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 was questioning Jamie's parents. At 13, why was he out at 9.30/10pm. Did the parents know where he was? Was this the norm for him - being left to his own devices?

Dad was often absent, but this was because of work, but I wonder how the lack of having his dad around shaped Jamie's behaviours.

I thought Jamie's behaviour with the physiologist showed how short a temper he had, and that it could have been "red mist" that led him to attack Katie, and the other boy in the "prison", as shown on the CCTV. Red mist being a reason, not an excuse.

Overall it was a really well told story, and the acting was amazing, and (echoing everyone else) especially the actor playing Jamie.

As a mum of girls I desperately wanted the opposite and for her to tell her she absolutely did not like him. The whole thing was terrifying for me, I can't stop thinking about it and wondering what sort of world I've brought girls in to.

I felt like that too. My feelings were very strongly ambivalent which is what impressed me so much. He played the murdering proto chauvinist and the innocent child both so well. I swayed between finding him terrifying and seeing my own little boy when he was sad and hurt.

Amazing acting. That episode will stay with me.

I've worked with so many kids like this over the years as a teacher, absolutely no consequences or thoughts where things come from or the financial cost, I'm aware a hot chocolate is very small in the grand scheme but it all ties in to the absolute entitlement & more than often the demands are met

Overall I enjoyed the series, the young lad who played Jamies is astonishing! Stephen Graham as ever (ha!) is exceptional, there were a few bits as mentioned upthread that raised my eyebrows a bit, the hot drink in the room especially but it's a fictional piece so

I was surprised to see Brad Pitt as an Exec Producer

Yes, this struck me too. Of course, many 13-year-olds are out that late, but it's usually because there are problems at home and Jamie's family seem relatively stable. Maybe they are naive?

I found the psychologist interview scenes really chilling. A total flip from the 'innocent' child in episode one. I guess two things can be true - he's a child and childlike but has a very disturbing, unsettling side to him.

I don’t know anything about how offender assessment happens so that bit might well be unrealistic, but I absolutely loved Erin Doherty in that episode - I thought she was astonishing. At the end, after he has left the room and she is upset, I thought what was being conveyed was the psychologist’s own devastation that she had failed professionally (by losing her distance, racing through those final few formal questions and brutally bringing the session to an end). His misogyny hadn’t only terrified and revolted her — it had also stripped her of her identity as a good, well-trained, accomplished professional. I think that’s part of why she was crying.

Unfortunately I think a lot of schools are like the one portrayed, plus parents often have no choice wrt which school their children attend- they are allocated by catchment. Where I live there is a shortage of places and no choice of school.

I think we see the policeman's son is a pretty good kid (good results, polite and uniform is neat and tidy). I thought maybe he is seen as a "geek" by his peers, and this is why he doesn't seem to have friends and is bullied in the canteen. Maybe also this is why he tries to bunk off school at the start of episode one. These kids are stuck between a rock and a hard place- fitting in with peers or following the rules.

Ironically his Dad is annoyed that he is trying to bunk off, without understanding what an awful place the school is. Their short visit traumatises both police officers yet one of them has no sympathy for his son not wanting to go to school. We see that kids who behave well and work hard may be at greater risk of bullying and not fitting in- so the policeman's son is in fact showing incredible resilience and braveness in being a good student.

I think the police officer / son dynamic is another manifestation of the tricky issue of modern masculinity. We see a tough, attractive, confident, muscly experienced cop who is struggling to relate to his gangly, quiet, awkward son. We learn that the son rarely speaks with his Dad, that the Dad prioritises work, doesn't understand his son or how to relate to him. He seems to develop a sense of pride in his son following the school visit- crediting him with the bravery to explain the social media posts and for surviving the toxic school environment.

I disagree wft the school. I facilitate dog assisted reading sessions in means schools across 3 counties and unfortunately my observations are that the school portrayed was realistic as was the fact that a number of pupils come from an incredibly toxic home environment (such as the murdered girl's best friend).

I wish more people had a genuine understanding of his schools are these days.

As for the policemen not sending his son to "that dump" I'm not sure what choice he would have had. Certainly in my area kids are allocated schools by catchment area. There is a shortage of places and parents can't choose a school unless they can afford to pay fees.

It worries me how many people who have watched the programme don't realise how realistic some elements of it are. I accept that the reality is frightening, and a head in the sand approach feels safer- but ignorance is making things worse as illustrated by the story line and real life events.

I thought it was the best British TV I’ve watched since it’s a sin.

I thought Jamie’s account of going to football and his dad’s account of watching him was chilling and very timely as today it’s a silent support initiative at all participating junior football.

Planning on rewatching it all again but maybe not straight away.

Interesting question @slinkoff. It is a hard watch but not more in terms of being thought provoking and confronting than gratuitous violence or frightening.

