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.

But would they have thought it was silly and reckless, isn't that the point?

I thought that aspect was really plausible - you know, that they didn't need condoms because they weren't going to get anyone pregnant, and that it was great fun to be able to sleep around.

When the series starts it's still really recently that sodomy had been decriminalised, isn't it? 1967 for England and Wales, and 1980 for Scotland. So I don't think they'd have thought they were being silly any more than people in the free love era thought they were being silly.

I didn’t find her too 2D, as she had her musicals work and her research and campaigning.

According to the real Jill she was an amalgam of many female friends from the time so maybe that’s what people are picking up on, somehow that makes her less fleshed out?

For me, they each had a bit of their life shown, although maybe Ritchie and Colin got the most coverage. Ash the teacher only really had a bit of background apart from his sexual scenes with Ritchie.

The show wasn't meant to be her story but I agree a couple more episodes and to develop her a bit more would have been better

I agree DishedUp you've articulated that far better than I could have.

I think particularly as the show followed the group into their thirties, it was disappointing that Gill was the same; still devoting herself to her gay friends, making cups of tea and gazing at them all with wide eyed adoration, laughing indulgently at their graphic tales off sexual exploits but never really having any references to her love life.

I thought the same as a Op mentioned thread, that it would become apparent she had an unrequited love for Richie.

There was no suggestion of her having any separate life, or indeed any other emotion but pure self less devotion to a cause.

I loved the relationship Jill had with her own parents, there was def more that could have been done around that, another 3 episodes ( which was what it originally was meant to be) would have been great to explore the characters more. Best drama on TV for ages.

Presumably the real life "Jill" (Jill Nalder) who played fictional Jill's mother was happy with the depiction/interpretation of the role she played in the 1980's fighting for abs supporting the gay community.

To me, "It's a sin" was the story of Richie, Roscoe, Colin, Ash and many other gay young men who lost their families, friends or even their lives. To that end, Jill's story was secondary and very much a supporting role.

Absolutely fab series though.

But thats sort of the point @NeverTrustaRabbit, Jill wasn't really a supporting role. She was the main driver of the story, but had no personality outside of supporting the gay community.

When Ritchie told her he'd knowingly slept with men when HIV positive, if you'd dedicated 10 years of your life to helping men with Aids you would be fuming your best friend had done that. All that work she'd put in, but she wasn't. She didn't even flinch. Because she was just there to support the men

Without Jill the story would have just been boys sleeping around and then getting Aids. All the developments with relation to Aids in the group were down to Jill. All the legwork was because of Jill. And you never once saw her walking home with other friends, or emerge from her room with someone else.

I dunno, I assume she already knew he'd been sleeping with people after he knew he had HIV; they were all sharing a house.

She didn't flinch because she understood the shame associated with sex and being gay, because she was so close to the gay community. It wasn't a surprise to her, because so many were doing it. Gay men were still being treated as outcasts and HIV was a death sentence. It was such a complex thing for Richie to say, it's not black and white, and Jill knew that.

She was secondary, she pulled things together and helped show the fight against aids but she was a symbol of the work many women were doing around helping the community. She was still their very best friend too and her best friend was dying.

@DishedUp - we definitely view Jill's story arc very differently. To me, it isn't Jill's story. It is an exploration of gay life in the 1980's/90's. The focus should rightly be on the boys and men, their ups and downs, their denials, their acceptance and their fear and ultimate bravery.

I'm sure there were tears, anger and frustration from Jill and other women, in real life but they were not central to this storyline. However, Jill Nalder sounds a fascinating woman; an unsung hero and definitely worth knowing more about.

I've only watched the first two episodes but so far I agree her character is disappointingly undeveloped. I think she's the only main character whose sexuality I don't know, whose parents / family I haven't met. I've skimmed some posts to avoid spoilers so I guess this might change but I'm getting the impression it doesn't. She appears to be a literal example of a support human and, I'm sorry to say, very revealing of how some gay men view women.

Completely agree OP. She was just a support human and nothing more. No character development whatsoever. Apart from a bit of her on stage she might as well only been animated by the presence of the male characters.

The other thing that really annoyed me is the complete lesbian erasure. Where were the lesbians who were right with the gay men, nursing them when other nurses wouldn’t touch them; demonstrating with them and doing direct actions; looking after them and taking care of them?

As good as the show is, it’s completely dismissive of the women who were there at the time, and it erases lesbians altogether.

I haven’t read through the thread so this may have already be mentioned. The character or Jill was based on a real person, the actress who played Jill’s Mum in the show. There is a BBC article about it.

I agree with lots of the points here. I was pretty rubbish at sex/relationships in my 20s and had much less going on than many of my other friends, with years at a time of no sex or dating. But compared to Jill I was practically Casanova.

Totally agree the focus was rightly on the gay men... but just a couple of short scenes fleshing Jill out a bit would have made all the difference.

I assumed Jill to be a lesbian actually and kept expecting her to have more going on that just being 100% there for her fat friends at all times of day and night. I got really fed up with the lack of a story about her. But that's probably because I am a lesbian and find gay men often very misogynistic. BUT I loved It's A Sin and it really summed up the awful tragedy of AIDS.

