Adolescence: The Netflix drama that will have every parent talking - Join our watch thread plus Q&A with producer and cast

[CeriMumsnet]

Premieres 13th March 2025

Read Hannah and Christine's answers to your questions here.

If you’re after a gripping new series to get stuck into, Adolescence is set to be the show of the year - and it’s one that will chill parents to the core. This tense British crime drama begins with the shocking arrest of 13-year-old Jamie Miller for the murder of a classmate. But as the investigation unfolds, the series delves into the unsettling realities of modern masculinity, online radicalisation, and the pressures facing today’s teenagers.

Filmed in South Kirby with a raw, unflinching realism, Adolescence isn’t just another crime drama - it’s a conversation starter. If you were lucky enough to catch the Mumsnet exclusive preview, you’ll know just how haunting and thought-provoking it is, with themes that resonate long after you finish watching.

Watch the trailer here:

Q&A
Adolescence Executive Producer Hannah Walters and actress Christine Tremarco who plays Jamie’s Mum will be joining us for a Q&A in the next couple of weeks, so make sure to share your questions about the show for them below.

• Hannah Walters is an actress, producer and co-founder of Matriarch Productions, an entertainment production company who aims to provide a much-needed platform for underrepresented voices and stories in the UK. Their credits include BOILING POINT (2021) and most recent TV series for the BBC. Hannah has two children with her husband Stephen Graham.

• Christine Tremarco is a British actress who along with playing Jamie’s Mum in Adolescence can also currently be seen in Channel 4’s drama series, The Gathering and in the BBC’s Kidnapped: The Chloe Ayling Story, directed by Al Mackay. Other screen credits include the BBC’s Responder opposite Martin Freeman, a series regular in Sky’s Wolfe, and Shane Meadows’ BAFTA winning series The Virtues opposite Stephen Graham.

So, what do we think? Will you be watching? Does the premise resonate with you? Let’s chat below! 👇

I'd like to ask if the way the story revolved entirely around the male characters was deliberate?
Is that the way they see the world? Were they trying to make a point?

Or did I just see it that way through my own lens?

Female child psychologist was a major player in episode 3. But in a way, yes, it would make more sense for male characters to be emphasised in this setting imo. Men are the problem. It's men who need to sort themselves out so I can see why there would be more focus on men/males and their shitty, problematic attitudes and behaviours in a show like this.

I think the divide around the father character on this thread is really interesting. My own dad was a very angry man, would be considered abusive by today's standards, but probably just thiugh of as bad tempered back in the 80s and 90s. I see this father as someone who tries to reflect, tries to take ownership, tries to do better and tries to provide for a protect his family. I'd have liked my dad to have been more like him.

She got a lot of airtime I agree. But we weren't given any of her backstory or deeper characterization.

I found this in contrast to the character given to the male police officer, his son, home situation etc. Nothing about the female detective.
And the parents, some characterization of the father, his childhood, his therapy, his anger issues. How much we focused on his story and not the mother's.
Even the psychologist seemed to have been written in relation to Jamie.

It seemed to me like all the women were just satellites around the male characters, and I felt that might have been intentional? Did they mean for that, given the subject matter?

I think doing it this way made it even more effective but also more depressing.

I wondered if it was intentional or I just misread it?

Main issue here wasn't toxic masculinity but parents totally abdicating their responsibility to engage with and know their child. Know who he was, what he was thinking, and to talk to their child. They abandoned him to laptop & to absolute privacy in what he did/saw online, at 12, 13. . Could have been any cult etc that he fell into, happened to be a v Tate like cult.

Yes, he said that his dad had a "normal" amount of anger, but children aren't very good at perceiving how normal or abnormal their family dynamic is. That's all they've known.

But he also said that his dad had destroyed a shed in a fit of rage. And we saw his dad absolutely lose control several times in ep4. Plus there was the undercurrent of the mum repeatedly trying to manage the dad's anger.

Or d) keep your sons close, teach them about self respect and respecting others, men and women. Have a zero tolerance policy for violence at home. So many older brothers are emotionally and physically abusive to their younger sisters and horribly disrespectful to their mothers. They excuse grabbing a girl under her school skirt at school is totally fine and par for the course. Parenting has a lot to do with this. Hence either don't give your child a smart phone or keep it under very close supervision. But most importantly talk to them. Talk to them about Tate and such stupid idiots, about violence, testosterone, teenage brain, impulsivity and grooming. Start these chats early, when they're in primary school and still hopefully respect you a bit. Easy to wash ones hands off saying well nothing much parents can do. It's passive parenting.

I don’t think I’m speaking authoritatively, yes I’ve worked with teenagers and I do work in the field of social science (specifically not with children/teenagers but there’s overlap of course).

but it’s pretty well known? concerns about the internet & mobile phone use? The dangers of grooming and sexualisation?

I mean, I’m not a vegan but I know about how horrible industrial farming practices are.

