Television Adolescence (Netflix)

So finished it. It was OK. The one shot take was pointless after episode 1 and became an annoying gimmick.. Technically impressive but it started to really take me out of the story, things at times felt it was killing for time and the actors seemed on edge with their performance (as in actors acting not the role) Other times the actors were reminding the others of their lines. Best acting was episode 3., the lad and Stephen Graham are head and shoulders above the rest.

I think as well having knowledge of industry techniques and equipment doesn't help. I love the Cooke sp3's. The rolling shutter on some shots was awful and the gimbal porpoising, again distracted me.

Don't get me wrong I enjoyed it but it could have been a lot better.
 
Gambit said:
So finished it. It was OK. The one shot take was pointless after episode 1 and became an annoying gimmick.. Technically impressive but it started to really take me out of the story, things at times felt it was killing for time and the actors seemed on edge with their performance (as in actors acting not the role) Other times the actors were reminding the others of their lines. Best acting was episode 3., the lad and Stephen Graham are head and shoulders above the rest.

I think as well having knowledge of industry techniques and equipment doesn't help. I love the Cooke sp3's. The rolling shutter on some shots was awful and the gimbal porpoising, again distracted me.

Don't get me wrong I enjoyed it but it could have been a lot better.
Click to expand...
Really disagree with your review, which is obviously fine. But I can’t help but notice how you were already down on the show before you had even watched it, and now you’re seen it you didn’t rate it.
 
Posh Red said:
Really disagree with your review, which is obviously fine. But I can’t help but notice how you were already down on the show before you had even watched it, and now you’re seen it you didn’t rate it.
Click to expand...
I wasn't down on the show, just the conversation around it I'd read in articles.online. I really liked episode 1, and I thought it was going to be a great series especially how everyone was raving about it. Episode 2 though it went downhill for me. Picked up slightly in 3. That young lad can fecking act. The one shot became to distracting for me. For me it had no purpose after episode 1. I'd have preferred they'd have introduced some editing.

I work in the industry and some technical things jump out and take me out of the story. Also I guess personal taste. I adore Denis Villeneuve films, some people find them boringly long. Different strokes different folks etc.

I prefer were a one shot take is done with true purpose to elevate the story. The hectic experience of a family watching their son arrested to the evidence was fantastic and the right choice. Constant building tension and confusion with the family as were swept up in it all. Episode 2 no. Some of the shots like the end of ep 2 from the school to the drone to the carpark would have been more impactful if that was a one take finale shot from a tighter edited story.

I understand the premise of what they were doing but once the technical premise doesn't elevate the story it becomes gimmick and makes some of story seem to only have a purpose to extend the gimmick

Again I thought it was OK. Just not great.
 
Bury Red said:
The difference being that heavy metal, computer games, slasher films and gangster rap were all forms of art created purely for entertainment that didn't actually have any agenda in terms of changing the minds of a specific portion of the population, they were merely the scapegoat du jour of the tabloids to keep their readership scared. The creeping tide of online and now mainstream political voices bemoaning the victimisation of straight, white men through DEI, feminism, "Me Too", cancel culture and the great replacement theory are purely political ideologies aimed at creating a toxic environment in which young men in particular become radicalised and turn into misogynists, incels, racists and lucrative sources of income for grifters like Tate, Brand & Peterson and handy routes to power and thugs to help hold onto power for autocrats globally. Worth noting that the tabloids that called for bans on all the previous items destroying the minds of our youth now sit fully behind the attacks on woke culture, DEI etc.

It's not a gimmick or marketing ploy to sell a program here, it's 4 excellently made 1 hour vignettes into a recurring tragedy intended to spark a debate about the changes in how we receive information and how the incessant nature of social media can affect our children exacerbated by the gulf in knowledge between parents who grew up pre smart phone and their children.
Click to expand...
This take pleases me.
 
It wasn't an easy watch but really very good TV. The last episode was very different to the others in many ways but it did a terrific job of showing how such events echo and ripple through so many people's lives for a long long time.

