Adolescence: Are We Missing the Point? A Deep Dive Into Netflix's Controversial Series
- 3 days ago
- 12 min read
Warning: Contains spoilers.
Netflix's "Adolescence" has ignited important conversations online, sparking diverse reactions and interpretations. While its powerful performances and single-take cinematography have rightfully garnered critical acclaim and shone a light on gender-based violence, it has also attracted criticism and accusations of demonising young men.
Amidst the controversy, we need to be careful not to focus on the wrong things and end up missing the point. Beyond the surface-level reactions, Jack Thorne and Stephen Graham's mini-series presents a complex, deeply empathetic exploration of adolescent vulnerability, the insidious creep of online radicalisation and the damaging impact of gendered norms. It’s a tough message - one that demands a deep level of critical engagement.
In this post, we’ll take a deep dive into some of the online criticism surrounding the show. We’ll examine how, if we lock onto perceived negative portrayals without considering the nuances, or fail to look closely at how the show’s construction intended to position the viewer, we risk missing the point.
Is 'Adolescence' Demonising Young Men? A Closer Look at Empathy vs. Accusation
The concern that 'Adolescence' unfairly paints young men as inherently violent or troubled has become a prominent thread in online discussions. Many express fear that the show's intense portrayal of Jamie's actions will contribute to society demonising young males, potentially leading to increased prejudice. There are concerns that the show's exploration of online radicalisation and the 'manosphere' will be misconstrued as a blanket indictment of all young men. But we need to be careful to not misread this series - which quite clearly examines one single, tragic event, offering insight into the broader societal trends that contributed.
It’s understandable that people are scared of the damage that might stem from misreading the show. Many of us working in the primary prevention sector know that we need to be careful not to further alienate vulnerable groups - because this alienation is exactly what extremist groups play on. Concerned critics worry that viewers will take the actions of one character, and apply them to a whole group of people.
But these concerns miss the nuance of the creators’ characterisation. Jack Thorne and Stephen Graham have created a mini series that quite deliberately positions the viewer to empathise with, rather than demonise young men. It's why the show starts with a terrified Jamie, in his wet trousers, cowering from police. We see just how young and vulnerable he is. We’re not shown the terrible act of violence he has engaged in until the final moments of Episode 1, long after we've been made to feel deep empathy for this young man and his family whose world has just been turned upside down. Moreover, not until the second last episode, where we watch Jamie's psychological assessment, does our empathy and pity for this kid gradually give way to fear. Through the deliberate choice to structure the narrative in this manner, the show is actually aiming to prevent viewers from simply demonising young men.
The 'Adolescence' Title: Demonising Youth or Highlighting Vulnerability?
Another aspect of the show that’s sparked criticism for its potential to demonise a group is the choice of the title, Adolescence. One online commentator even claimed the word will now forever be negatively connoted. But it’s remiss to claim the word adolescence is inextricably linked to something negative without engaging in a discussion about what was intended with this title in the first place. Indeed, adolescence is a term that refers to the transition from child to adult - it's a time of growth and development. Adolescence is simply a normal stage of a person’s life and this commentator was critical of the potential of the show to create a negative association with the term.
The power of the show however, actually lies in this normalcy. For many viewers, particularly those from similar socio-political contexts, the series depicts what many would deem a ‘normal’ family. The kid goes to a school that while chaotic, is extremely relatable - even for someone from Australia (in fact, many teachers I’ve spoken with found the school episode the least engaging, simply because that environment was just so familiar that the episode was mundane). Jamie’s parents, with their flaws, are well within what realm of ‘normal’ in their behaviour and everyday family life. All of this plays into why the show was so gripping and impactful. It suggests it could be any of us.
