Adolescence

[heartsinvisiblefury]

What an amazing piece of television. Stephen Graham is exceptional. Highly recommend this - on Netflix.

Can I ask what you mean, please?

Why was it an amazing feat of production? And what do you mean, time for cameras to get round?

sorry to sound ignorant, I dont know much about cinematography and didn’t particularly notice anything when I was watching it.

I think that was the point though.

Most coverage in these situations are about the victim and their families and the impact it has on them.

This was coming at it from a different angle.

They filmed it in one take. That means they started the camera and it didn't stop until the whole episode was finished.

For example, when the camera is on one person that person has to speak to another person for the camera to move with them.

It's about showing how interconnected all the themes are. Everyone is accountable.

Take the psychologist for example, when she lives the room the camera follows her, we don't see a take of Jamie sat in the room on his own - except for when she's looking at the CCTV.

It means everytime the camera is on one person we only see the story through their perspective.

It also means the entire things has to be choreographed to a millisecond. Actors/actresses/extras all need to move exactly on cue. It was rehearsed like a theatre production - something really uncommon in the film industry. Where someone would shout 'TAKE'. The camera would stop and everyone would take their position, then the camera would restart with 'ACTION'. They didn't do that, once the camera started rolling they didn't stop until they had the full 1hr episode. If something happened they had to go right back to the beginning of the episode, not the scene.

@Mumrun25wow, thank you for explaining.

Feeling a bit shocked that I didn’t notice that now

@Mumrun25thanks for the explanation. I saw a video of Ashley Walters saying he was properly out of breath chasing Ryan because usually a chase sequence would have several takes!

No worries. If you go to instagram or tik tok whatever and put in - behind the scenes, filming, adolescence - you should find some behind the scenes clips which shows what the crew had to do. It's really interesting.

I loved that scene because it genuinely looked like normal people running. We've been spoiled with these high fast running chasing scenes from Hollywood! Haha.

Do you mean the scene in the van when they were talking about Aha etc? That was incredibly boring. I agree with you about needing more information on the victim, a season 2 would be good, seeing it completely from the other side. Find out more about Katie & Jamie pre murder.
We finally watched it all last night. It was good but definitely a bit dull at times. I adore Stephen Graham though and his scene at the end had me in tears.
I really wanted the mother to be more emotional. Like when Jamie phoned to say happy birthday. Lisa was crying in the van and I would have been too. Just hearing his little voice would set me off every time if he was my son. But I suppose you’d have to get on with things too. It’s just heartbreaking really. Definitely worth a watch but I wouldn’t watch the 4 together if I was doing it again.

I thought the psychologist episode was the best. I am always interested in what pushes people like this over the edge. It’s so easy to describe them as evil isn’t it. I have often thought what makes some people turn their pain inward ( self harm) and others outwards on other people. What happened to Jamie could have gone the other way resulting in his suicide. They could make an other series similar exploring that. The victim was destroying him (his ego) online when he already had self esteem issues. Also in the clip it looks like the victim was punching him first what was happening there . I might have to watch it again .

Dh and I have been having discussions about it like this. Both of us come from abusive, dysfunctional families, dh is completely no contact with all of his (from mid 20s) and my abusive mum died a few years ago. Dh has also been a victim of sexual abuse. Neither of us have been tipped over the edge into stabbing anyone, not even when I was bullied so badly at school I had to miss school and missed a year between years 7-8. I think it’s very easy for people to blame people’s backgrounds but it isn’t that simple otherwise everyone like dh and I would be doing horrendous things. But we’re not.

I thought this was an outstanding piece of TV let down by a lack of script editing.

Others have picked up on the school, for me it was that a tradesman not knowing what he needed to remove an oil based paint, going to a DIY store instead of a builders merchant, and then not having membership or taking a receipt.

It is inspired by true events but is not a true story. The writer admits it's pretty much just his musings as to why recent murders of teenage girls by teenage boys have happened. This is not a reason to not make something, far from it. Why is far more interesting then following a reenactment of real events, and acceptable to explore when not a real case and victim. However, it makes wrapping the why and unknowns around in the real and true even more important to not lose the viewer.

The why given by the writer is toxic masculinity which is woven throughout the show from the very first scene of the over wise good sort but not very good and we don't know why father and DI farting in his female colleagues car. Some are obvious, too obvious, like the late and raging male teachers. Some more subtle like the female school worker forgetting to introduce the female DI, and then correcting herself.

This explodes after the tedious car journey which is far too long but lays the ground for what comes next and after that, but still could have been shorter. The most important scene in the whole show for me is the parents coming to the realisation that they were of some fault and maybe even what that fault was, and a fault which I think many parents and I include myself can relate to and may even be guilty of or could be.