Flat mates not fat mates. They really, sadly were not fat

I agree. It’s not so much she needed a boyfriend or girlfriend to make her something but a hint at a love life or what she wanted to be or do in life - we know she was on Les Mis but that was it. Her function on the show (and yes it’s not all about her but the creator of the show is saying the message is all about Be More Jill so I think it’s fair to say she’s vital to the whole programme) is just to support Ritchie et al and love him, even when he’s not being that loveable. She even buys the Pink Palace with Ritchie .. as what? Just some flat she’ll live in forever to facilitate Ritchie’s love life and partying? Other than when Ritchie jumps on the policeman for her their relationship seemed so one sided with her just giving and giving and giving.

Colin’s Mum I loved. Like him, she was just so uncomplicated as a person (in a good way). She just loved him. Didn’t care about anything else. Would never stop loving him.

I feel like Jill was more of a plot device than a fully rounded character. She was needed to tell the story. I also think it was right to portray her that way as the focus needed to be on the men and the tragedies that unfolded.

The last episode was a disappointment for me. I was willing Jill to go to Richie’s house rather than just wait passively at the B&B.
And the conversation between her and Richie’s mum was just random! In fact Keely Hawes character in the last episode didn’t ring true at all. One minute she’s a meek and mild mum, next she’s storming around the hospital, ignoring Ritchie’s deathbed requests and shouting at Jill.
It spoilt it for me. The writing made the women angels or bitches rather than developed characters.

Completely agree with the OP. I thought her part was well written (diaglogue-wise) and well acted, but too saintly. She never had sex, either casually or within a relationship - or even lusted after anyone, she didn't have any female friends, didn't have any friends who weren't gay men (seems pretty unlikely), didn't socialise with anyone from her long-running musical theatre job, never argued with anyone (apart from with Richie's mum at the very end), perfect relationship with her parents, never got angry, was incredibly patient with Valerie when she was being completely unreasonable. She didn't necessarily have to have a partner, but just something in her life that wasn't solely about adoring and supporting her gay male friends.

Plus I also felt Valerie's character turned on a sixpence from being very meek and mumsy to becoming hysterical and vile which I found a bit implausible.

I wasn't sure whether Colin was raped by his landlady's son or whether it was consensual - anyone?

@Deltoids1

The last episode was a disappointment for me. I was willing Jill to go to Richie’s house rather than just wait passively at the B&B. And the conversation between her and Richie’s mum was just random! In fact Keely Hawes character in the last episode didn’t ring true at all. One minute she’s a meek and mild mum, next she’s storming around the hospital, ignoring Ritchie’s deathbed requests and shouting at Jill. It spoilt it for me. The writing made the women angels or bitches rather than developed characters.

Totally agree with all of this.

I enjoyed Bob and Rose and didn't feel like that about the female characters in that story.

To me, it isn't Jill's story.

I agree, which is why I have found it strange that RTD has referred to the series as a 'love letter to the Jills'. I don't think that's what it is at all - it's a love letter to the people who were lost.

I wasn't sure whether Colin was raped by his landlady's son or whether it was consensual - anyone?

It was absolutely consensual - no ambiguity at all. The son was obviously closeted and verbally abusive to Colin as a result of his sense of shame but it was made really clear that Colin was having a lot of fun.

@Deltoids1

The last episode was a disappointment for me. I was willing Jill to go to Richie’s house rather than just wait passively at the B&B. And the conversation between her and Richie’s mum was just random! In fact Keely Hawes character in the last episode didn’t ring true at all. One minute she’s a meek and mild mum, next she’s storming around the hospital, ignoring Ritchie’s deathbed requests and shouting at Jill. It spoilt it for me. The writing made the women angels or bitches rather than developed characters.

Keely Hawes was awful but there was more to be explored there too wasn’t there? Imagine finding out your son, nearly 30, had a life of which you knew nothing and had a terminal illness which he’d known about for a long time and you find out weeks before he is about to die. I have no sympathy for her being such a bigot or not letting him see Jill but there would have been justifiable anger and confusion and grief and everything all going on there.

RTD is a top writer and I think he's perfectly capable of breathing life into all his characters, even when they're not the main focus of the story. So I'm going to assume he either chose not to flesh out Jill or he forgot to. I'm generally a fan of his but I don't think either scenario reflects too well on him.

The original title for the series was Boys. RTD in interviews has said that the focus of this story was always on just that - those boys who died of AIDS, the 'boys going home'. He's also said they wanted to make an 8 parter - which would have shown more of the lesbian allies etc - but the commissioners wouldn't go for it. So a condensed story presumably had to concentrate more on the Boys.
I think the bigger issue is that he is one writer being asked to be all things. Back in the day, Queer As Folk got a lot of stick for showing gay men as all being promiscuous and not mentioning the AIDs crisis at all. It's A Sin has been accused of making AIDs a gay issue, not focusing enough on the women who were also infected, not showing more rounded female characters etc. But really on both occasions he's just one writer telling one group of friends story and isn't trying to be a definitive voice for anyone. What's really needed is far more writers who are telling a range of different stories from a range of characters.
I totally agree there could have been more breadth to Jill's character. But this told her part in the Boys story. Wouldn't it be great if the Jills of the world were being written and commissioned as leads of their own different stories. TV is a risk adverse industry bit I think the huge success of a period drama about a minority group and a horrific health crisis - not an obvious ratings winner - will show the channels that there is always an audience for stories that grab an audience by the heart