So what did the Adolescence psychologist’s report state?

[sideeyes]

I have been thinking about this for a few days. What do you think?

Really? I thought the opposite. To me episode 4 was the final piece in the jigsaw of how Jamie came to do as he did. Episode 2 & 3 showed us the impact of online influences and peers, with episode 4 showing the the influence of the family. I thought it was a really powerful (if not always subtle!) Insight into how toxic masculinity works in a loving family. Eddie's domination of Mand, her fawning and appeasing him. The way mother and daughter centred Eddie's feelings, even to the point where a devastated 18 year old girls first question was 'is he (dad) OK?'. The ending where they congratulate themselves on raising a daughter who is 'good' "I'll set the table". I thought it was excellent and the deepest dive of the whole thing, because we all know we need to fear external influences but aren't always so quick to recognise the ones closer to home.

The van being daubed with "Nonse" was an interesting choice too because that is the ultimate fear of macho men - being seen as a nonce. Even though it was spelled wrong the vandals knew it would hit the masculine nerve. Exactly what the dad had tried to avoid by teaching his son footy rather than "drawing".

I'm glad I'm not the only one disappointed by the last episide, I really struggled to empathise with the characters who felt almost stereotypical. Mum with no voice or agency of her own, dad who is in charge of everything and everyone and who cannot deal with his own emotions, daughter who is quietly ignored in background (no one asked if her boyfriend treats her with respect, or how she feels). There was a lot of denial too - we've done nothing wrong - especially on dad's side, which was irritating considering his behaviour and expectations of others appeasing him.

I guess the drama illustrated how widespread some of these patterns are. In a way, it was not really about Jamie.

This is so spot on and these social norms would apply to so many families.

I desperately wanted to be hooked in by this series, having heard rave reviews. But I found it hard to stick with it and focused on. Don't get me wrong, the acting was obviously brilliant, and episode 3 was superb. But I'm not sure it lived up to my expectations, and I wasn't moved by it in a way I thought I would be, it sort of left me cold (I'm normally quite engaged in tv dramas, and can find them quite emotional). Maybe if I'd watched it without all the hype, my expectations would have been lower.

Yes.

If they'd revealed the report, we would have pathologised it.

He did it because of X condition. He's an anomaly. This couldn't happen to most boys. It wouldn't happen to my boys.

The whole point was that it can, and it is, and that conversation relies on this not being put down to a specific incident in his life or a specific condition; and instead being a more general build of circumstance and family-life and society.

Brilliant point

I have mixed feelings. While I recognise that the one shot method is amazingly clever, I also think it limited what they could cover. If they wanted to show the effect it was having on the family, they had to make it a whole episode.

Ironically, I feel that there was still too much emphasis on the males. I know this is about a boy committing an awful crime but the female characters were all a bit caricature for me. The Mum and Daughter, as someone has said, placating the dad. The best friend shown as a bit troubled and acting out. And barely a single thing about the victim. There was just no proper representation of how this affects women and girls.

The scene with the psychologist and the guard was a good attempt but too subtle. Women would have recognised his behaviours as off but I'm not sure all men would have. Maybe that's the point but I just felt it missed the mark.

I haven't read or watched much of the writers/Steven Graham so that may explain why they approached it the way they did. It is at least generating discussion about gender perspectives.

I'm not sure, but something about him being radicalised very likely..

I loved the show. And unfortunately it reminded me so much of my own teen boy.

Thank you for this. Very insightful.

Personally, I loved all the episodes. 1 and 3 most, but all were powerful and all added something. The first shows 'the event' magnificently, and the rest look at different aspects of the causes.

Yes, they could have gone through more of the story of the prosecution etc, but would it really have added much except a sense of closure and resolution? And it couldn't realistically have been done in a single take?

I found the whole project really impressive. Art, and good TV is undoubtedly art, doesn't have to make you feel satisfied and comfortable. The fact that we're talking about it now rather than any of the 10000 other shows we could mention is an indicator of how good it was, even when we're discussing what could have been done differently.

I agree with PP that part of this scene was to show the power dynamic between the prison guard and psychologist. But I think we also caught a glimpse on the security camera of Jamie sitting down, stretching/yawning as if he had moved from intense anger back to a relaxed state very quickly. Like nothing had happened. I was wondering at that point if we'd find out he had some sort of psychological issue that would explain a very quick change between incredibly extreme anger/violence and a completely relaxed "normal" state.

I’m inclined to agree. I thought the actress herself did an excellent job with the script she was given but I don’t think she was scripted a very good child psychologist! I did wonder, though, if there was some implication that she had herself been the victim of male violence? Hence getting way too upset. She wouldn’t have lasted long in the job if that was how she was supposed to have normally gone on!

Same with both my Dad and step Dad. The scene actually made me feel sick as I was clenching my jaw so much worrying that he was going to smack his wife and daughter.

I thought the whole thing was brilliantly done. I've worked with young people like Jamie and the intimidation I felt as a woman was intolerable. These little boys who think they can make women do whatever they want and don't think twice about using violence to get it.

Thank you for this, you've put it brilliantly. I watched it with my 13 year old DS and lots came up that we discussed but it was hard to talk and watch and also to articulate how I saw it in the moment. I've saved your words to show him - you expose perfectly the perfect storm of seemingly small issues.

I particularly loved the character of his sister Lisa. She was so overlooked but her response was to ever such a good girl. They were so busy congratulating themselves on how well they had done with her, they never once asked her if she was ok - because clearly she wasn't and she would have been destroyed by the whole thing.