My only criticism is that it was an episode or two (or 3 or 4) too short. I'd have liked more exploration of his mates input to events and maybe an episode from the victim's perspective. It could have gone to 10 episodes of course but with a show, shot in such a specific way, there is a danger of diluting it's excellence - sometimes less is more.
 
TrustInJanuzaj said:
It was a phenomenal show. I found myself staying up for hours afterwards to read thoughts, see the reaction etc. I think a lot of people who found it “boring” were just after another ‘who done it’ murder mystery without really understanding the wider point. I don’t have kids but it really is thought provoking in a unique way.

The only thing I’d have like to have seen explored a little more in this show is the weaponisation of feminism which goes hand in hand with the radicalisation of young lads and who turn to the crutch of the manosphere. They obviously highlighted the emoji’s and the online bullying but didn’t really explore why a young girl is using that language as a weapon. Not sure I’ve written that particularly clearly, but I think a missed opportunity.
Click to expand...

Not sure what point you would expect them to make about "the weaponisation of feminism".

But in the case of her deciding to use that particular language as a weapon, I assumed it was because she correctly judged him to be the sort of creepy misogynist who would ask out a girl who just had naked photos leaked because she was "weak". It's not like the show is shy about giving us reason to understand why he would be branded an incel.
 
sullydnl said:
Not sure what point you would expect them to make about "the weaponisation of feminism".

But in the case of her deciding to use that particular language as a weapon, I assumed it was because she correctly judged him to be the sort of creepy misogynist who would ask out a girl who just had naked photos leaked because she was "weak". It's not like the show is shy about giving us reason to understand why he would be branded an incel.
Click to expand...
A bit of victim blaming for the purposes of "balance"?
 
Jotun said:
I don't think there is anything good about social media for kids. I honestly think it should be banned for u18s.
Click to expand...

Interestingly there were articles just today about research published in the BMJ arguing against banning smartphones:

Writing in the British Medical Journal (BMJ), the collection of academics argued there is a lack of evidence that blanket bans helped children and such approaches were “stop-gap solutions” that “do little to support children’s longer-term healthy engagement with digital spaces across school, home, and other contexts, and their successful transition into adolescence and adulthood in a technology-filled world

Instead, the experts call for a rights-based approach to technology use, where children are better protected from harm by age-appropriate design and education while using technology to develop skills to help them participate in the modern, digital world.
Click to expand...
 
  • Like
Reactions: Wibble
sullydnl said:
Not sure what point you would expect them to make about "the weaponisation of feminism".

But in the case of her deciding to use that particular language as a weapon, I assumed it was because she correctly judged him to be the sort of creepy misogynist who would ask out a girl who just had naked photos leaked because she was "weak". It's not like the show is shy about giving us reason to understand why he would be branded an incel.
Click to expand...
Obviously the kid is an extreme example as he’s clearly got some serious issues. However it’s slightly disingenuous to put all the blame at the feet of online knobheads like Tate and the manosphere when a large part of the issue is young lads feeling like they don’t have a place, and actively vilified by large portions of the media. It’s that foundation that then leads the more extreme individuals (perhaps those already with existing issues) to find allies. They just don’t realise that the people they are turning too are the lowest of the low. It’s basically radicalisation 101.
 
One found it odd - The kid clearly had anger issues and low inhibitions when it came to certain triggers. One significant trigger appeared to be the loss of control, which became evident when he was told to sit down.

I am also unsure whether the murder was entirely premeditated or if it was an impulsive act of anger. Did he really carry the weapon with the full intent to kill her, or did he bring it to intimidate her, as his friend suggested, but then 'snapped' and ended up murdering her?

If it was the latter, it’s hard to believe that there weren't any outbursts at home. There should have been some incidents or displays of anger directed at his mother or sister that indicated his issues.
 
Last edited:
I'm not sure I've ever seen a TV show that felt as real, and that has affected me so deeply, as Adolescence.

