Adolescence - Netflix

[onetwothreefourfive11]

Anyone seen it?

As a mum with a young DS I’m finding it hard to watch without going into a worry spiral

It was brilliant, although I did think the first episode was the best and the others not as good.

Thinking of the dad's reaction, wondering is he going to ask his son what have you done, did you do it, he didn't ask him anything I was urging him to through the screen. Then the realisation in the last episode, the reality of it.

A second series would be good, maybe going through the Court process and coping with detention.

Such a gut wrenching watch. Made me wonder how many families are out there like that? The family dynamic just looked so soulless to me. Two parents pretending that everything is alright and that they’re great family unit. No love in that home, no wonder the child grew up to be that way.

Not as disturbing as killing a classmate I suppose?

Based on a true story?

Was it 100% Jamie in the CCTV images? He never said that's not me when shown the footage.

Apparently not from what I have read. Thankfully!

Bits of the school were far too exaggerated but most of the kids (who I assume were real schoolkids roped in as extras) moved about perfectly sensibly (eg during fire drill) and were sat nicely in lessons. It felt a bit like the kids with speaking lines were playing it all up - apart from the attack on Ryan the girls all seemed demure which was annoying stereotyping. I thought the line about videos was po faced and sanctimonious. The teachers seemed to be barracking pointlessly at one point just to make them look shouty. I'd like it if the programme had more empathy for teachers going through trauma, tbh - jeez, I'd stick a video on. The NQT bit was ridiculous (he wouldn't wander off to the toilet/wander in late like that just because he was 'an NQT' and certainly not straight after such a big event or while police and visitors were around) and none of it matched Jamie's genuine enthusiasm for history shown in ep 1 : I thought it was all to make Ashley W appear extra special. I'd forgotten the writer was Jack Thorne. He can lack realism. I think it' interesting that commentary on line has gone to handwringing about the school episode (where we didn't actually see the kids on phones....) I guess that's because so many parents worry that that's where they think kids are safe but they can't see them. The point was also made about 'being out with mates' and in their bedrooms.

The behaviour of the boys in the school was realistic for an ordinary day - they can be misogynistic twerps and some are downright nasty : they do represent the range of human behaviour. However, it was not credible straight after a murder when a school goes into absolute shock and trauma. Apart from a shrine and two girls looking upset it seemed an ordinary day. Sadly , I have been a teacher in school after two murders so have actual insight and it is not like that at all. Tbh in terms of the school, I don't think it was meant to be 'rough' - the point about Jamie was he was an ordinary lad form an ordinary family : I feel sure Thorne was avoiding stereotypes. Thorne is on a bit of a mission. He has a son and I read an interview where he says urgent action is needed and advocates controls on social media and a ban on phones in schools.

The most annoying aspect (apart from the video line) was the whole organisation of one woman (wasn't even clear why she was doing this) kind of haphazardly showing the police around. It would almost certainly be the head or DSL and be FAR more drilled and organised. There is no way kids would find any of the actual event funny - at least not publicly. (sure gossip in corridors etc) And the pig noises was a dated thing. The corridors were actually far less Wild West than they can be! They were far too empty and quiet.

I did go off the programme in episode 2 must say (I thought episode one was excellent). It felt like Thorne was doing some leisurely teacher bashing without really digging very deep. A more 'socialist' filmmaker would have dug deeper on broader societal strains and expectations on schools and education - but that's a whole different show.

Male on female violence is very very real - and girls experience lots of sexual harassment in school. But it remains unlikely that a boy would attack a girl like this who he had very little relationship with. Teenage boys are far more likely to kill family members and long term girlfriends. I didn't like the element of victim blaming in the series. The only poignant bit really in episode 2 was when her friend cried when talking in the classroom to the teacher. It was also, however, unrealistic that she would still be in circulation after assaulting someone and the runaway Ryan bit was frankly laughable.

I asked my year 12s. They weren't aware of lots of the emojis or the colour coding. They also use the word incel in a really different way. They see it as a word about violent males who hate women,. They said no one insults by by calling them incels (although 'flat' is a term used to insult girls). In fact large numbers of children aren't actually aware of the portmanteau nature of the word and just think it's a word for an angry , rejected man. I'm sure the team did research but it didn't match what I found.

