Cotton Socks
Skint Supporter
- Feb 20, 2017
- 2,514
Yes, she was.
[TV] Adolescence - Netflix 4 part drama written by and starring Stephen Graham
- Thread starter Mellotron
- Start date
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
That does seem a bit bizarre! Obviously I don't know the full details but if I reported it to the Police and got that reaction I'd be taking it a lot further. Possibly charities involved with child protection, the Police and Crime Commissioner, the local MP etc etc.
pigmanovich
Good Old Sausage by the Sea
Nothing to see here lads, it's only the odd boy or young man who goes down this road after all https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...-woman-on-bournemouth-beach-to-serve-39-years
The Fits
Well-known member
- Jun 29, 2020
- 10,880
Weirdly decided to finish this after the match. Episode three was outstanding but the rest I thought wasn’t particularly great. Plenty of one-take stuff has already done that intense drama better. Episode four was really just a showcase for Graham (but we know he can act) and redundant imho. Great performance from the boy and good acting all round. Really not sure where this ‘greatest ever tv’ stuff has come from.
Justice
Dangerous Idiot
Netflix had paid a fortune to have every celebrity under the sun promote the show saying exactly that ‘greatest tv ever’ on social media platforms.
How many of them had even watched the show?
Worse than that, he spilled the paint he’d bought too.
sussex_guy2k2
Well-known member
- Jun 6, 2014
- 4,865
Different people like different things, right?
Some of the greatest TV ever made, Break Bad, Better Call Saul, the Sopranoes, Game of Thrones, the Wire… they all had weak(er) aspects to them.
I think the key to this show is a) how it’s shot, and b) how pertinent it is to modern society. It’ll hit a lot of younger people, and people with kids, rather hard. I’d imagine the older you get, the less impactful it’ll be (although that won’t always be the case, of course).
- Apr 5, 2014
- 28,096
I've now seen it. A few thoughts.
I think folk should watch it without any expectation of what they are hoping to see, rather what it is.
It can barely be called a drama, as the story's outcome is sown up in the first episode. We know Jamie murdered the girl. This is postmodern Ken Loach meets Mike Leigh. A social narrative with less story line and more social insight. A raw look at, perhaps the edges, of growing up in these times.
The first two episodes seem to exist purely to facilitate the third. The third episode, as a standalone, fits the all-time billing the series has. Without that it could be a number of other productions. But that particular episode, for me, is indeed an all time piece of television history. It felt real. I was Jamie and I was Briony. I could feel their emotions and see what they were thinking. Owen Cooper and Erin Doherty were simply outstanding. In the last scene, where Briony is sitting alone, I could feel the distress she had in knowing she had to write up a report that would not aid his case. She knew what he had done, but she was human.
But my biggest take away of all is how growing up nowadays is so different to what it used to be. I'm rather glad I was spared it.
I think folk should watch it without any expectation of what they are hoping to see, rather what it is.
It can barely be called a drama, as the story's outcome is sown up in the first episode. We know Jamie murdered the girl. This is postmodern Ken Loach meets Mike Leigh. A social narrative with less story line and more social insight. A raw look at, perhaps the edges, of growing up in these times.
The first two episodes seem to exist purely to facilitate the third. The third episode, as a standalone, fits the all-time billing the series has. Without that it could be a number of other productions. But that particular episode, for me, is indeed an all time piece of television history. It felt real. I was Jamie and I was Briony. I could feel their emotions and see what they were thinking. Owen Cooper and Erin Doherty were simply outstanding. In the last scene, where Briony is sitting alone, I could feel the distress she had in knowing she had to write up a report that would not aid his case. She knew what he had done, but she was human.
But my biggest take away of all is how growing up nowadays is so different to what it used to be. I'm rather glad I was spared it.
Finished it today and liked it very much, but I can understand why some aren't so keen.
I think being a parent certainly helps you feel it.
I think being a parent certainly helps you feel it.
- Apr 5, 2014
- 28,096
I put on the first episode at 9:30 last night and ended up binging all four, which speaks for itself. Compelling viewing due to some top-drawer performances.
As for the technical feat of filming it in one shot, the greatest compliment I can pay is that, at times, you wouldn't even notice it was being done if not paying close attention.
As for the technical feat of filming it in one shot, the greatest compliment I can pay is that, at times, you wouldn't even notice it was being done if not paying close attention.
- Oct 17, 2008
- 16,950
I’ve just watched the first episode and I have a problem. I’m aware of the direction the story takes from reading reviews and the like prior to watching, but I found myself wanting to join the hype train and love it more than I actually do (so far).
