To feel like the character of Jill in It's A Sin was really underdeveloped? ***Spoiler alert - added by MNHQ***

[Draineddraineddrained]

Just binged this show with DP over last couple of evenings and LOVED it (heartbreaking though it was) - but this just got to me...

I mean I don't find it unrealistic that a (presumably?) straight girl would be best friends with a group of gay men and become a huge advocate for them and an AIDS activist - my mum did similar back in the 80s, and I wish like anything she was still alive because she would have thought this show was amazing.

But she was also a full human being with her own life, relationships (mostly dire), failings and priorities - whereas Jill just seems like a sort of motherly cipher, there to hold everyone else together without any normal human feelings beyond extreme empathy and compassion. She feels like a fantasy of what a woman should be to men - completely supportive, undemanding, cares more for them than they do for themselves.

The horrible scene in the last episode where Ritchie's mum rips into her for having no life of her own - it was horrible but I couldn't help but think she had s point and was hoping that some "real" Jill might emerge as a result of this challenge - but no, she just continued to live her life for Ritchie and the other men in the show, even finding strangers to devote her compassion to.

Anyone else just find it really disappointing? I mean the story (clearly) is about gay men and what they went through during the height of the aids crisis. And that is an important story told with beauty and sensitivity. But why include a female character in that, ostensibly as a lead character, just to utterly marginalise and charicature her?

YABU: Jill's a great character/she's not what matters in this show

YANBU: She should have been done right or not at all.

Yes Ritchie's the main focus. But I think in a drama you also need a bit of tension and conflict. When I think about on-screen friendships I think of pairings like Butch and Sundance or Rachel and Monica or Frasier and Roz or Arnott and Fleming. They're close and they love each other, but there's a bit of needle going on too, and I think that's what keeps it interesting for the viewer. I can't recall any needle or tension between Ritchie and Jill and, while there are real life friendships like this and that thrive, this is meant to be a tv spectacle and, for me, there's something missing.

@Floisme

Yes Ritchie's the main focus. But I think in a drama you also need a bit of tension and conflict. When I think about on-screen friendships I think of pairings like Butch and Sundance or Rachel and Monica or Frasier and Roz or Arnott and Fleming. They're close and they love each other, but there's a bit of needle going on too, and I think that's what keeps it interesting for the viewer. I can't recall any needle or tension between Ritchie and Jill and, while there are real life friendships like this and that thrive, this is meant to be a tv spectacle and, for me, there's something missing.

See I think there was a bit of tension shown between them. Not sure which episode but I remember her shouting at him and the others at the table when she realises how much they are sleeping around and with each other with such a massive risk about.

She also has a heated discussion with Roscoe about him not attending the protest and implies he should be doing it for Colin.

I do think the show probably suffered a bit when it was cut from 8 episodes to 5. Maybe we would have seen more fleshing out of all of the characters if they'd had that time.

I think that's in the second episode? I remember that and thought it was quite a telling moment and that it might lead to Jill asserting herself a bit more, and even to a bit of conflict. But it seemed to be a one off. Admittedly I haven't got to the end yet, and may not bother now I know what happens, which is my fault entirely for opening the thread

Sos Bibidy cross posted - that was a reply to your point about tension or lack of.

I don’t, but there’s a similar conversation going on in another It’s a Sin thread. I don’t think if as Jill’s story, so think it’s fine we know less about her as a person. Others disagree.

Does anyone know whether it was cut to five pre or post production?

Wondered if we might see an extended version in the future...

Not sure which episode but I remember her shouting at him and the others at the table when she realises how much they are sleeping around and with each other with such a massive risk about

It wasn't really shouting. More mild annoyance. The same when Ritchie told her he'd knowingly slept with others after he was infected without using protection. It was a 'tsk' at best.

No, Jill saved all her ire for Ritchie's mum on the pier. Everything was Val's fault apparently The more I think about this, the more it pisses me off.

Does anyone know whether it was cut to five pre or post production?

Pre, I think - it was pitched as 8, but only 5 got commissioned. I'm not sure why - Queen As Folk had 8 eps in its first series and that was a million years ago. But then I am not the audience sector they would be worried that people would complain from. I don't know when it was filmed, either. Lockdown screwed up lots of TV planning.