Students I teach think social media is very harmful in lots of ways and worry a lot about Andrew Tate. Year 9 are certainly the worst in terms of blatant disrespect for girls and for female staff members.

When you do one of the jobs featured you always unpick TV shows too much. Schools and teachers are often a big fail on TV (writers and actors have rarely had the upbringings they attempt to depict. The Bay also had very unrealistic school stuff recently ! I always assume the policing stuff is properly researched and episode one felt real but I'd be interested in the take of lawyers, police and psychologists to be truthful.

I saw it yesterday and didn’t think it went far enough about the horrors of incels / misogyny etc . What really is it . They could have made much more of the devastation to the victims family , given a much better understanding of what to look out for . I think too much emphasis was on Jamie’s family . The parents message of we should have done better just wasn’t strong enough .

The one take idea was interesting but is probably what led to the lack of proper depth, I think.

The problem is these issues are starting earlier than the teenage years unfortunately:
https://www.thetimes.com/article/602e2322-5012-4efc-b961-a501ae2faf8f?shareToken=6c9795cf780b8ee57ef55102b54f2b88

Watched this this yesterday. It wasn't quite what I expected. But I thought it was gripping ,especially the first two. But I was interested that the dad never hugged the boy until a long way in, dad's anger was clear and his being bullied at school (which he covered up as a joke) which spilled out. The mum and sister on egg shells around him. Hom working long hours . So I wasn't sure how much this was meant to portray the other vulnerabilities as the hype is that this is about social media. Nature, nurture, environment. Or are they just meant to be a flawed ,every day family .

It’s inspired by a true story not based on one.

There were a lot of subtleties in how Eddie thought he was a good father because he wasn’t physically violent like his own father was to him. But he talked over his wife and daughter, chastised them, flew into rages which they had to placate, insisted on doing things they didn’t want to do, was ashamed of his son (and how his son made HIM look) for not being sporty. I also thought it was an interesting contrast with the DI who was in a very “tough and masculine” job but was intelligent and insightful, and realised he was benignly neglecting his own son and took steps to rectify that.

I disagree, the one take approach made it feel suffocating, like you couldn’t get away. There was no reprieve with a cut scene or fluffy interaction to pace the intensity. It was uncomfortable, deliberately so.

It wasn’t about an in-depth story, but getting the depth from those moments, and what those moments revealed about a bigger storyline (and issue), even if you didn’t see it fully play out as you traditionally would throughout the series. You would never get that depth doing it traditionally, because there isn’t the time as they explain the whole story, and build up tension and atmosphere through other methods, and usually, trying to create a ‘whodunnit’ style story (which this wasn’t).

No, I agree about the claustrophobia and I agree the lack of depth was an intentional juxtaposition against normal dramas.

But something about it felt superficial nonetheless. I thought it worked well in episode one because it reflected the sudden shock and intensity of the events and reflected well the bewilderment of the parents not knowing what was happening and this replicated audience desire to piece together things. The format suited that episode and episode 3. It was least successful in episode 2 where it jumped the shark with runaway Ryan.

I really was gripped by the first episode. The start up to showing the cctv footage was incredible to me. I liked the one take thing but I had appreciated it in another SG production.

The dialogue in the school one felt more unbelievable but I like Ashley Walters a lot, new to me as an actor. The school looked pretty off putting.

The psychologist episode was good and the boy actor did a v good job, as did the woman. The use of changing light was inspired.

The last episode I didn’t like that much and sadly I think my view on SG as an actor has changed a bit. He’s a bit samey and I used to think that coiled up thing worked well but didn’t land as well.

I thought it was suggesting that he didn’t think he’d done anything wrong inkilling her , as well as being a denial

What? Like she deserved it or something?

I haven’t been impressed so far, although I still haven’t watched the last episode.

I agree with most of what @Piggywaspushed has said. I’m also not sure how realistic the scene with the psychologist was. Interesting watch though.