It’s brilliantly acted (the young actor playing Jamie is remarkable) and Stephen Graham is always superb. The “real time” shooting style gives the story what I can only describe as a steady urgency. The gorgeous tracking “one take” shots are sublime, it’s a beautifully shot programme.
I have an issue though given it’s portrayed as a very realistic police procedural, the timelines are all over the place.
For example, the body was discovered at 10:30-10:45pm. The house was raided at approx 5-6am (this isn’t specified exactly). He has been driven to the station, booked into custody, been given breakfast, briefed with the duty solicitor (who himself lampshades that he arrived within 20 minutes, which is a “new record”), and begins an interview at 7:12am.
Overnight, between the hours of 10:45pm-5-6am, the police have managed to gain a warrant for a blood draw (something the solicitor comments on as a suspicion of compelling evidence held in disclosure by the police), track Jamie and the victim’s movements across a large area via multiple CCTV cameras from “the council, and private businesses” and map out the entire timeline with photographic and video evidence in the space of 7-8 hours.
They managed to somehow identify the suspect, presumably from ID’ing via the victim’s Instagram, get businesses CCTV, obtain council CCTV - all in the early hours mind you - source the screen caps for the disclosure, edit the CCTV video, with what looks like a team of two detectives actively working the case.
They managed assemble a large armed response/SWAT team on very short notice for a crime not in progress without an active shooter or hostage situation.
Oh and they talk about a media blackout because the “relatives haven’t been informed yet”, yet in the police interview the detective stated that at midnight he had to inform the victim’s parents of their daughter’s murder. Which is it?
I realise that it has to be this way in order for the show to work with the “in real time” style, but they can’t on the one hand expect us to take it seriously as a super realistic police procedural on the one hand, then ignore all the glaring inaccuracies on the other.
Still, good show so far.
It’s brilliantly acted (the young actor playing Jamie is remarkable) and Stephen Graham is always superb. The “real time” shooting style gives the story what I can only describe as a steady urgency. The gorgeous tracking “one take” shots are sublime, it’s a beautifully shot programme.
I have an issue though given it’s portrayed as a very realistic police procedural, the timelines are all over the place.
For example, the body was discovered at 10:30-10:45pm. The house was raided at approx 5-6am (this isn’t specified exactly). He has been driven to the station, booked into custody, been given breakfast, briefed with the duty solicitor (who himself lampshades that he arrived within 20 minutes, which is a “new record”), and begins an interview at 7:12am.
Overnight, between the hours of 10:45pm-5-6am, the police have managed to gain a warrant for a blood draw (something the solicitor comments on as a suspicion of compelling evidence held in disclosure by the police), track Jamie and the victim’s movements across a large area via multiple CCTV cameras from “the council, and private businesses” and map out the entire timeline with photographic and video evidence in the space of 7-8 hours.
They managed to somehow identify the suspect, presumably from ID’ing via the victim’s Instagram, get businesses CCTV, obtain council CCTV - all in the early hours mind you - source the screen caps for the disclosure, edit the CCTV video, with what looks like a team of two detectives actively working the case.
They managed assemble a large armed response/SWAT team on very short notice for a crime not in progress without an active shooter or hostage situation.
Oh and they talk about a media blackout because the “relatives haven’t been informed yet”, yet in the police interview the detective stated that at midnight he had to inform the victim’s parents of their daughter’s murder. Which is it?
I realise that it has to be this way in order for the show to work with the “in real time” style, but they can’t on the one hand expect us to take it seriously as a super realistic police procedural on the one hand, then ignore all the glaring inaccuracies on the other.
Still, good show so far.
- Oct 17, 2008
- 16,950
I think in this case the fact it is so earnest in attempts to be accurate, it’s kind of asking for it. You can’t have the likes of Keir Starmer calling it a “documentary” when the fundamental premise of the show, a police procedural, is undermined with highly unrealistic procedure.
I get that the murder itself and the investigation is just a vehicle for the author to talk about misogyny and toxic masculinity in later episodes, but the very fact it is trying so hard to seem accurate also works against it, in my view, due to just how badly mangled the procedure actually is.
I bet you used to get really angry at 24 where Bauer never needed a pee.
- Oct 17, 2008
- 16,950
Was 24 lauded as a “documentary” by the Prime Minister?
You know that things that are documentaries don’t always nail the exact timings. The documentary element is far more about how people are radicalised.
We could do some pretty interesting studies on people on here who have lapped up the Farage and trump stuff tbf.
- Oct 17, 2008
- 16,950
Yet if the writer is playing so fast and loose with reality in the police investigation, it diminishes their credibility when demonstrating radicalisation.
As I said, well acted, beautifully shot and all the inaccuracies are necessary evils in keeping the plot rolling. But realistic it is not.