She works so hard to match whatever energy is in the room, to cause no fuss, to minimise her unhappiness ("they're not writing nonce on my locker")

She has become the ultimate people pleaser. Such a fascinating character and given relatively few lines to convey her sense of self but I thought the actress did an amazing job.

I didn't read the daughter's behaviour as a sign that she was lovely at all.

I saw a teenage girl working desperately hard to manage her parent's emotions, particularly her father's, by being overly calm and nice and good. When she rallied them at the end, it just made me feel a bit ill. Been there, got that t-shirt. Parentification/codependency at work.

I think it showed, albeit subtly, that the two children had had very different responses to growing up in a household with an angry man.

Ironically, I feel that there was still too much emphasis on the males. I know this is about a boy committing an awful crime but the female characters were all a bit caricature for me. The Mum and Daughter, as someone has said, placating the dad. The best friend shown as a bit troubled and acting out. And barely a single thing about the victim. There was just no proper representation of how this affects women and girls

I've just posted this on another thread, but I think this was a very deliberate choice and probably the right one. It's why they acknowledged the fact that most reports and dramas focus on the man while the victim is forgotten in episode 2. The manosphere attracts disillusioned boys. One of the reasons boys, and particularly white boys, feel disillusioned and attracted to Andrew Tate and the manosphere is that they feels like they aren't centred in anything - in part because there is such an upsurge in representation for women, LGBT+, and racial discrimination and violence etc ("when you're privileged, equality feels like discrimination"). There's a reason the time "International Men's Day" is most searched on google is on International Women's Day! If they want to get the message through to boys and men (and parents of boys) that these attitudes are damaging and insidious then it needs to focus on them, otherwise it's relying on empathy to explain why it's an issue and the focus becomes "don't do this because it's harmful to girls". It would be great if that message worked but, frankly, it doesn't, because boys and men with the red pill attitude already see women as lesser and they don't care - that's why they do these things. They need to see why attitudes like this are bad for them too and how easily they can arise.

I think the impact on girls and women of societal attitudes like this deserves a full series on its own to explore all of the events in the run up covering the impact on them of her death, but also Katie's life. Why did Katie send topless photos? How did it impact her having them sent around? What were school doing about it? What was the behaviour of Ryan and Jamie like towards the girls to cause such fury in Jade that she knew he was involved? How involved were her parents in monitoring her social media usage? It's the same sort of message - do you actually know what it going on in your child's life under the surface, are you keeping them safe from harm and radical ideology, and how as parents are your attitudes and behaviours putting your children at risk? Definitely enough for a 4 part series with a really important message.

I thought the security guard was very creepy, and clearly made the psychologist feel uncomfortable. Pushy, trying to undermine her, inserting himself into her personal space, hovering behind her and whispering in her ear… As if he was a different version of the boy in custody. Overreaching, seeking her approval, using his physical presence to make her notice him. So she was under pressure to be calm and patient during a difficult task in both those rooms, with a male trying to win her over, interfere with her work or intimidate her. No wonder she was shaky by the end of it.

I think the reaction to the dad is overblown.

He was the one who saw the CCTV of his son murdering a girl, he was the one in the room with him when he was being questioned. He had his own plumbing business which was being targeted by vandals and his son was being locked up. What happened was all over social media and no doubt his business was also being hit financially.

But people are saying it’s his fault because he has a bad temper and anger issues. How do people expect him to react to having his work van vandalised and be accused of being a nonce? Or is any show of anger or frustration from a man considered “toxic” now?

I thought it showed he was trying to do the right things for his family.

@GoneOffTheRails I agree with you, and I think the last episode distracted from the issue of men with an agenda grooming and radicalising children using gaming and the internet.
Thats the problem society is facing here and now. Its a new problem and no one is asking what their agenda is or how the hell we tackle it.

Has anyone who's watched it with a similarly aged child found this positive? How does the dc react to it - what is it going to make them think about themselves?

I think that he was trying, sure, but he was failing due to his own abusive upbringing. His normal reaction to stress is clearly violence and explosive anger. He's perpetuating the cycle even though he isn't hitting his wife and children - it's still abusive.

He smashed up a shed before in anger. His wife is fearful, but doesn't seem shocked, at his outburst and both she and their daughter are clearly well practised in placating his temper. Jamie immediately accuses Briony of coming after his dad, rather than saying nice things about him (because on some level he knows that he's explosive).

Yes, of course he was under high stress, but the issue is that his stress is displayed and managed through violent outbursts (smashing the shed, chasing and manhandling the teen himself rather than calling the police, wrecking his own van) - it's more of the same, not an exception. That's why they mention the shed in the first place. If they hadn't, then it could have been written off as the stress of the situation. That kind of behaviour goes beyond what is, or should ever be, normal.

His temper, insistence on being "masculine", and the dynamic in the family, is what opens the door to the internet radicalisation, which would have been much less likely if Jamie was comfortable in who he was, didn't see violence as normal, didn't see just rigid gender roles where the women obeyed the men and were subservient as normal, and didn't have an emotionally unavailable father.

It isn't one or the other. It's the combination that is important.

It's not that simplistic.

It conveyed incredibly well how the Dad who had a traumatic childhood was trying his best to fulfill his own role in the family, but wasn't equipped to deal with Jamie when he didn't fit the idea of his son. He didn't really know Jamie, he knew the son he expected to have.

I can absolutely recognise so much of it in the attitudes that DP has received from his upbringing. He's a good parent now but before our son was born he had a pretty stereotypical idea of who he would be and what hobbies he would have. DP had to unlearn all of that.

Now my boy is on his PC a lot, but not keen on social media so I think he's alright. But I've certainly been triggered out of any complacency with it.