It's A Sin! Russell T Davies - Blame all on the mother?

[SagaLi]

I just discovered "It's A Sin!" by Russell T Davies because it is currently on a French TV website. The series is really exciting and well played. It is the same kind of spirit that I've known in the nineties in London, even if the series takes place 15 years sooner.

But I was very disappointed by the last episode. The way the mother was pictured and blamed for everything by the of the main character's best friend, was very violent. Even if on previous episodes, some mothers were presented with a better light, the final generic reproach sounded like a blame for all mothers, guilty of all the suffering of gay men. It is unfair, considering that homophobia is closely related to patriarchy and the prejudices it carries, whose main victims are both women and gay or queer men. Reality shows us that most crimes, and particularly the most violent ones, are committed by men, and the main victims are women (starting with rape in childhood). Reality shows us also that the richest people in the world are a few men, who have therefore most power to change things. The poorest people in the world, even in western societies, are single mothers. But from Eve to today's women, we are still blamed for all the sins of society. Our mothers are assumed to be guilty each time a person does not grow up "in a good way". She is the unfortunate Christmas tree in which we hang all our grievances, while she does the hardest job in the world without getting paid. She gives us life and in return she is despised, plundered and oppressed.

The fact that Russell T Davies contributes to this, through a movie aimed to open compassion, is deeply disturbing, because it is by many ways a good and exciting show, which makes the blame on the mother even more efficient in its destructive effect.

It is fortunate that Russell T Davies's own mother has died before she could watch this. It would have destroyed her.

What do you think?

I think that Ritchie's mother wanted to have her son all to herself in his final days and, rightly or wrongly, blamed Jill and the gang and their lifestyle for him catching the disease in the first place.

I also think that Ritchie's actions in sleeping with other people knowing he had HIV was downplayed. I think that was a terrible thing to do. He knowingly sentenced them to death and he knew it was a death sentence because of what happened to Colin.

Having lived through those time I thought it was a great series and the attitudes were portrayed accurately. However all the female characters were barely one dimensional. I didn’t really expect anything else from Russell T Davies though.

I take it you didn't watch The Grand and Bob and Rose?

I actually thought Ritchie's dad was more accepting at the end than his mum. His whole demeanor changed to wanting to care and love for his son whereas previously he had very much been a 'man's man'. It was Ritchie's mum who was still openly disgusted with Richie being gay. I thought the dad was able to put that to one side to show his son love which he had never done before.

I think he is more than capable of writing decent female characters, I loved cucumber. Also the original Dr who run, seems to have disappeared up his own derriere lately though.

Fucking space babies my arse.

Some of the fathers were just as "bad" as Ritchies mum, the Scottish guy who was the bus conductors dad just took him home to die then burned his belongings, totally erasing his existence, these men just disappeared from the lives of their friends, it probably wasn't rare.

Correct! I haven’t seen either. I have seen other work of RTD and think that female characters are generally not his forte. It’s not the end of the world, if the story is good I’ll praise it. As I do with ‘It’s a Sin’. I also recognise that the female characters are only significant in this series in connection with their relationship to the main characters so it’s not critical.

I think he burned them because he was afraid of "catching" AIDS from the belongings?
Even Jill threw away a mug that someone with HIV had drunk out of

As far as I saw it, the mother hinted at being a victim of sexual abuse by her own father. I think she’d spent her entire life trying to protect her child and saw his illness as a failure on her part.

As far as I saw it, the mother hinted at being a victim of sexual abuse by her own father.
I completely missed that inference

Reminder of the speech : https://www.tiktok.com/@thebaldestbitch/video/7154712021479607557
"They all die because of you"
This mother is already suffering from the death of her beloved child

Yes it was this but it just showed the fear and ignorance didn't it ?

Yes I agree with this. Binge watched it when it first came out. Thought it was amazing. But when I looked back on it I came to the conclusion that the female characters were lazily written by Russell T Davies.

It’s easy to portray people from those times as ignorant knuckle draggers. It’s true that gay rights have come a long way since then, but when you have an unknown and deadly virus it is hardly surprising people take measures to avoid catching it - see Covid for example and that probably wouldn’t kill you, unlike HIV in the eighties.

yes this, ironic seeing as OP referred to "the main victims are women (starting with rape in childhood)."

It's cyclical abuse. If the series had been about the mother then the 'blame' would have been on her father and her motivations might be explained and to some extent excused more, but she wasn't the main character!

People are making the same point about adolescence - 'whataboutery' - saying 'but they didn't focus on women/girls/the victim/give enough information about andrew tate.'

It's like they don't understand the concept of a finite piece of media which focusses on ONE main topic or POV and has a set amount of time in which to do so.

there are PLENTY of other shows which show the effects of male violence on women. THIS show was focussed on the primarily male experience of being gay in the 90s. Jill and the mother were not the main characters, they were (important) secondary/supporting characters so we didn't need (and there wasn't time for) a full expose into their entire lives and backgrounds and motivations. We saw them through the prism of the main character.

Just like in real life where we see things via our own POV and don't know everyone else's thoughts and actions.

As a pp said, there were supposed to be more episodes but CH4 limited them - if there had been perhaps there would be more about them, but it's a bit odd to say that because there was one unsympathetic female character the whole show is blaming the mother, when there were also sympathetic female characters and unsympathetic male ones.

It is fortunate that Russell T Davies's own mother has died before she could watch this. It would have destroyed her.What do you think? I think that is a ridiculous comment to make about people you don't know.

Ritchie dad had fostered an environment where his son felt it would be impossible to come out for many years, and yet his character is made redeemable by morphing into a loving father after discovering his son’s terminal diagnosis. Where as his Mum is previously more accepting but revealed as a manipulative “bigot” who blames his death on his lifestyle and therefore is the villain. The only 2 female characters are there to cheerlead, carers or objects of blame. RTD seems like he doesn’t interact with women in real life, so doesn’t know how to write them other than as support roles to the male characters who have all the storylines and fun. Same in Queer as Folk. In Doctor Who the female companions barely get more than 3 syllables in there full names.

So did I.

I saw it as he was ashamed as still a lot of stigma regarding Aids then.

Was it Russell T Davis that said only gay people should play gay roles?

I took the "they all die because of you" to mean that Ritchie's mum was like so many parents in the 80s who had no idea their children were gay or are in complete denial because of homophobic views born out of upbringing and ignorance.

Yes his mum was grieving her child (and it would have been devastating to realise she never even knew him) but Jill was grieving her best friend of 10 years so her outburst represented her grief and anger at parents and society for not letting all these boys be their true selves all of the time.

That's the case in so many aspects of life

I absolutely can't stand that trope.

A mother’s grief is going to be hugely greater than the grief one suffers at the loss of a friend (however close)

Also the boys died because of their lifestyle and the unknown ( at the time) risks.; not because their mothers didn’t accept their homosexuality!

Ritchie’s mum might have been in denial, but she absolutely loved him. Her thinking was that his friends had had him during his “best” years. But it was she who gave birth to him and she wanted him all to herself on his death.

It was unkind maybe to Jill, but understandable nonetheless.

I know this is an old thread but insofar as Jill has no love life shown, this article seems to show that this was fairly accurate in terms of the real Jill's life. They should have showed other aspects though: the question I suppose is whether Jill wanted less personal detail in the TV series or not.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/life/its-a-sin-jill-nalder-aids/

Didn't Ritchie ask for Jill when he was dying though? Seems cruel to shut her out.

I agree Ritchie didn't die simply because of his mother, that certainly wasn't true. Otoh it wasn't helpful of her to reject him (is that what happened though? - I need to rewatch)