Your post sort of reminds me of Jamie’s parents, disinterested, disassociated, lacking curiosity and accountability. Low level neglect, yes teenagers are dicks and push our buttons. I had plenty of adventures as a teenager, but it’s clear that the some families raise kids who can have ‘adventures’ without lasting harm and return to their lane. But other families struggle. My family was full of disfunction, but also an extremely safe place for us kids.
The family portrayed were not a safe place, there was no moral leadership. yes the elements could have added up to nothing (well likely the kids replicating the parents dysfunction) but in this case the worst thing happened and a child barely into teenage hood premeditatedly killed a fellow class mate because he felt anger towards her.
Didn’t give a shit afterwards either. Was bright enough to get rid of the murder weapon and his clothes, but hadn’t considered that wasn’t enough to protect him from arrest or being punished for the crime. I didn’t see a single sign of regret about the victim or the enormity of what he had done. Taking one life in cold blood and destroying many others.

https://saferphonesbill.co.uk/

https://www.childline.org.uk/info-advice/bullying-abuse-safety/online-mobile-safety/trusting-others-online/?gclsrc=aw.ds&gad_source=1&gbraid=0AAAAAoO_dQnr0WpcO6KPNysLzHn-9AU8b&gclid=EAIaIQobChMI_vPmu5uUjAMVuptQBh0NHyDHEAAYAiAAEgIdaPD_BwE

Is it about all that sick culture we're getting over here online from the USA? Like those USA incels who make groups online whining about why women prefer to sleep with men who want to make them feel good. Or those groups who make videos saying they don't want women. Yet instead of doing what they say by leaving women alone, they then spend their time on the comment sections, trying to make women feel bad about themselves and promote others abuse women? Although it isn't all men against women over there. Many USA women tell men they're disgusting if not cir'cised as a baby for non medical reasons. Everybody seems to dislike everybody else over there, but particularly men and women.

@thislifer
they lack accountability because they weren’t accountable for their sons actions. Their son is accountable for his actions.

I didn't see dysfunction in the family at all. They were perfectly ordinary, which was part of what the series was about. Had they been unusual, the film could not have had the resonance it has as what is shown could be discounted.

As for regret about the victim, the series can't be about everything.

Terrible parenting to let their son stay online until 1am at night in the week when they have school the next day.

Ds went online downstairs where I could keep an eye on him and we have discussed many topics over the years starting from a youngish age. Dialogue as well as monitoring.

Your post sort of reminds me of Jamie’s parents, disinterested, disassociated, lacking curiosity and accountability

What a weird overreaction. I’m none of those things; I am very concerned about the impact of phones and the internet on children. My own child doesn’t have a phone. I was simply saying that it’s unwise to make sweeping judgements about how the parents of teenagers should behave when it could easily come back to bite you.

This.

You didn't see anything wrong with the story of the dad smashing up a shed out of uncontrolled anger? Or the way he raged at different people in ep4? Are those the kinds of things you've seen from your family or partner?

2 teenagers have painted the word "Nonce" on his work van and are then following him around. Clearly the family have been targetted by people since the murder as was allluded to when the mum phoned the police and his sister talked about how college was.

I can think of people I know who might rage at the teenagers who did that.

It's not the point. Nor is my family life.

This is a work of art, not real life.

The end of the film makes clear that the father wanted to be a different father than his own so no hitting of the children, taking his son to football. What the film is saying is that in the modern world it's not enough. Times have changed and what parents need to be across with their children has changed too.

Dramatically it would have been boring to have a perfect family turn out a murderer, what would there have been to identify with? Where would the interest be? The film requires a believable family.

If the film had been called Shit Parenting 101 it would have failed. It's called Adolescence because, I believe, it positions the world of teenagers as mysterious, all the more so because of the added layer of the internet.

Obviously the dad was on his last nerve in Ep4. The guy in the DIY shop threw him completely after coming round after the vandalism. No doubt they've had all those months of tension. Even what he said to the teen 'Stop laughing at me. You don't know what I'm going through', showed the human side to him. The shed incident I would put in a v different category, whatever happened there!
Jamie's main issue, imo, was utter and complete lack of empathy. He'd been put into football and boxing to effectively try and change who he was, which was so damaging, instead of nurturing the child he was who liked art.. and then later he isolated himself completely from the real world where he didn't fit in.
For those interested in reflecting on bringing up boys in today's society, the podcast To be a Boy is worth a listen. It discusses all these issues.

Mulling on it I now think the family and even the online influence is a red herring. Agree with mikado he had no empathy. I think that was innate in him and was not a product of his environment/parenting although that did not help.

Remember in the 90s when we used to blame heavy metal music for murders like this? Also there have always been murders like this throughout human existence so blaming it on the extrinsic influences of the day is facile.

I was wondering why the series showed parents in their 50s with a 14 year old son (not the norm, especially when we know the parents met at school), and honestly I suspect it’s because Stephen Graham wrote the part for himself. But given the conversation about keeping kids safe online I think it might have been accidentally true to life. I’m in my 50s and in retrospect I can see I was far too lax about online safety - if I had my parenting years again it’s one of the things I’d do very differently. Gen X didn’t have the internet until we were in our 20s, and it was mostly extremely benign and nerdy. I think people my age sometimes find it difficult to imagine how overwhelming and toxic online spaces can be for a vulnerable teen. I suspect people now in their 30s with young kids have a much more realistic view of how bad it can get.

I completely agree that parents of very young children often have no idea what it’s like to parent teenagers, but I wish I’d been stricter about this.

Christine Tremarco is not in her 50s, and Stephen Graham only 51. So I don't think it remotely unusual for a 51 year and a 47 year old to have a 14 year old son - even if they did meet at school.

MY parents met as teenagers and married in their mid 20s and didn't have me or my sibling until they were in their 30s - THAT was more unusual in the 1970s, I think. But the situation in Adolescence didn't strike me as notable.

Pretty much everyone I know us included is late 40s / early 50s with mid / late teens so that’s a weird comment. Average age to have kids in our demographic anyway is early /mid 30s.

@thislifer

this is so true. There is no such thing as a perfect parent.

Parents of teens are generally kinder and more empathetic than parents of younger children. We all know we are a phone call away from disaster.

@PacificState

it IS the norm