I've just watched it with my folks. The last scene completely broke me. Further, the show had us talking for hours, in a way I don't think any other show ever has. I'm certain that this experience will be shared by thousands of viewers up and down the country.

One criticism that the show has received from some quarters is that there wasn't a conclusion that tied everything together. My belief is that this is precisely what made it so powerful, and I would go so far as to say that the addition of such a conclusion would be perhaps have been the single worst thing that the producers could've done to this programme. I didn't feel as though you needed to see Jamie sent down and whether or not he ever showed remorse, whether his family ever truly came to terms with what he did, what their life was like afterwards because none of that would've addressed the very real societal issues being portrayed in the show. Ultimately, whatever happened to Jamie or his family in the aftermath of his sentencing, there would still be millions of boys and men unable to express their feelings in a healthy manner, and there would still be an endless stream of online content amplifying their worst tendencies.

I'm not far out of adolescence myself, and even more recently I worked in my old secondary school as a learning support worker. An uncomfortable truth of the programme for me is that, whilst Jamie's crime was obviously extreme, the way he was acting and the beliefs he was espousing would not have set him apart as being radically different from a load of the boys I grew up alongside, and a load of the ones I supported in class too. If Jamie had been some purely evil, one-in-a-million pyschopath child who was destined to be a killer from the start, I think the show would have been a lot less uncomfortable and a lot less thought-provoking because it'd be much easier to rationalize him as such and you wouldn't be left having to confront the terrifying reality that there are millions of boys and men across the world with the same pent-up rage, the same self-loathing, the same feelings of entitlement towards women, all consuming the same content reinforcing these tendencies by the same online grifters making millions out of male resentment and desperation.
 
What do you mean there was no conclusion?

The rages that his dad was on were the contributing factor

The way his mom behaved never standing up to the dad

Parents not checking in on kids

Dads having big influence on sons “he idolized you” especially if the kids feel like they were not living up to the expectations which was laid out in ep 3

The way the anger outbursts were happening in ep 2 and the environment how to handle issues (with yelling)

Everything is there.

I hate the single take. Spent 10-15 min on the phone on some of episodes when they were drawing out scenes.
 
Just completed episode 3. Red flag after red flag after red flag.
 
Alek M said:
What do you mean there was no conclusion?

The rages that his dad was on were the contributing factor

The way his mom behaved never standing up to the dad

Parents not checking in on kids

Dads having big influence on sons “he idolized you” especially if the kids feel like they were not living up to the expectations which was laid out in ep 3

The way the anger outbursts were happening in ep 2 and the environment how to handle issues (with yelling)

Everything is there.

I hate the single take. Spent 10-15 min on the phone on some of episodes when they were drawing out scenes.
Click to expand...
I agree that everything is there. All you've said was laid out throughout the show, and much more. On top of what you've mentioned, there was also Jamie's obvious feelings of self-loathing and inadequacy because he doesn't live up to his idea of a "proper man". There was also the impact of social media and the "manosphere", fanning the flames of this insecurity which manifested in feelings of entitlement and resentment towards women.

When I say there was "no conclusion", what I mean is that nobody in the show gave a definitive conclusion to the question of why Jamie did what he did. You're never told what the psychiatrist in episode three wrote about him. You don't see him sentenced in court. Ultimately, the audience is left to piece it together from what we are shown, and that has provoked important discussion about the very real impact that the issues portrayed in the show are having in today's society and what we might do about them.
 
Mmm-Qatarian said:
I agree that everything is there. All you've said was laid out throughout the show, and much more. On top of what you've mentioned, there was also Jamie's obvious feelings of self-loathing and inadequacy because he doesn't live up to his idea of a "proper man". There was also the impact of social media and the "manosphere", fanning the flames of this insecurity which manifested in feelings of entitlement and resentment towards women.

