Adolescence

[heartsinvisiblefury]

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

Yeah it was quite good, but I did struggle a bit with the way it was done, (the 'one take/just one camera following people around' thing,) and the slightly unprofessional way it was done. I know it was to make it authentic, but I just wasn't keen on that way of filming. Also, I think (as several others have said) that some of the scenes dragged. Especially the one with the psychotherapist. And the one in the school when the 2 cops went in to speak the the kids.

I also agree with some of the flaws in it. Like how the kids behaved in the school would not have been tolerated, nor would the sloppy teacher who kept coming in late. It was also daft how the police just waltzed around the school willy nilly. And the scene was weird, of the family going to a DIY store, and laughing and joking - when their pre-pubescent son was incarcerated and accused of murder and about to be on trial for it. I don't think I would ever sleep again if one of my children was locked up and about to be on trial for murder, let alone be PMSL at daft jokes with the family.

A pp was correct though when they said this lad is a larvae of a vile misogynistic adult male, coached by Andrew tate and the cunts who support him.

It was pretty good overall, and I really like Stephen Graham (and he was good in it) and the 13 year old actor was OK in the role of the child murderer, but I wouldn't watch this again. It's a 6/10 from me.

I agree with pps who said the first episode was the best. I was ready to give it 8.5 out of 10, maybe 9. But overall, yep, a 6 out of 10.

.

Obviously, but was supposed to have happened the evening before, yet by 6am the police had retrieved the footage and identified Jamie but how? On camera it would just have been a random boy, who identified him from the CCTV?

I would imagine they have many information streams which enable them to very quickly identify a person seen murdering another person on camera. Reviewing other CCTV, asking witnesses who they are and narrowing it down by process of elimination. There's only so many small 13 year old boys living in a walkable radius of any given point.

Oh yeh, I definitely think he was frightened. He certainly has feelings for HIMSELF, but at no point does he show any empathy for the girl he murdered and her family. It's a pathological level of egotism to express no sympathy or remorse in that situation, especially when, as you say, he definitely had emotions.

I'd say he was more personality disordered rather than psychopathic. I noticed some narcissistic traits. He was a very entitled young man who felt the world was not making way for him in the way that it should or recognising him as exceptional. Lots of people get bullied and have low self-esteem, the vast majority do not commit violent acts; doing so indicates a problem with rage and entitlement. The fact that he refuses to admit what he's done even after being faced with video footage also indicates narcissistic traits to me.

The issues that his Dad created as a male role model by presenting in a very overly macho way which he could not live up to were also explored. I really felt for the Dad, who had tried to break the patterns of violence in his childhood home but not quite done well enough to avoid passing down issues.

I’ve watched the first three episodes and I am enjoying it, although episode 2 was a bit boring. But I don’t like the one shot thing. I never like things like that that are just done for the sake of it. I don’t see what it added, but it did mean everything was in real time which made it seem unrealistic - they were interviewing him with a solicitor about 45 mins after bashing his door down? That cannot be a realistic time frame for the police.
Same for the fire drill at the school - they were outside for what, 3 minutes?
I thought episode 3 was really good, and made more sense to be done in one shot because it was (mainly) just the two of them and it worked really well.

I was watching with one of my teens and I asked if it is realistic that kids would be freaking out in a fire alarm and she said it was! Partly because they have to leave their bags behind though. My older teen said they would be calm and happy to skip a lesson so maybe it’s depending on the year group.

I found the reaction of some of the pupils to the fire alarm very realistic - ‘sir is it a terrorist attack?’ Some children just thrive on drama.

That's what I kept on saying !

Just finished it, that last episode and the impact it had on his family was a hard watch- the girl wasn't the only victim. That last scene had me in tears that was so powerful

The fact they thought he was safe as he was "in his room" shows just how dangerous social media is for these kids, as someone up thread said, it should be banned for under 16s, far far too many things they can access they shouldn't be. He was almost more unsafe in his room due to what social media and the Internet was giving him access to, when pre social media etc, it would have been what was outside that could cause harm

Should be shown in schools and to all parents. Sort of links to lack of safeguarding training to the wider public as well, I've had safeguarding training due to a school based role. Despite this, some of the terminology I'd never heard of, must be so hard to keep up with it all

They can survive with brick phones, if giving them a smart phone, it should be checked. The fact primary age children are getting access to smart phones is even scarier. I'm so glad I didn't grow up in the social media generation

Agree about the lax parenting though - when I was growing up we had a family computer, it was in tbe open plan lounge/dining area so there was no chance I could look up anything without parents walking past and seeing it. OH who is 4 years younger, had a laptop so had much more free access as wasn't in the family space all the time when using it, now kids (including primary age) have all sorts of devices with varying degrees of unrestricted access.

'Just finished it, that last episode and the impact it had on his family was a hard watch- the girl wasn't the only victim'

The girl and her family were victims. The Millers sadly had a stressful, awful time but they were not victims.

'The fact they thought he was safe as he was "in his room" shows just how dangerous social media is for these kids, '

Or, it shows how crap his parents were. They lived in an average sized semi not a massive house, how on earth didnt they hear him come and go? There is not a chance when ours were 13 they could be out wandering the streets at 10pm at night whilst we thought they were in their bedroom.

His sister is a victim, IMO, though obviously to a lesser extent than Katie and her family.