My suggestion would be to watch it without your sons first. That way you can decide for yourself as you know them best. It will also help you join the dots of the storyline and give you time to reflect on the issues raised- putting you in a better position to facilitate a discussion or answer questions.....

I agree. Also, as the parent of a son who isn't into traditional sports I thought the football storyline linked into the issue of what it is to be male. There is an underlying expectation in some circles that males play sport and are somehow "less" if they prefer art, music etc..

Totally. I think they were so clever to show mum and dad reminiscing about his art and that in prison he’d had gone back to it drawing showing his dad’s hand drawn card. Yet dad wanting to toughen him up with sports which again is so sad.

Think they also tried to portray modern life and how busy we all are that we in trying to provide things in particular Jamie’s gaming set up that we can miss what children see as most important time spent with them!

Just thought it was so on point on many levels.

The portrayal of the school was alarming. And I say this as someone who was expelled from a city state school in the 90s when I was 16. If this is a realistic portrayal, then we are failing our young kids as parents. Teachers should not have to police, educate and therapize our kids. No wonder we have a teaching crisis in our country.

Brilliantly articulated. Agree with all points!
And you’re right, I didn’t think of the police officer’s father / son relationship was another manifestation of toxic masculinity. I don’t think I can immediately watch it all again but I would definitely want to revisit it at some point as I think the more you watch, the more you notice

I honestly feel it was a realistic portrayal of a school, and I have experience of visiting dozens across 3 counties.

Your point about teachers having to police and therapize kids as well as teach is spot on. Huge amounts of time and care are needed for kids who live in intolerable circumstances with their birth family, plus those in care and who have fled their home countries. These aren't necessarily bad kids, just ones who are desperately struggling and schools are given precious little support to help which drains teaching time and impacts schools as a whole. This is a growing issue but even a relatively low number of kids needing this support has a major impact.

To be clear I'm not blaming the kids, or the teachers. It is the system that is broken.

Some of the police stuff seemed daft, I don’t know enough about police procedures but I wouldn’t be surprised if there is a fair bit of criticism.

Would they really have what looked like the entire local police force conduct a fully armed dawn raid to arrest a 13 year old?

It made for a dramatic opening but didn't seem plausible to me. That said, I have no clue how these things work so am open to correction here!

I also agree that the school seemed like a 'Grange Hill' caricature.

Episode 2 was definitely the weakest. I really don't think it added much to the series. A few scenes at the school would have been enough but the 'filming in one shot' thing means they had to commit to a while episode.

Thank you @Wallasey123, I've not stopped thinking about the series since I finished it.

My son is 18 and my overriding feeling wrt him is relief that he got through school relatively unscathed. I believe that there was an element of luck in that. We all do our best to parent well, but adolescence is so tricky these days that things can go very wrong, very quickly.

Just finished watching this. Absolutely outstanding, in terms of script, acting and production.

Such an important subject as well. I hope it prompts serious discussion and better understanding about how dangerous the influence of suchlike as Andrew Tate and the ideologies they promote really are.

Stephen Graham (always excellent) and everyone involved in this should be heartily congratulated for such an outstanding masterpiece of thought-provoking and well-handled subject matter. It deserves the widest of sudiences.

I don’t think there was one thing that caused Jamie’s actions. The parents were good parents but what is really clear is how the internet is a whole realm where parents have little influence or control.

For me the big take out is, talk to your kids about toxic masculinity and bullying and insist on taking their phones before bed. Had the parents done this, there might have been a chance he could have been stopped before he went so far down the road.

I do this every night with mine aged 16 down. It’s a fight, but its a fight worth having.

I thought it was a fantastic drama. I’ll definitely re-watch. I had expected a ‘courtroom drama’ type of thing.

I loved how well it evoked the different institutions. Jamie and his family were thrown into the criminal justice system, yet the cops were out of their depths at the school as well. The psychologist doesn’t have it under control either. The final episode was quietly devastating.

The focus on Jamie’s journey in accepting his actions was interesting and surprising. I was able to name so many teenage boys who had taken the lives of girls, it really brought the issue of toxic masculinity, misogyny, Internet manosphere radicalisation home. I’ve two boys and it made me think a lot about how to stay connected to them as they grow.

I watched all episodes today but still didn't understand why he killed the girl. I found it difficult understanding what half of the actors were saying so missed a lot of the script.
So whatever powerful message was there was missed by me.
Can someone enlighten me please.
I'm going to have to start putting subtitles on

Spoilers:

Someone showed everyone pics of her topless. He went round to her house to say how sorry he was and to ask her out. She said she wasn't that desperate. She then posted insulting emojis on his instagram.

Brilliant
Thanks

You've summed up 4 hours in 2 seconds 🤣

I agree but my DS'S friend ran away their worried parents tried to do this so it is not that easy tbh.