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.

@Doobigetta

I thought the portrayal of Jill was interesting for what it said about RTD. He said that it was an homage to all the Jills, but he wasn’t really interested in her- just in what she gave to men like him. Interested in her only from the perspective of how she related to him, in the way a child loves its mother. It’s absolutely classic misogyny, and he’s so self-centred he can’t see it. We all know there are millions of men like that. We’ve all known them. We’ve all known, or been, the woman who gives up her life for them. And many of us have observed enough that it should be no surprise that a woke champion man is just as much like this as the old-fashioned kind of chauvinist.

Even as much as I love It's A Sin, I think this is absolutely spot on

Oh, yes, I see what you mean. No, I don't think he wanted his parents' support when he was ill.

It's incredibly sad.

I actually think Ritchies mum was a more realistic portrayal of mums of that time than Colins to be honest.

I was in primary school when AIDS became a big thing in the U.K. and I recall the primal fear everyone had. The adverts and programmes on the tv were terrifying and people believed it was a gay mans disease.

Prior to AIDS there was a lot of homophobia but most non openly homophobic people ‘tolerated’ people being gay as long as they weren’t open about it. On tv you had camp characters like the guys from the Carry On movies or Are You Being Served but they were just ‘camp’ not ‘gay’. You had ridiculous situations were people pretended or genuinely didn’t notice that stars like Boy George or Liberace were gay.

In real life ‘queer bashing’ was a common thing. Even if parents weren’t themselves homophobic, they’d be really worried about what family and friends would say if it was known that their son was gay. People could even be sacked for being gay. I remember a school near my secondary school where there was a big scandal because the headmaster had to leave because he’d been outed and locals insinuated he was a paedophile. This was in liberal London so I’d be surprised if there were any big coming out parties on the Isle of Wight during that time.

Many many parents would have tried their hardest to ignore or hide their child’s homosexuality during that time. They’d grown up in an era when being gay was very wrong. They would’ve been ashamed and angry and when you throw newly discovered AIDS into the mix, it would’ve been akin to throwing petrol onto a fire. His mother would’ve had feeling of shame, confusion, anger, fear and helplessness. Things were very different then and far better now.

But people still get sacked for being gay. It's not overt, but then it wasn't overt in the early 80s either, not most of the time. It wouldn't have been your boss saying 'you're gay so you're fired'. It'd have been an excuse and a pointed reference to your lifestyle.

I don't deny progress happens but I think we've still a very long way to go.

A very good friend of mine went to drama school with Jill and said that the portrayal is very close to her and her character. He well remembers the parties at the pink palace. He also worked with Jill on a number of AIDS charities.

When Jill was looking after Gregory/Gloria I did have a bit of a 'Hmm, it's the woman's job to look after people, even when it's a primarily male world.' But then as the show went on it became about the power of friendship, of all of the group and there was something more. And so much of the meaning in our lives does come from our relationships with other people. So I'm a bit on the fence here.

That scene at the end between Jill and Richie's mum was so horrible. Obviously she was hurting horribly and lashing out, but she said some awful things to Jill, perhaps motivated by a feeling that Jill had done some of the stuff she felt she (Richie's mum) should have done. There was a power struggle going on there.

I actually think Ritchies mum was a more realistic portrayal of mums of that time than Colins to be honest.

I think Ritchie's Mum's reaction was probably more common - but Colin's Mum was in a wheelchair and she probably had now experience of discrimination, albeit not the same, and maybe that enabled her to empathise more with you can't help the way you are, even if the world is against you. Likewise, Jill's parents were a mixed race couple, so they must have got together early '60s at the very latest, do they probably also experienced a lot of racism. (Not that Roscoe's father was at all accepting, so it's not an automatic thing.) Ritchie's parents were very white and heterosexual and middle class and probably very unaware of how much easier this had made their lives, especially in a society which was really pushing that this was how life should be
with Section 28 and so on. I think they genuinely did have a lot longer journey to make to understand Ritchie's lifestyle - as his mum admitted at the end when he asked if she understood and she said no, and he said that was why he needed to see Jill.

I think the female roles were poorly written and the show itself had more than a whiff of misogyny about it.

Disappointing.

I think it makes more sense when you consider the show was meant to be called the boys and be 8 rather than 5 episodes

Its fairly accepted that lesbians were much less affected by the epidemic than there gay counterparts thus it would be expected that the focus would be on those most affected?