When I say there was "no conclusion", what I mean is that nobody in the show gave a definitive conclusion to the question of why Jamie did what he did. You're never told what the psychiatrist in episode three wrote about him. You don't see him sentenced in court. Ultimately, the audience is left to piece it together from what we are shown, and that has provoked important discussion about the very real impact that the issues portrayed in the show are having in today's society and what we might do about them.
Click to expand...
Agreed. You draw your conclusions from watching and listening to what's been said, there isn't a big closing concluding wrapped up nicely final scene as such
 
Is it wrong that I really empathised with Jamie? He was a lonely kid with low self esteem. Hard not to imagine that could apply to half of us.

arnie_ni said:
Agreed. You draw your conclusions from watching and listening to what's been said, there isn't a big closing concluding wrapped up nicely final scene as such
Click to expand...
I like shows that are a little open ended and force you to interpret what's happening. It's better than one where the main character just spells out what the message is like it's a children's tv show. That always reminds me of Kyle in South Park
 
Tyrion said:
Is it wrong that I really empathised with Jamie? He was a lonely kid with low self esteem. Hard not to imagine that could apply to half of us.
Click to expand...
I'd argue that it's precisely this that makes Adolescence so fantastic. There isn't a single character in it who acts as the "big bad guy". There isn't a moment where it's revealed that Jamie's a complete psychopath, or that his dad was a deeply violent abuser. Some people might argue that Jamie's violent outbursts in episode 3 serve that purpose but I'm not sure I agree. Whilst I agree that those outbursts would be extreme for anyone, when I worked as a learning support worker in a secondary school I saw plenty of boys who would act out in rage like Jamie did in that episode.

Whilst what Jamie did is obviously evil, and the show never tries to present it as otherwise, I believe the show very deliberately does not try to present any of its characters as purely evil or unsympathetic people. In doing so, it forces viewers to confront the unsettling truth that there are plenty of boys and men around the world with the same feelings of inadequacy as Jamie, harbouring the same resentments that Jamie has, and fuelled by the same online content that Jamie is.
 
Mmm-Qatarian said:
I'd argue that it's precisely this that makes Adolescence so fantastic. There isn't a single character in it who acts as the "big bad guy". There isn't a moment where it's revealed that Jamie's a complete psychopath, or that his dad was a deeply violent abuser. Some people might argue that Jamie's violent outbursts in episode 3 serve that purpose but I'm not sure I agree. Whilst I agree that those outbursts would be extreme for anyone, when I worked as a learning support worker in a secondary school I saw plenty of boys who would act out in rage like Jamie did in that episode.

Whilst what Jamie did is obviously evil, and the show never tries to present it as otherwise, I believe the show very deliberately does not try to present any of its characters as purely evil or unsympathetic people. In doing so, it forces viewers to confront the unsettling truth that there are plenty of boys and men around the world with the same feelings of inadequacy as Jamie, harbouring the same resentments that Jamie has, and fuelled by the same online content that Jamie is.
Click to expand...

I'd say Jamie's "I could have touched her but I didn't" was extremely chilling.
 
Scarlett Dracarys said:
I just felt very very sad at the end. I didn't expect to be crying on my couch at 2am. Our children are not safe out there. There are so many things that can negatively influence them so easily and it's all because they are confused and need guidance. It's a tough world and they need our protection and attention because in the blink of an eye things can shift. We have to stay vigilant and they just need our time.
Click to expand...
Yep, kept thinking of one of my nieces who's the same age as these kids.
 
nimic said:
I'd say Jamie's "I could have touched her but I didn't" was extremely chilling.
Click to expand...
It was absolutely extremely chilling. Again, though, I guess my point was that what's even more chilling to me is that I believe a terrifying number of boys and men have attitudes towards women that aren't fundamentally that dissimilar to the ones that Jamie expresses in the show.

I'm absolutely not for a moment saying that the things Jamie was saying in episode 3 are normal. What I am saying is that the likes of Andrew Tate would not have the following they do if those were beliefs held only by boys and men on the extreme fringes of society, and that really is horrifying.
 
Mmm-Qatarian said:
I agree that everything is there. All you've said was laid out throughout the show, and much more. On top of what you've mentioned, there was also Jamie's obvious feelings of self-loathing and inadequacy because he doesn't live up to his idea of a "proper man". There was also the impact of social media and the "manosphere", fanning the flames of this insecurity which manifested in feelings of entitlement and resentment towards women.