PPs objecting to the Episode 2 filming and portrayal of the school: I thought it was brilliant - the endless up and down stairs, along corridors, etc effectively portrayed the dis-jointed, higgldy-piggldy nature of most schools. It certainly reflected my experience of the typical UK secondary school and the symbolism was obvious. Also the chaos - again, my impression of secondaries, and the kids behaviour on that day would be very influenced by the murder, which would have been very unsettling. Agreed the copper’s somewhat random approach seemed ineffective & unlikely.
I also thought the first episode reflected the very process-orientation of policing. I laughed when a copper at one point said”Do we need a risk assessment”. That whole approach I thought was effective. The identification of Jamie, analysis of CCTV, school reports, etc in 6 hours was not credible, but I suppose done for drama purposes.
Just watched Episode 3 - I didn’t find the psychologist very credible - it is basically the art of listening & she didn’t do much of that! Jamie’s first blow up was the result of not being listened to & talked over, & was effective dramatically.

She isn't a victim, nothing compares to the real victims. The Millers, and similar families irl, will live with the consequences obviously but they stil have 2 living kids. No-one has been murdered in their family.

it annoyed me that when erin left the room to get him another hot chocolate that she left her bag and jacket in the room with him.
also when she said to him "I need you to sit down". i think she should have said "please sit down" - in a situation like that what her needs were are totally irrelevant she shouldn't have been saying "I need ...." that REALLLY annoyed me and i thought it was totally wrong.

i'll shuffle through the rest of it and then go back to watching friends. in case no-one was interested.

@Gloriia Which is why I said “obviously to a lesser extent”. I don’t agree with you. I do think his sister is a victim. She bears no responsibility for his upbringing since she is a minor, a child herself, growing up with that same toxic masculinity. She doesn’t have any parental duty of care. So all of this toxicity, and the hate associated with the crime, plus the fracturing of their family unit and effective loss of her brother to the justice system… she’s done nothing to create this situation. By definition, of course she’s a victim in all this. Equally, it’s obvious that her suffering isn’t on par with that of a literal murder victim, or a parent who has lost their child. That would be a nonsensical comparison and no one has made it.

The hideous toxic masculinity and domestic violence and coercive control in the last episode by Stephen Graham was a VERY hard watch.

He was utterly terrifying, I felt sick 🤢 all the way through

He just looked like a father under immense stress and strain at breaking point to me. I missed the domestic violence and the coercive control?

Me too. I'm in ep 2 so far and don't get what the big hoo ha about it is , seems pretty average drama to me so far

I really brought into the one continuous scene way of filming. I felt like it took me on a journey with the action and that they weren’t going to cut away / leave me on a cliffhanger. It helped me engage with the dialogue more than in usual dramas where the scenes change constantly.

I thought the psychologist scenes were brilliant. The man “mansplaning” body language to her and questioning her number of visits, as though the other male psychologist with less visits was more efficient. I thought her reaction when Jamie left the room, and when she left the room was good. I don’t think she was shocked at his outbursts. I think she was a very good psychologist who, by building a relationship but not giving him the platitudes he wanted (you are not ugly etc), and by simply being a woman who had power over him (by the report she was writing) she brought out the side of him that wasn’t far from the surface. We have the impression the male psychologist didn’t challenge Jamie at all, completed some boxes on a form and left.

I thought how shaken she was was good also. In that moment she was a woman subject to male aggression because she was a woman. She didn’t let him see. But we know the odds are that outside of that room there’s every chance she’s experienced male aggression in some form or another because she’s a woman. She can see in that moment what it may have been like for the victim.

Same, could you enlighten us LaurieFairyCake

'The man “mansplaning” body language to her and questioning her number of visits'

Yes, and standing way too close to her when she was looking at the screens. And cracking loads of tedious jokes. It was really well observed

Jamie's comment that his dad wasnt particularly angry, and he had only seen him 'tear down a shed' once in anger - sounds pretty terrifying to me! I think male anger was much more of a factor in that home than anybody realised

We don't know what the victim's phone stated - she may have text she was going to meet Jamie to a family member or friend she was meeting later, for example. Some of the narrative is kept deliberately from us - we just don't know. It wasn't a whodunnit, it wasn't a crime to be solved; we're so used to seeing that kind of drama on TV, where all loose ends are tied up but that wasn't the point of the show. If it was, it would've just been like the other many police/crime dramas on TV.

It's interesting you say that because that is a behaviour management strategy taught in schools.

"I need you to...XYZ, thank you."

I thought the youngster playing Jamie did a superb job. One minute he was a vulnerable, snively, baby-faced kid - the next a terrifying, explosive monster. I thought he did a superb job of making the character unpredictable and totally ambiguous.

I found the mother character a bit exasperating. I wanted her to be more involved. Who sits there, saying nothing, when their kid calls the car on speakerphone? Surely you’d chime in and say hello and how are you as soon as you hear your child’s voice?
I also found her to be quite smiley and upbeat for the first part of Ep 4. I get that it’s her husband’s birthday but it all felt a bit unhinged to me. I can’t imagine singing along, breezily, to Aha when I’m counting down the final few weeks to my 13 year old’s murder trial. Surely it would consume your every waking moment? Surely you’d think of nothing else.

The psychologist (Princess Anne from The Crown!) was brilliant. Great character, great lines and fantastic performance. You could see the power dynamics shifting between her and Jamie and (sadly) her terror.

Over all I found it absorbing and very thought-provoking.