Not to say lesbians werent a huge part of it but the deaths were primarily amongst men

I also agree that her shouting at a mum turning her back is much more realistic then her shouting at a dad, or the high prevelance of accepting mums in such shows

The common plot is that the mum always loved them but dad keeps them away. Its nice to see something different because that certainly wasn't my experience

@vargas
what does beautifully gay even mean?

I took it to mean that being gay wasn't one of his bad points, he wasn't beautiful in spite of being gay
It shouldn't be he was wonderful but gay. That his love wasn't something to be ashamed of or dirty but celebrated and in some ways beautiful

I don't think Gregory/Gloria rang Jill because she was a woman? I saw it more that he rang her because he could trust her the most to
A. Get him what he needed (the men were great characters but all flaky as fuck)
B. Be discrete about going round (I'm sure at some point someone says 'Roscoe tells everyone everything')
C. At hat point remember it was very much considered a gay man's disease and there was, in Gloria's eyes (who I believe knew he had the "gay man's disease) no chance of passing it onto a straight woman

I did think the role of Jill could have had more depth. But then it wasn't the main focus of the series.
Although nobody at any point called her a fag hag. Everyone was just a bit too nice.
It took me back to the 80s tho. The Aids adverts, the toilet seat fear.

@Willyoujustbequiet

I think the female roles were poorly written and the show itself had more than a whiff of misogyny about it.

Disappointing.

That was my feeling too. I don't think RTD thinks or cares much about women.

The frustrating thing is that RTS can write fantastic women. Have you seen Years and Years?

*RTD, sorry

I’d have liked to have seen jill’s story explored more. But then I’d have also like to have seen ash’s story - maybe an examination of being gay and British Indian/gay and working in education in the 80s. I’d have liked to know more about the nurses who cared for these men when no one else would. I’d have liked to see more of Roscoe’s dad and his experiences in Nigeria that gave him the compassion for AIDS sufferers. But come on it’s a 5 episode series!! I think it’s a sign of a brilliantly written and executed programme that we are left wanting more.
Oh and contrary to popular belief I thought Kelley hawes was magnificent. The internal struggle of her character was portrayed brilliantly. The infantilising of Richie at the end was both heartbreaking and so creepy. And I found the reactions of both Richie’s parents and their role reversal sadly extremely believable.

I can see why RTD didn't tell her story but he could still have made her a more rounded character. He had lots of opportunities to do so. Early on we see her at parties, in bars, walking down the street, sitting around the house, but never with anyone else except Ritchie and his friends. RTD could have had her snogging someone, eating breakfast with a lover, reading a book (for enjoyment, not an AIDS leaflet) or bickering with Ritchie, or telling them to shut up because she's trying to watch Dallas or the football. It wouldn't have needed extra scenes - she's in loads. RTD could have just used the scenes she was in to show a real, 3-dimensional person with an inner life.

It was originally planned to be 8 episodes but channel 4 insisted it was cut to 5. It's taken a few years to get it shown. Channels were nervous about it.

I completely agree with you. I loved the show and have thought about it a lot since finishing it. But I did feel that Jill was not a fully developed character and that was the main failing.

5 is an odd number- I can understand cutting it - well, I can't, but if you do make that decision, 4 or 6 would seem more normal. Though I'm glad they didn't cut it to 4.

The show was about the impact HIV and AIDS had a gay men the women were secondary roles ,because it wasent about them ,and although the show was fictional ,,RTD based it on his experiences ,people know that HIV and AIDS didn't just affect Gay me ,but the focus was specifically about the affect on gay men.

Exactly @x2boys. How often are gay characters purely the supportive best friend, or the witty sidekick? ‘It’s a Sin’ is one of the few dramas where gay men are front and centre stage. Let them have it for once - because it probably only will be once.

I agree that bringing your supporting characters to life without losing the focus of the story can be a challenge. But it's also part and parcel of a writer's job. RTD is a top notch writer and I think he should have been up to the task, especially given the amount of screen time Jill had.

@Floisme

I agree that bringing your supporting characters to life without losing the focus of the story can be a challenge. But it's also part and parcel of a writer's job. RTD is a top notch writer and I think he should have been up to the task, especially given the amount of screen time Jill had.

Yes, Jill has just as much as screen time as Ritchie. If he couldn't fit in some clues to Jill having an outside life that didn't revolve around the boys, than that's his problem to solve. Even the scenes of her in Les Mis were interspersed with her working on the AIDS phonelines and she couldn't even have a night out with the girls in the cast because she off doing something more worthy to do with AIDS or the lads.

Yes, I think the point is that she wasn't just a supporting character. She had a lot of screen time but was completely one dimensional.