However for me this was let down by one line "I was looking up gym stuff and suddenly I get all this anti woman stuff" which jumped out to me as too obvious an attempt to remove any ambiguity, and the writers rather then the characters words. I later saw this line word for word from the writer across multiple articles

One thing thrown in here is the Mum saying I got home sooner, in one throwaway comment it is revealed that they both work full time even though the Dad has his own business employing other men and puts in 14 hour days and Mum "a fine woman" with an immaculate home seemingly playing the traditional homemaker.

The twist of dripping in hints that Jamie may have been bullied by the victim and there could possibly be a palatable explanation and then in the phycologist scene finding out he wasn't and there isn't for me adds layers and richness, and is the "who done it" moment.

The one take was a great technique for this piece and had reason to ground the viewer in reality, but was overall sadly let down by a lack of reality in places which I'm surprised was allowed to pass in such a high budget, time consuming and overwise carefully crafted piece.

But overall bravo!

I watched two episodes last night and wasn't a fan. I thought the Jamie character was really off actually. The acting was fine but he didn't seem like any 13 year old I know that would stab someone. He didn't come across as confused/intense/self absorbed in the way 13 year old boys can be.
DH loved it mostly for the filming.He kept banging on about how clever it was. Which I'm sure it is but it seemed a distraction to me.

Disappointed in this. Started with a good idea but then it just became terrible -stereoptypes, bad script, some poor acting (maybe because of the one shot thing). Felt like a wasted opportunity to explore this topic.

"quickly", yes. Within about 3 minutes, no! Even if they are on call they don't usually sit around in suits waiting to go, they're allowed to sleep!

If someone is arrested at, say, 2am police officers usually book them in then allow them to sleep for a few hours then call the solicitor to get there for a reasonable time in the morning - not least because it allows the interviewing officers (usually NOT the same people as the arresting officers) to gather evidence, plan the interview, etc.. While, yes, time is of the essence, they do have 24hrs (and for something like murder it's far more likely an extension would be granted), and interview is the later stage, it's not necessary to get a solicitor in within seconds of an arrest being made.

Bear in mind that some people will have their own solicitor they want to use, who will be sleeping/working/on holiday, not hanging round waiting for their call. It's not like the police say, "We've just arrested Bob Jones, you need to get here in ten minutes or we start the interview without you."

Also they didn't say exactly where it was based but your average town might have solicitors who do conveyancing or write wills, they are very unlikely to have a full on criminal law firm, duty solicitors can cover a large area. Think of the size somewhere like Devon & Cornwall/mid Wales police force cover and how rural some of it is. There might be less traffic at 6.40am but that doesn't mean a solicitor can just apparate over in seconds from the nearest city!

see this A day in the life of court-hopping criminal solicitor - BBC News - it takes her 2 hours to get to the police station after being called.

It didn't ruin it for me but it just seemed like a bit of style over substance - like they were so committed to the one take that they didn't bother checking whether the content made actual sense. Which when the substance was otherwise so good was a bit disappointing, particularly when they could easily have done both.

Like you said, if the murder had taken place an hour or two earlier and the arrest at 7.30 or 8am it would be slightly more believable. Or when the DI went into the corridor to eat his apple, they could have turned the camera away from him and then back (or to a clock/watch/phone, and then back) - to indicate time had passed but not end the take.

Just because something can be done in terms of cinematography (and don't get me wrong, it was very impressive), doesn't necessarily mean it should be. Does shooting a tv show as if it were a play add to the performance as a whole (because it adds immediacy/immersion/freshness - I saw an interview with the actors who said they wished they could do all filming that way) or distract from it?

I really enjoyed it overall (if enjoy is the right term?) so not disparaging, just think it's interesting to discuss!

I'm with you. I know what you mean.

I think what it did achieve though was that intensity and panic.

If it had been cutting to scenes and filming it in the more traditional way, I'm not sure I would have felt the same way.

Whereas when I watched it I felt like I was catching emotions - I was stressed, confused, outraged, sad, and despite seeing the CCTV I still had that doubt of - his friend looks alot like him, maybe it was him.

Then he tripped up with the psychologist and I still thought something was coming where it turned out he was just covering for his friend. I still held that bit of hope that this crying young lad didn't do it.

Then the end come and the 'I'm going to plead guilty' and even though deep down I knew he had done it, because of the CCTV - I think I was like the Dad waiting for this point where it would all come out that it wasn't him.

I'm not sure I'd have been as invested as I was, if it was filmed differently - but hard to know unless you can watch it both ways.

But some of those niggles could have been worked out and it would have been better for it, had they been.

Agree. I don’t work in schools, but three DC went through entire school system in typical city schools where kids have been murdered and stabbings are depressingly common.

