we are witnessing is not performance in the traditional sense but rather the documented record of a body in crisis.
But here is where both Ifans and Linney transcend the machinery of the medical drama and reach toward something more spiritually resonant: they learn to love each other across the distance created by this shared catastrophe. They are bonded through trauma in a way that conventional romance cannot capture. They are, as Ifans himself described it, “welded together.” Tony emerges from decades of isolation into something like connection. Emma discovers that her relentless performance of optimism need not be solitary. They find in each other a kind of witness—someone who understands without explanation, someone who sees the full degradation and does not turn away.
The most affecting moments between them are not the scenes built for conventional drama but rather the small accumulations of presence. A hand held steadily. Eyes meeting and holding across a crowded room with an intensity that feels like soul recognition rather than romantic cliché. Madden, in perhaps his most restrained direction, allows these moments to exist without underlining, without the manipulative swell of Thomas Newman’s score, without the apparatus of sentiment. Two people, diminished by disease, finding that their combined diminishment somehow adds up to something that resembles wholeness.
The film does not believe in redemption through recovery. How could it? Parkinson’s offers no recovery. What Onwards and Sideways proposes instead is a far more radical idea: that the point of living is not to transcend suffering but to refuse its totalizing claim on meaning. That two people can meet at the moment of their diagnosis and, rather than accepting the narrative of decline, can insist instead on the possibility of connection. That the body’s betrayal need not result in the soul’s retreat.
This is the work that Mayhew-Archer, writing from within his own experience of the disease, has bequeathed to Madden and his performers. The film takes the writer’s lived knowledge and creates from it not a sermon but a testimony. It is a film that speaks directly to the accumulated grief of living with chronic illness, and it does so with a tenderness that never curdles into sentiment. The humor remains black, cutting, true. The emotion remains earned, specific, irreducible to platitude.
The architecture of their relationship unfolds across five years, marked by what feels almost like stage directions rendered as intertitles. We watch them repeatedly collide with each other—Emma giving a presentation at Tony’s primary school, their encounters becoming less coincidental and more inevitable. And with each meeting, the texture of their connection deepens. What begins as the recognition of shared catastrophe evolves into something more subtle and more profound: the mutual acknowledgment that presence itself is a form of resistance.
Tony, we learn, is a widower. The diagnosis arrives as an unexpected doorway out of the isolation in which he has been living. For years, he has occupied the role of the bereaved man, performed the part of someone managing loss. The Parkinson’s diagnosis gives him, paradoxically, a kind of permission to stop that performance and to actually live again, even if living now means confronting the reality that his body is becoming unreliable. Emma, by contrast, has never been allowed to stop performing. As a single mother of two, as a musician trying to maintain her career, as a woman navigating the world with the particular exhaustion that such roles demand, her entire existence has been constructed around the maintenance of an external facade. The diagnosis forces a reckoning she cannot indefinitely postpone or manage away.
It is here that Mayhew-Archer’s intimate knowledge of Parkinson’s becomes most apparent. The screenplay understands that the disease does not level all sufferers equally. Tony and Emma occupy different social positions, carry different histories, approach their diagnosis from entirely different angles. And yet the film insists on something that might seem dangerous or even false: that their suffering creates a kind of equality. Not the false equality of sentiment, but the radical equality of two people who have been reduced to a shared truth and who refuse to allow that reduction to be the final word.
Emma’s descent into gambling addiction is the film’s most unflinching moment. Medication affects impulse control; the future becomes unbearable; the present becomes a series of small risks that she can almost convince herself she controls. This is not the behavior of a heroine. Linney makes no attempt to soften it, to make it palatably tragic. Instead, she renders it as what it is: a reasonable, comprehensible response to an unreasonable situation. We watch her lose money. We watch the stress accumulate in her shoulders, in the way she avoids Tony’s gaze. We watch her choice to sabotage the very connection that has become the most sustaining element of her remaining life. And we understand, through Linney’s refusal to ask for forgiveness, that this too is part of the story of living with Parkinson’s. The disease does not ennoble. It does not make people better or wiser. It simply makes them smaller, more desperate, more afraid.
