Netflix dropped a limited series a few days ago, with no promotion or hype at all – Adolescence – created by Jack Thorne and Stephen Graham (who also stars), and suddenly everyone seems to be praising it to the moon & back.
But is it really praiseworthy? Or just another case of the recent trend in social media to praise everything praised by someone before, & bring down anything brought down by someone before.
Adolescence starts off as a police procedural, with the police officers (the main guy played by Ashley Walters) taking an entire squad equipped with guns & automatic weapons to a normal-looking house in an English town to arrest – hold your breath here – a THIRTEEN year old boy Jamie, for murder. I guess that sounds plausible enough. The thirteen year old was going to probably attack their squad or attempt running away using brute force or weaponry. And that’s just the first thing that irks you.
The other thing that definitely irks you is the “technical brilliance” the show displays in shooting episodes in one take. Yes, that means there’s no cut in between shots. And it also means VISIBLY seeing actors wait for their cue and walk in and out of the frame, it means being aware of the camera as a viewer, it means using a technique that wasn’t necessarily called for by the story being told. One-take films or shows are not unique, but only make sense when applied to the right story – for example in 1917, when Sam Mendes used this technique seamlessly for tracking two young soldiers in WW1, servicing the story and the plot.
One can appreciate the effort put in by the crew to shoot in one-take but the story being told in Adolescence simply doesn’t require this.
Coming back to the script, in episode 1 the viewer isn’t told why Jamie is being arrested – for whose murder? when was it committed? what are the charges? – until last few minutes into the one hour episode. The way the father (Stephen Graham) reacts is also strange- because he isn’t told either. Assuming the police are withholding information- why does the father not demand he be told? Even in his interactions with his son, he doesn’t ask what happened? He simply asks for a promise that his didn’t commit the crime. What crime? Doesn’t the father want to know? Shouldn’t the viewer be fed with this information? This is being done simply to shock the viewer & throw them in a state of disbelief at the procedural- the steps shown in unneeded detail of how Jamie is “processed”.
Episode 2 repeats the same trick. This time it makes us go with the police to Jamie’s school as the police go about in the most harebrained way to ascertain the motive and find the knife that was used. Why would the police not use discretion to question students? Why would the school allow them to enter class after class and create commotion? This is again done only to elicit a reaction from the viewer and not tell the story. And there are major plot holes – what happened to the girl who reacts violently in this episode to police questioning? why did the teacher react awkwardly? why does the school bell go off when the police are talking to a full class?
But in terms of script issues and storytelling flaws – Episode 3 takes the cake. This is the episode being praised the most. The entire episode focuses on a “session” between a psychologist (played one-note by Erin Doherty) and Jamie. She repeatedly questions Jamie in a way that seems to be inappropriate and unreasonable simply to service the intent of the show. And the conversation provides no new light – because it is the same conversation between the police officer and his son (who is two years senior to Jamie in the same school) from Episode 2. The entire thing hinges on a few emojis & posts on Instagram and these social media exchanges between Jamie and the victim ( a girl from his school called Katie – that’s all we know of her even by the end of Episode 3 and Episode 2 makes sure to focus on a dialogue from the police officer’s female partner where she says “you know what’s sad – even after all this we’ll only remember Jamie , no one will remember Katie “. Well, well. Talk about not walking the talk.
The series tries to portray Jamie as a boy who has serious issues – it throws around words like incel, masculinity, and many such terms – without actually telling us if he truly is like that. And if he is what caused him to be so? For adolescents who come with complexities that may lead to violence or crimes watch something like American History X or even The Sinner that uses a complex narrative to delve into a complex psyche.
Here we are supposed to get affected by Jamie’s behavior only because the psychologist who’s there to assess him (a lady again) is showing us her reactions of fear, relief etc on screen. Why is she getting affected by this perfectly okay teenager when she’s a professional and she’s the one badgering him with nasty questions, many of them sexual in nature? The episode doesn’t delve into Jamie’s psyche. How does an adolescent’s malleable mind work? What causes bad influence or violent decisions? It simply uses trending terminology to influence us into thinking what Jamie is and that too filtered through the lens of the lady psychologist.
The acting is being praised and Owen Cooper, a first time child actor definitely needs to be praised. Stephen Graham is decent. We’ve seen him in better roles including The Irishman, where he absolutely shone in front of greats like Al Pacino and Robert De Niro. Ashley Walters is okay. Erin Doherty seems to be channelising a victim rather than a trained professional in her acting.
Overall, Adolescence comes off as a show toxic in its portrayal of a thirteen year old boy to service the showrunners’ desire to pander to current trends, and its unnecessary gimmick of one-take episodes has definitely payed off in earning praise from an audience deprived of quality content to such an extent that a show such as this comes off as “brilliant content”.
The Content central 