Episode 2 lost me. I found it utterly implausible. As if his bullied son is going to seek out his dad while at school to explain red pill/blue pill and emojis. Plus, his son looked absolutely nothing like him. And as for the bumbling teacher liaising with the cops, who’s never heard of incels. Just dire. There’s no way a school would handle it like that. And the cops seem disinterested in the serious assault that takes place under their nose.

I also found Episode 3 frustrating for similar reasons. How come he had no responsible adult with him for the psychological assessment. If that was realistically depicted, there’s some bad practice. Her questioning was infuriating.

The filming method did make me wonder whether there were any bits of it that weren't perfect but kept in. If someone slightly paraphrased a few words in the script, I guess they wouldn't reset the whole thing and some of the bits of dialogue which seemed slightly repetitive, were they intentional or just a little muck up? It made me wonder whether everyone should read so much into every word.

I don't know, it would just be interesting to know which bits were in the script and which bits slightly differed.

I was confused about the emoji thing as that seemed to be the girl that had brought it up and used it. But I thought this was a male incel culture thing. Why would a teenage girl show an interest in it and think it to be true? Was it to give us more sympathy for the boy. I think her rejecting him and laughing at him would have been enough.

I agree. The reaction it seems to be getting is perhaps as intended: putting the pearl clutching fear into Middle England parents that their little Jamie could be turned into a misogynistic killer due to what happens online and at school.

Whereas most teenage knife murders are linked to serious youth violence, organised criminal gangs or (sadly) a typical teenage argument where someone happens to have a knife. Or because a kid is traumatised and/or has some sort of neuro/mental disability. All these things happened long before the internet, though the prevalence of kids carrying knives has increased. Even young men being incel is age-old. It pops up in Victorian novels and 1950s high school films. There’s always the socially awkward young man who struggles to be desirable to young women. But most don’t murder people.

IMHO the whole story wasn’t plausible and was poorly researched. The script also let it down in places. I’m not sure what it’s trying to say. Though still enjoyed it due to the one-shot reality, e.g. Ashley Walters being genuinely out of breath and perspiring from running.

Exactly. Stephen Graham's rather simplistic take on knife crime. Oh but he knocked a shed down and oozed toxic masculinity. No, he was just a parent on a short fuse as many sadly are.

Reviews and analysis still appearing on the tv and chat shows as if Graham is some kind of Messiah with his all revealing teachings. No, he's a bad actor who alway plays himself and has made up a silly story.

Easier for the politicians to focus on the non event that is apparently a 13yr old 'incel' which must represent all 13yr olds rather than the real problem which is abusive homes, gang and drug culture.

Spoke to DD 17 who says no one her age uses the term incel

so she thinks it’s either a northern thing or used by DC the same year group as boy in Adolescence so age 13. Younger than her year group anyway

I’m not aware of school kids using that term.

Or... maybe your one DD doesn't necessarily speak for her entire generation...?

Look at the multiple threads on here about Ep2 - you've got teachers saying it's completely over exaggerated representation of schools today, teachers saying it's realistic and teachers saying that it's too tame!

You wouldn't say "Well my dd's a teacher and says it's like that" and expect everyone to go "oh okay, the definitive authority has spoken, ignore our experiences."

Also part of the point was that actually none of the pupils DID use the word incel or refer to Andrew Tate by name (other than the DI's son, and that was because he was essentially 'translating' it for his dad into terms his dad would understand). They were using things like the red pill emoji. That was part of the disconnect - adults and teens using different terminology.

One other thing that wasn't realistic (unless it was explained somewhere and I missed it) - when the police officers went into the school the only 2 classes they spoke to were Jamie's form class (which made sense), and then a random Year 11 form class (the DI's son's class), that none of the people involved (Katie, Jamie, Ryan) were in. Why would they do that? His son even said "I don't know them, they're two years below me."

His son said it was embarrassing to see his dad bumbling around without a clue, but he wasn't bumbling or making false assumptions - he didn't really say anything that could be interpreted in ANY particular way - he just addressed the class saying if they knew anything to let the police know, particularly about the knife. I can't see what he would have said any differently even if they had "translated" the insta comments BEFORE going into the classrooms. It wasn't as if he said anything about the insta posts when addressing the class, and even once his son had explained them, having more of a "motive" didn't negate the fact they still needed the murder weapon as evidence, so it just didn't make any sense to say that his dad came across as so out of touch he felt he had to explain things to him.

(obviously the cinematographic point was to introduce his son as a character so he could explain the insta posts to him, but, again, they could have done that in a way that actually made sense - them addressing the whole school in an assembly, or having mixed age form groups, etc).

You're wrong. I have heard of boys as young as 10 reference Andrew Tate, and my secondary school teacher SiL tells me its a significant influence amongst the teen boys she teaches. The biggest error we can make as adults is to imagine we know what's going on for teens. The only way we can gain any insight is to let go of our preconceptions about what's 'realistic' and hear it from the horses mouths. As I'm certain the researchers would have done.