Tony’s response to Emma’s gambling is the film’s other crucial test. He does not abandon her. He does not stage an intervention or demand that she change. Instead, he bears witness to her deterioration with the quiet constancy that defines his performance throughout. This is where the notion of redemption becomes most complicated. Neither of them redeems the other in the traditional sense. They do not save one another from the disease or from their own worst impulses. What they do is far more fragile and far more real: they refuse to leave, even when leaving would be justified, even when the relationship demands more than either of them seems able to give.
The film’s visual language, largely understated and deliberately bright in a way that some critics have noted feels almost like high-end television, never becomes maudlin. Madden’s direction favors restraint over manipulation. There are no swelling strings at the moments of greatest emotional intensity. Instead, the camera simply holds on the two performers’ faces, on the accumulating physical toll of the disease, on the quiet decision to remain present that they make, again and again, in the face of diminishing returns.
There is a scene late in the film where Tony and Emma are dancing—a small act of defiance against everything their bodies are telling them. The dancing is not elegant. It is, if anything, painful to watch. But what makes it devastating is that neither of them is performing it for the camera, for the audience, for some external validation. They are dancing for each other, and more crucially, they are dancing in full acknowledgment that the dancing is becoming impossible. This is the essence of what the film means by the phrase in its title: onwards and sideways. Not a clear path forward, not a retreat into darkness, but rather a kind of oblique movement through space that honors both the forward momentum and the inevitable deviations, the sideways slippage that results from a body in crisis.
The most shattering moments between Ifans and Linney are, paradoxically, the quietest. A hand held across a table. Eyes meeting and maintaining contact across a crowded room. A laugh at a joke that only the two of them understand. These are the moments where redemption occurs—not in the grand gestures or the acts of self-sacrifice, but in the tiny, daily decisions to continue seeing each other, to continue mattering to each other, even as both become progressively more difficult to be around. This is the film’s profound moral insight: that love, under these circumstances, is almost entirely an act of will.
What Onwards and Sideways accomplishes through its two lead performances is nothing short of revolutionary for a film of its kind. It argues that presence itself is a form of redemption. That bearing witness to another person’s struggle, and allowing oneself to be witnessed in turn, constitutes a kind of salvation—not from illness but within it. That the five good years Tony was promised are not a countdown to death but an invitation to live with whatever intensity remains possible.
The title takes on additional resonance in retrospect. Onwards: the relentless forward motion of time, the inescapability of aging and decline. Sideways: the unexpected encounters, the collisions that change trajectory, the movements that seem random but which, upon reflection, feel authored by something like fate. The film is structured around the collision of these two forces—the inexorable and the contingent, the planned and the serendipitous, the individual trajectory and the connection that disrupts and rewrites that trajectory.
Ifans and Linney deliver performances that rank among the finest of their respective careers, not because they disappear into their roles but because they refuse to hide from the full weight of what those roles demand. They are devastatingly, almost unbearably present in every frame. What they communicate through the accretion of small gestures, through the physicality of decay, through the choice to love across an abyss of shared catastrophe, is something that extends far beyond the specific context of Parkinson’s disease. They articulate what it means to be human under conditions of extremity. They demonstrate that grace is not the absence of struggle but rather the choice to struggle in the presence of another person.
And in their presence, in their quiet defiance, in their willingness to love across the chasm of shared catastrophe, they offer something increasingly rare in cinema: an honest accounting of what it means to persist when persistence becomes the only form of rebellion available. The film does not promise that this persistence will be rewarded. It offers no sentimental resolution, no miraculous recovery, no transformation that would negate the reality of the diagnosis. What it does offer is the possibility that living, in full awareness of its limits, is enough. That connection, in full knowledge of its fragility, matters. That five years—or five days, or five hours—spent in genuine presence with another human being can constitute a life worth living.
This is Mayhew-Archer’s gift to cinema: a screenplay that trusts the audience to understand that tragedy and tenderness are not opposites, that they are, in fact, inseparable. And it is Madden and his two supreme performers’ gift to honor that screenplay by refusing any softening of its essential truth. Onwards and Sideways will not be for everyone. It asks its audience to sit with discomfort, to resist the narrative of inspiration that attends films about illness, to recognize that redemption is not about overcoming but about continuing to show up. But for those willing to meet it on its own terms, it offers a vision of human connection so honest and so achingly realized that it feels, against all odds, like a kind of hope.
Enjoyed This Story? Subscribe to EntertainLens for more entertainment insights.