When I say there was "no conclusion", what I mean is that nobody in the show gave a definitive conclusion to the question of why Jamie did what he did. You're never told what the psychiatrist in episode three wrote about him. You don't see him sentenced in court. Ultimately, the audience is left to piece it together from what we are shown, and that has provoked important discussion about the very real impact that the issues portrayed in the show are having in today's society and what we might do about them.
Click to expand...
Nice observation. My take why he did it is the the concoction of external and internal facors. His temper, father’s resentment, the parents lack of digging bit feelings “we made him”, the social networks, the school, friends and their influence. They way I read it people can be a ticking bomb that one or multiple issues can set them off.

I agree that having an episode on the friends and their discussions and views on girls would have been interesting, which may have contributed to a peet pressure to show his manlihood.
 
The weird lad in B&Q took me out of it a bit. Felt like he was from a completely different show..
 
Last edited:
Mockney said:
The weird lad in B&Q took me out of it a bit. Felt like he was from a completely difference show..
Click to expand...
Agree with you on that. It was the single moment in the show that took me out of it, I think.

For me, he was the only character in it who just didn't feel very real.
 
First episode was incredible stuff, but the other three bored me. The car park scene in the last episode was amusing though.

Graham is a great actor, shame he's a pool fan.
 
Just finished it and thought it was a good show. It became evident what the angle of the show was about pretty quickly, so I didn't come away from it expecting or necessarily wanting more.

It was interesting to see something from the perspective of the perpetrators family. Obviously the victim's angle is and always will take priority. I don't have kids, but I can only imagine it would be soul destroying to find out what your own child has done, especially as a child.
 
Mmm-Qatarian said:
Agree with you on that. It was the single moment in the show that took me out of it, I think.

For me, he was the only character in it who just didn't feel very real.
Click to expand...
Pexbo said:
Very “This is England” skit.
Click to expand...

Felt more like something out of a CSi, but I guess once you’re 40 minutes into a take and something doesn’t work you can’t exactly edit it out
 
Alek M said:
What do you mean there was no conclusion?

The rages that his dad was on were the contributing factor

The way his mom behaved never standing up to the dad

Parents not checking in on kids

Dads having big influence on sons “he idolized you” especially if the kids feel like they were not living up to the expectations which was laid out in ep 3

The way the anger outbursts were happening in ep 2 and the environment how to handle issues (with yelling)

Everything is there.

I hate the single take. Spent 10-15 min on the phone on some of episodes when they were drawing out scenes.
Click to expand...
I don't think any of those things are conclusions (or conclusive). Any or all of those things (and more) could well have contributed but all those things apply to kids who cope with them without resorting to murder.

And I couldn't look away, missing 10-15 mins anywhere in the 4 episodes would surely mean you missed lots stuff vital to the story?
 
The final episode driving around did seem drawn out and done for something other than story reasons. It was kind of a tech flex. I think oners in general can be very effective because you are allowing total immersion between actors , instead of breaking every 45 seconds. It’s also shot in 4 days instead of 40, so it’s presumably cheaper.
 
sullydnl said:
Interestingly there were articles just today about research published in the BMJ arguing against banning smartphones:
Click to expand...
They didn't name or link the article they quote from but it's this if anyone is interested...
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanepe/article/PIIS2666-7762(25)00003-1/fulltext

The Independent piece and the article they refer to is based on smartphone bans in schools. Not an outright ban for children to have one. Seems as daft as an article claiming a ban on age restricted smoking is pointless because schools banned smoking during school hours and children still smoke. So why not just let them smoke.

“However, approaches that focus on simply restricting access to devices can undermine children’s rights to technology design and education that will help them thrive as adults in today’s world.”

Rather than approaching the issue in the same way as banning people from smoking, the experts said a more “constructive” approach would be to look at how society has responded to safety concerns around cars.