Jill saved all her ire for Ritchie's mum on the pier.

But perhaps if she'd been able to see Ritchie before he died, she might not have. IME, with cancer rather than AIDS, when someone you're valise this terminally ill, there's a lot of rage about, mostly with just the shittiness of the situation, and you can't do anything that changes the inevitability of it and you can't shout at the person who is dying, so you end up taking it on whoever else happens to be nearest - which in my mother's case was me, and in Jill and Val's case was each other.

@ThisIsSimplyBeyond

Does anyone know whether it was cut to five pre or post production?

Wondered if we might see an extended version in the future...

Pre production, it has taken a few years for it to be commissioned.

@AndreaMarteau

Not sure which episode but I remember her shouting at him and the others at the table when she realises how much they are sleeping around and with each other with such a massive risk about

It wasn't really shouting. More mild annoyance. The same when Ritchie told her he'd knowingly slept with others after he was infected without using protection. It was a 'tsk' at best.

No, Jill saved all her ire for Ritchie's mum on the pier. Everything was Val's fault apparently The more I think about this, the more it pisses me off.

I think the speech on the pier was symbolic and was meant to be about more than just Val and Ritchie.

It was about how all parents like Val and her husband - and society as a whole - had been forcing their gay children underground by making them feel dirty and wrong, which in turn pushed them towards embracing the gay scene at the time. She was saying that because of the rejection/pretend ignorance of their families the gay community became the only place many felt accepted and loved, where they could be themselves.

OP I absolutely agree!! What 2 dimensional, bland carer/nun role she got. It wouldn't have detracted at all from the main plot or characters for her to a sexual being too - or even have a single thing happen to her in the whole series instead of reactive actions entirely related to the Male characters.
I couldn't find any critic mention any of this! Glad someone else saw it too .

I read this thread with a great deal of personal interest. My eldest son is gay and at times (watching on All4), I had to pause playing as it was getting too much and I was in floods of tears.

Thoughts- I do not think that RTD is in any way a misogynist and writes badly for women. My understanding is that he was a strong advocate for the first female Dr Who (against strong opposition), and if you look at his other work (Years and Years in particular), there are strong female characters in abundance.

I think Jill is supportive, and caring, and I would have liked to have seen her more developed as a character, but then I could have doubled this mini series to ten episodes, and still felt there was more to draw from it. So many questions, What does Jill do next? What do Ritchie's parents do? Do they adjust and reconcile with Jill? etc. I do not think it will happen, but a second series would be great.

For those of you who see the parental reactions as being unreasonable, I am afraid even today they are not. Charities such as AKT (www.akt.org.uk) support thousands of gay youngsters forced to leave home when they come out as gay. It is worth reading some of the current stories on their website.

In the 1980s it was even worse. In many jobs you could be sacked if you were gay (police, armed services, schools) and some of the media articles in the likes of the Daily Mail were deeply homophobic as in off the scale. Gay pubs were often raided (Paul O'Grady as Lilly Savage tells of the night the police raided the Vauxhall Tavern whilst he was on stage, turning up in rubber gloves and riot gear, oh look says Lilly the police have turned up to help with the washing up...).

Oh I agree RTD has written some great female characters. I just don't think Jill is one of them unfortunately, which is kind of a shame when there's a real person involved.

I don't think extra episodes would have made any difference because I agree with previous posters that RTD was possibly inhibited by his friendship with the real Jill. I imagine it was like trying to write about your mum - how do you make her interesting without invading her privacy or upsetting her?

My son told me to watch Years and Years - how are the female characters in that?

I think Jill was just a plot device too, loosely based on RTD's friend - apparently the Pink Palace was so called because when she moved into it everything was pink, even the sofa.
But it was more they told their stories through her. I do remember wondering why she was never shown in a relationship with anyone though and I think Ash was very underused. We never really learnt much about him.

How fantastic were the performances of Olly Alexander and Callum Scott Howells though? And the cameo by the American guy Neil Patrick Harris was very moving too

It's going to America next with HBO on 18 Feb - could well make them stars!

