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! 👇

Fantastic and completely relevant watch. I’m still processing the first 3 episodes. I enjoyed episode 3. Particularly the psychologist’s reaction after he left the interview/room. We call it transference / counter transference in the field.

Was anyone else really uncomfortable with episode 3, and what they were asking that child actor to do? (Yes I know he’s acting!)

That level of discussion in the film made me really wonder at whether or not making these kind of programs should be allowed with underage actors from a safeguarding perspective.

He’s a child, who was openly having to discuss very mature themes with strangers/other actors and it be filmed.

He was 15. I'm sure there were lots of measures in place.

But it is unlikely. Name another four part drama filmed that way?

Also I think you need to reread what I said.

Things in film / TV often do not look like what is actually happening.

Have you ever noticed if someone is being strangled in a film the other actor has their hands around their neck and the 'stranglee' for want of a better word is hanging on to the strangler's wrists?

The way that is film the actors are actually doing the opposite. The stranglee is pulling the other actors hands towards their neck and the strangler is pulling away.

Thats not the message that I interpreted or I believe the creators were trying to say. They weren’t putting the blame on victim. They were trying to understand why a 13 year old boy coming from a seemly normal family, stabs someone to death.
Which is when they begin to uncover the Andy pandy and his horrible incel shit that is ruining our young lads.

Knife crime and violence on young girls in the UK is increasing and most of these young lads are falling victim him and his “Alpha” bullshit. And so many parents don’t even know their teens are consuming it.

There’s actually some videos on YouTube that someone secretly filmed from one of his ‘retreats’ he does and talks about the control and the things he’s does to these young women. It’s actually horrendous.

I’d say it’s a ‘must watch’ with 15/16 year olds for the important topics it raises. I’ve only watched half of it, from what I’ve seen so far, they seem like a ‘normal’, decent family, with normal , decent kids. That’s the scariest thing for me.

I’m saddened by some of the comments here. My take on the series was that it absolutely blamed the dad for Jamie’s crime. I noticed that considerable emphasis was placed on his being a tradesman and on his van- the message seemed to me to be that ‘white van man’ (in his case of course the van was blue) cannot be trusted & breeds misogynist killers.
I thought the underlying message was that the working class, particularly tradesmen, are pretty much sub-human (virtually the only character portrayed as having any capacity was the psychologist, parachuted in from middle-class land); & that working class people are incapable of being trusted to parent children; & that for this reason it was a highly unpleasant piece of work, an exhibition of vitriolic class contempt.

Watched one episode so far. I have watched better dramas. It was just relentlessly bleak without the usual things that make drama satisfying. Given that they were shooting for hyper realism I found the solicitor unrealisticly shit. I mean duty solicitors presumably aren’t universally amazing but he seemed to let a lot of things which seemed basic slide - is that a plot line? It just seemed like an error. Just depressing as hell whilst also lacking normal dramatic conventions. I had to switch over and watch the news for some light relief.

Coming from a white, working class tradesman as a father background myself & currently working for a construction firm, it could simply be a realistic portrayal.

In the last episode they talk about the daughter and use exactly he same phrase that they do about the son ‘we made her’ which to me suggests it’s not as simple as dad (or mum) being at fault, their parenting and family was part of a wider context. I think dad’s job could have been anything to be honest and it wouldn’t have changed the narrative.

That’s a fascinating interpretation, @Cherryann- I think for me, there was a sense that the family had been working to improve their lot in life, for example the dad was consciously trying hard to be a much better parent than his own father; he clearly works hard to afford them a comfortable lifestyle financially; both children are academically bright (Jamie’s sister, Lisa, has apparently excelled academically). There’s every reason to think that if Jamie hadn’t offended, both kids would have gone to university and been a “success story”. It seemed to me like they were a working class family on a positive path, that was then tragically derailed by Jamie. Even though I did feel and see the role of generational trauma and toxic masculinity in the family, I didn’t get a sense, personally, that it was their class that was being blamed. Perhaps because there is so much toxic masculinity associated with the upper classes too…?

This is very interesting to me- this wasn't my take at all. Stephen Graham comes from a working class background himself, so I wouldn't think he would create something with that perspective.