“In response to increasing injuries and deaths from car crashes, rather than banning cars, society built an ecosystem of product safety regulations for companies (seatbelts, airbags) and consumers (vehicle safety tests, penalties), public infrastructure (traffic lights), and education (licences) to support safer use,” they said.

One of the responses to the safety concern around cars was to ban children from driving them. Then having to get a licence to drive one after you become an adult (or close enough).


Edit - I referred to the wrong article in error. This is the article the Independent quoted from.
https://www.bmj.com/content/388/bmj-2024-082569
 
Last edited:
Bert_ said:
The didn't name or link the article they quote from but it's this if anyone is interested...
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanepe/article/PIIS2666-7762(25)00003-1/fulltext

The Independent piece and the article they refer to is based on smartphone bans in schools. Not an outright ban for children to have one. Seems as daft as an article claiming a ban on age restricted smoking is pointless because schools banned smoking during school hours and children still smoke. So why not just let them smoke.

“However, approaches that focus on simply restricting access to devices can undermine children’s rights to technology design and education that will help them thrive as adults in today’s world.”

Rather than approaching the issue in the same way as banning people from smoking, the experts said a more “constructive” approach would be to look at how society has responded to safety concerns around cars.

“In response to increasing injuries and deaths from car crashes, rather than banning cars, society built an ecosystem of product safety regulations for companies (seatbelts, airbags) and consumers (vehicle safety tests, penalties), public infrastructure (traffic lights), and education (licences) to support safer use,” they said.

One of the responses to the safety concern around cars was to ban children from driving them. Then having to get a licence to drive one after you become an adult (or close enough).
Click to expand...

Are you sure that’s it? He mentioned the BMJ. The Lancet is a different journal.

Not that it matters. There’s a bunch of research on this. None of them very conclusive. Mainly because it’s such messy areas to research we’re probably never going to get consensus on any definitive solution.

I agree with you that the car analogy from the expert quoted in the Independent article completely misses the point.
 
Pogue Mahone said:
Are you sure that’s it? He mentioned the BMJ. The Lancet is a different journal.

Not that it matters. There’s a bunch of research on this. None of them very conclusive. Mainly because it’s such messy areas to research we’re probably never going to get consensus on any definitive solution.

I agree with you that the car analogy from the expert quoted in the Independent article completely misses the point.
Click to expand...
No, I was wrong. It was this one.
https://www.bmj.com/content/388/bmj-2024-082569

I've unintentionally (stupidly) just demonstrated an example of one of the pitfalls of social media. I'd already seen that Lancet article and when I read the Independent story @sullydnl posted, I automatically assumed it was referring to that. It wasn't but I jumped in anyway. Thankfully, it's just a random post on a side section of united forum that very few people will ever pay attention to.

Both articles are worth a read anyway, even if you disagree with their conclusions.
 
Kaush949 said:
Has there been an increase in sexual assault and violence towards woman since manosphere became a thing? On a per capita basis?
Click to expand...
It looks that way, though increased reporting has also upped the figures, this is from the Guardian in Feb this year

The prevalence of sexual assaults (the proportion of the population to have suffered an assault each year) increased from 3.4% of the population each year to 4.3% in 2023-24, while the prevalence of domestic abuse against women dropped from 9.2% to 7.4%, the report said. Police reports of rape and sexual assault increased from 34,000 to 123,000 over the same period, in part because of improved recording.
Click to expand...

The whole article is here, but the main theme is violence against women and girls is on the increase.
https://www.theguardian.com/society... against,Whitehall's spending watchdog has said.
 
Mockney said:
Felt more like something out of a CSi, but I guess once you’re 40 minutes into a take and something doesn’t work you can’t exactly edit it out
Click to expand...
They did do about 15-20 takes for each episode though, so they obviously thought that part was working, but agreed it was the one part that seemed tonally different to the rest of the show.
 
The unhinged swivel-eyed loon in the garden centre was probably the third most realistic thing about the show after the police being arseholes, and that school.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.