@bringbacksideburns Years and Years is fantastic, but again a very emotional watch. If you watch it now and consider when it was made you’ll realise it accidentally predicted some big and interesting things.

Olly is a fantastic actor, people forget that Years and Years was originally intended as a side gig/something to keep him busy.

Years and Years was great but you will cry. I'm still not over episode four.

For those of you who see the parental reactions as being unreasonable, I am afraid even today they are not. Charities such as AKT (www.akt.org.uk) support thousands of gay youngsters forced to leave home when they come out as gay. It is worth reading some of the current stories on their website.

YY, I agree.

I think a lot of people imagine that there is 'no stigma any more' (in fact I'm sure I've seen that exact phrase on MN). It's just not true at all.

I'm also fairly sure people still get sacked (and people certainly get rejected at interview) because they are perceived to be 'too gay'. In much the same way that merely making it illegal to discriminate against pregnant women hasn't actually stopped people doing it in practice. It's depressing.

@bringbacksideburns - YY, their acting was amazing! I really loved the way Neil Patrick Harris sold that story of him and his partner being treated nicely by their neighbours and his partner's mother, and you could just feel how he really thought homosexuality was starting to become accepted. Then there was a one liner from one of the neighbours that showed it was all wishful thinking. Very sad.

I really loved the way Neil Patrick Harris sold that story of him and his partner being treated nicely by their neighbours and his partner's mother, and you could just feel how he really thought homosexuality was starting to become accepted. Then there was a one liner from one of the neighbours that showed it was all wishful thinking.

And in the way that Juan's mother came and took him home, leaving Henry all alone and denying them their final days together as if a thirty year relationship meant nothing to her.

I think you set up a false dichotomy. Jill’s character was great, and she really mattered in the show.

But it did focus primarily on the elements of Jill’s life that were most relevant to gay men and AIDS, because ultimately that was what the story was about.

I remember there was still a lot of prejudice and ignorance in the 90s. One of my first jobs when I was 15 was glass collecting in a bar and they had lots of rules around cleaning up blood and other bodily fluids. If someone had an accident or a fight or was sick or whatever and there was clean-up to be done it was policy that whoever did it had to wear gloves, a mask, and an apron. You had to sign your details in the accident book along with details of what you cleaned up and you got an extra £5 in your pay that was listed on the little envelope as "hazard duties". I remember a man coming in for an interview and when he left the bar steward said he wasn't hiring him as he was a

@FoxyTheFox

I really loved the way Neil Patrick Harris sold that story of him and his partner being treated nicely by their neighbours and his partner's mother, and you could just feel how he really thought homosexuality was starting to become accepted. Then there was a one liner from one of the neighbours that showed it was all wishful thinking.

And in the way that Juan's mother came and took him home, leaving Henry all alone and denying them their final days together as if a thirty year relationship meant nothing to her.

Yes! That was awful.

But, again, it still happens a lot. A lot of care homes will tell you they have no LGBT residents (and they do, but people have gone back into the closet because they're too afraid of discrimination). Or you get families who disapprove, and when elderly relatives start to need support, they just split them up.

I'm out of here soon because I'm getting far too invested in this - which is a compliment to RTD and everyone involved. But just want to add that I really don't understand the viewpoint that there was no need to flesh out Jill's character because it wasn't her story.
I think well drawn characters always enhance a drama. Pride and Prejudice isn't Mrs Bennett's story but it would be diminished without her character. (And before anyone says again that there were only 5 episodes - the Andrew Davies P&P dramatisation was in 6 episodes, and the Keira Knightley / Matthew McFadyen film was about 2 hours 15 so done in half the time RTD had.)

@ParlezVousWronglais

I think you set up a false dichotomy. Jill’s character was great, and she really mattered in the show.

But it did focus primarily on the elements of Jill’s life that were most relevant to gay men and AIDS, because ultimately that was what the story was about.

My thoughts entirely 👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻

Plus I’m not seeing any of the “real” Jills of the time saying that there should have been more to her character. What was included of her was what was most important to the story and portrayed really well.