My take is that Jamie was influenced by a variety of different factors- yes his dad/family played into that with sexist norms, but there was also the online influence, the school (even his teachers displayed unconscious bias and misogyny), the DIY shop worker, to me it demonstrated how life in general is misogynist and it's easily for children to get influenced by it. Even the scene with the security guard and the psychologist where she was watching the screens and he was breathing down her neck and not leaving her alone- male entitlement is rife and everywhere.

I also think part of the reason everything was filmed in one shot was precisely to demonstrate how the wider world and everything in it contributed to the end result- episode 2 in particular did a great job of this.

Does anyone know when the answers to our questions will be posted on this thread?

What topics do you think Adolescence raises that 15/16 year olds don't know about?

The dad was an emergency plumber and worked unsociable hours for more pay. I think the point of that was more to show that he provided for the family, but also that he saw his son less which contributed to him missing the signs, as his son became a teenager/stopped him building more of a bond.

Also the point was to make the dad's character masculine. Works a male dominated job, a tradesman, a big sports fan, likes going to the pub etc etc. The son grew up not knowing how to emulate his Dad as he wasn't interested in sport.

Yes I definitely agree that is one aspect of it.

@ceramiqoh I’m sure they are aware of knife crime, cyber bullying etc but it’s how things can combine and escalate to the point where a seemingly decent child from a loving family can murder someone (caveat: I’ve only seen tbe first two episodes so appreciate I may not have the full story).

One of the things I noticed about it was an implied criticism by the psychologist that the father had no female friends.
I have a suspicion (based on my own life experience & that of my partner who is…yes a tradesman!) that this is what could be described as a class/age dog whistle.
Young men, men who work in offices, gay men, single men - yes maybe they have proper female friends, women they call up to arrange a bike ride or a trip to the pub or a day out or whatever.
But a middle aged married tradesman, self-employed, doing site based work (not in an office) with school age kids?
In my experience a man in this position having close, genuine one-on-one female friends is very very unlikely- but I do not think that is ‘toxic’ in any way! Men do not have to have female friends any more than women have to have male friends, & whether or not they do so will depend on a whole range of factors other than misogyny & toxic masculinity. (I only have one close male friend other than my partner- that just reflects my life structure.)
So this came across to me as a sneer at a particular type of man, and a particularly unpleasant one given that the reality is that ‘toxic masculinity’ is so readily found in many middle class men who proclaim themselves feminists & claim to have many female friends, while belittling the women unhappy enough to share offices with them.

@Cherryann What made you think it was a criticism / sneer? To me it felt like she was just trying to elicit information from Jamie about his exposure to views on masculinity and femininity. I didn’t personally get the impression that she intended any negative judgment.

I think the point was just to make the dad traditionally masculine.

There's a lot of people who have the opinion that 'men and women can't just be friends' particularly if they're married.

Which is utter nonsense of course. Men and women can be mates it doesn’t matter if they’re married

I know but the character was written as a traditional/masculine man. His friends were men, his job was male dominated. He was obsessed with sports. On the other hand his son wasn't interested in sports and had other interests like art.

I don't think it's anything that teens don't know about - it's stuff that they have no guidance (particularly parental) for, so they have to figure out for themselves how to get through it.

Consider: the world is a dangerous place, and we teach our kids to be safe with almost all of it. Crossing the road, handling hot things in the kitchen, sex etc - we teach them how to do it all safely. However, we can only have constructive, guiding conversations with them about what we know.

Almost no parents guide them through safely existing on the Internet, because almost no parents know anything about that world or its culture; the extent of parental influence on Internet use is to fool themselves into thinking that content blockers a) work, and b) fix the problem. They don't, and they never will...it's just marketing and security theatre, and those systems ignore the original function of the Internet: person-to-person communication.

The solution is for adults to actually learn about Internet and youth culture, in order to guide their children through them. But that's hard work, so most people will just say "yes" to their ISP's content blockers, call it "job done", and then blame somebody else when it all goes to shit.

See also: the Online Safety Act.

Need to watch this. Have literally only heard good things and everyone I know loves it.

You don't think credibility was stretched here?

Jamie self-described himself as "ugly" which is patently untrue - he's a very good looking boy. And we're supposed to believe the rest of the storyline?