That was my thought. That the denial could be read two ways: 1) that he was saying he didn’t do it, but also 2) that there was a level on which his brain was struggling to think he had actually done anything wrong in killing her. Because the script didn’t go: I didn’t do it, I didn’t do it. IT went: I didn’t do anything wrong, over and over again, which I thought was actually quite clever. I think there were certain quite clunky bits of the script but I thought that bit worked quite well

He did think she'd deserved it, he approached her when he thought she was vulnerable and should be grateful that he liked her, he thought it was good that he didn't touch her body intimately when she was dead, he could have done , most boys would have done.

I don't think he meant he could have touched her when she was dead. That's a whole other level of psychological disturbance...

The following extract is taken from the counter terrorism website and I feel is relevant to the programme. And also to the pressure we, as individuals, should be applying to our own MPs.

The Five Eyes paper sets out key issues which must be addressed if this worrying trend is to be halted or reversed, each requiring different parts of society to come together in collective action. They are:

• Minors are ‘digital natives’ who are more technically savvy than previous generations. They use multiple platforms and applications in their daily lives, some of which are a security concern.
• Online environments, especially encrypted ones, offer unrestricted access to children by sex offenders, extremists and other malign actors – who can be trying to exploit them in a number of different ways.
• Engaging with children is more complex than with adults. The unique characteristics of adolescents makes them especially vulnerable to influence, while also making them more cynical about efforts to protect them.
• Law enforcement and security services are unable to address these concerns in isolation – it requires action from the public, Governments, tech companies and other sections of society to improve our collective defence against this issue.
• It’s not just someone’s age which can make them vulnerable, other factors like mental health or neurodiversity also play a significant role, and we are only just beginning to understand how these factors impact counter terrorism work.

The Five Eyes countries want to treat the publication of the ‘Young People and Violent Extremism’ paper as a call to action, urging parents to take greater interest in their children’s digital lives, Governments to strengthen legislative support for law enforcement, and the tech industry to take greater responsibility for the harm done on their platforms.

As a secondary teacher of 14 years (left teaching about coming up for 2 years ago), I disagree. I think there were aspects which were unrealistic and a bit insulting to teachers (eg the insinuation that kids are just sitting watching videos in lessons, that teachers leave classes unattended and routinely wander in late, the irritating flappy member of staff who showed the police round). Equally, I think the PP who commented that the programme really misjudged the mood of the school in the aftermath of one of their peers being murdered by another of their peers was very accurate. I felt really discombobulated by the depiction of the school and students in that respect. The mood round a school in situations like that is sombre and the kids are deeply affected. In my experience, they are ready to listen respectfully to adults like teachers and the police in those situations.

However, in terms of the general depiction of chaos, distressed and angry pupils running off / running around schools and teachers chasing after them or pleading with them to return / teachers having to act as counsellors and social workers / students swearing at staff / students disrupting learning routinely and generally behaving disrespectfully - this is all accurate on my experience.

There are a MAJORITY of lovely young people in schools and an EVER-GROWING MINORITY of disrespectful students and a minority of students who are unable to regulate their emotions and their behaviour. Unfortunately, the minority take up a hugely disproportionate amount of staff resources and time, and are capable of disrupting learning and school life to a disproportionate degree and often drag other, more respectful young people into their orbit, leading to the ever-growing aspect.

The school I Iast taught in was in a nice, rural area. Students swearing at staff was routine. Students disrupting learning was routine. A minority of students roaming corridors, truanting, damaging equipment, smoking and worse in toilets, refusing staff requests, running round school was routine.

It will depend on the school and its demographic and the depiction of the school in Adolescence has its pros and cons. I had read a little online about it before watching and had noted with interest the shock of some people at the way the school was presented. When I watched it, I can honestly say that, having read the comments, I was waiting for it to get extreme and it didn't and I wasn't shocked, but not because the behaviour shown isn't bad but because it is realistic and tallies overall with what I have witnessed.

I'm very glad that's your experience. My experience of every school I've worked in is exactly how it was portrayed.