Adolescence, a perfectly normal stage of life, is also a vulnerable time, and the title, much like the show, seeks to draw attention to that vulnerability. The title wasn’t chosen to demonise young people, but to highlight that we all - everyday, ‘normal’ people, need to look more closely at the damaging impact of our gendered social norms and the impact they have on young people. In particular, as both Jamie and his father reflect on the boy’s performance on the football field and his father’s reaction, the series spotlights the damage common conceptions around masculinity can have, and how this construction of gender leaves young men who don’t thrive in sport feeling isolated and inferior - feelings which make some of them vulnerable to exploitation by online radicals. It warns us that we all need to do more to break down gendered norms and ensure that we are protecting our youth from radicalisation.
'Whydunnit' vs. 'Whodunnit': Understanding the Core Message of Netflix's 'Adolescence'
A significant portion of the online discourse surrounding 'Adolescence' fixates on the graphic nature of Jamie's violent act, caught on CCTV, dwelling on the horror of the crime itself. While the show doesn't shy away from the brutality of this act, viewers that focus only on the violence, completely miss the creators' intent.
The series isn't designed to sensationalise violence, but rather to explore the complex factors that contribute to such acts, including the vulnerability of adolescence and the dangerous influence of online radicalisation.
This is not a show about a horrible act of violence. In fact, the violence happens off-screen, before the show’s narrative commences. Viewers are thrust straight into the arrest that follows it - positioned to focus on the impact and outcome of the violent act, not the act itself. The creators describe the show as not a whodunnit, but a "whydunnit". We’re presented with a deep exploration of our failures as a society and the urgent need to understand the root causes of such violent tragedies.
But it's more than just that - our attention is on the police, the school, the psychologist, the family, all grappling with the effects of what's taken place. We don’t just look at why this happened, but have to ask ourselves, what now?
The Power of the Single Take: Immersing Viewers in 'Adolescence' Aftermath
One of the most striking and effective cinematic choices in 'Adolescence' is the use of a single, continuous take for each episode. This isn't merely a stylistic gimmick; it's a highly effective tool used to plunge the viewer directly into the raw, unfolding reality of the aftermath. By eliminating cuts and edits, the show creates an unbroken sense of real-time experience, forcing us to witness the events as they happen, without any escape or reprieve.
Thanks to the single take, we're not passive observers; we're active participants, compelled to sit with the discomfort, the tension, and the emotional turmoil that permeates every scene. This technique amplifies the show's exploration of trauma, grief, and the slow, agonising process of a community grappling with the unthinkable.
The single take also enhances the show's focus on the 'whydunnit' narrative. It allows us to follow the characters' reactions and interactions organically. The absence of cuts prevents any sense of manipulation or artifice, making the performances feel authentic and immediate. We witness the raw vulnerability of Jamie's family, the strained interactions between police officers, the futile attempts of school staff to maintain control of the classroom and support their students through this trauma, and the struggle of the psychologist to maintain composure. Each moment unfolds in its entirety, allowing us to absorb the full weight of each character’s emotions.
Additionally, the single take contributes to the show's sense of claustrophobia and unease. We're trapped within the unfolding events, unable to escape the suffocating atmosphere of grief and confusion. If the show felt oppressive - if you felt trapped, stuck on the edge of your seat, barely able to breathe while watching - the use of a single take is the reason why.
The director created an immersive experience, amplifying the show’s exposure of the pervasive and inescapable nature of trauma. It's not a neatly packaged story with a clear resolution; it's a messy, uncomfortable, and deeply human exploration of the aftermath, forcing us to confront the difficult realities that often remain hidden from view.
In essence, the single take is not just a technical feat; it's a narrative device that transforms 'Adolescence' from a passive viewing experience into a visceral and emotionally charged journey. It draws our attention away from what happened, compelling us to grapple with why it happened. It’s a show that was designed to spark conversation and get us thinking about how to change the narrative so that we don’t have to see this play out in real life.
The 'Whydunnit' and the Road to Gender-Based Violence: Understanding the Show's Message
A valid concern raised by some viewers is that 'Adolescence,' by focusing on an extreme act of misogynistic violence, risks overshadowing the more insidious, commonplace forms of misogyny that permeate everyday life – the casual harassment, the objectifying language, the normalisation of disrespectful attitudes towards young women. However, the show's deliberate exploration of the 'whydunnit' compels us to trace the path to such tragic outcomes. It demands that we examine the very roots of gender-based violence, to understand how the seemingly 'minor' messages about masculinity and femininity, absorbed by young people, can coalesce into a dangerous worldview.
'Adolescence' isn't meant to be an endpoint, but a stark illustration of where unchecked, normalised misogyny can lead, urging us to confront the systemic issues that pave the road to such devastating acts.
The show has taken the world by storm with its pointed, impactful warning. Now, as we grapple with how to respond, we need to be careful not to focus only on the extreme. We need to look at the drivers of gender-based violence, and how we can intervene at the root cause. While the show has presented one devastating look at where the road might end, those of use working in primary prevention know that effective intervention starts with turning young people around before they start down this road.
Victim Blaming in some readings of 'Adolescence': Why Focusing on the Online Bullying Misses the Mark
A deeply troubling aspect of the online discourse surrounding 'Adolescence' is the tendency of some viewers to engage in victim-blaming. This manifests as a disproportionate focus on the alleged bullying Jamie experienced at the hands of the victim, often with the implication that her actions somehow mitigate or excuse his violent crime. While it's crucial to acknowledge that bullying can have devastating consequences, to frame it as a justification for murder is not only morally reprehensible, but it also fundamentally misunderstands the show's purpose.
Commenters online who focus on the actions of the victim, Katie, are completely missing the point. In the second episode, we uncover that Katie had been calling Jamie out as an ‘incel’, exposing that he’d been ‘red-pilled’. Our murdered victim is labelled a ‘bitch’, and her actions cast as online bullying. But let’s not forget the further revelation as we delve into Jamie’s psyche in the episode that follows. Katie wasn’t simply calling Jamie names online. She was calling out his toxic, misogynistic behaviour - the entitled belief that he was doing her a favour by offering to date her while everyone else was calling her names, and his shock and anger at her rejection of his charity. Was Katie a bitch, or was she simply a strong young woman, calling a spade a spade? Whatever you think she was, it certainly doesn’t justify the brutal murder she suffered.
To suggest that bullying, no matter how severe, can excuse or explain murder is to blame the murder victim. It perpetuates a harmful narrative that places the onus of responsibility on the victim, rather than the perpetrator. It ignores the fundamental power imbalance inherent in acts of violence and undermines the crucial message that no one deserves to be subjected to such horrific acts.
If we fixate mainly on the victim's behaviours, we completely derail the series' exploration of the toxic masculinity that contributes to acts of extreme violence. We ignore the show's deliberate focus on the 'whydunnit'. What we need to be looking at is the vulnerability of young men who feel alienated and don’t fit traditional masculine stereotypes. We need to be talking about the influence of online radicalisation. We need to examine the systemic failures of our society that can lead to such tragic outcomes. To focus on the victim’s actions, is to miss the point entirely.
Adolescence and the Manosphere: Unpacking Online Radicalisation and the Need to Safeguard Young People
Like any good show that tackles big social issues, the series raises questions of responsibility. It gets us talking about who is to blame.
One of the biggest takeaways from this show is that we all could have done more. It's a chilling indictment of our collective failure to recognise and address the insidious creep of online radicalisation, particularly within the 'manosphere.' The series doesn't merely depict Jamie's descent into violence; it meticulously traces the digital breadcrumbs that led him there, illuminating the echo chambers of online misogyny where vulnerable young minds can become poisoned. The show forces us to confront the uncomfortable truth that these online spaces, often dismissed as fringe or harmless, can have devastating real-world consequences.
'Adolescence' serves as a stark warning about the power of these online communities to prey on the insecurities and vulnerabilities of young men, offering them a distorted sense of belonging and validation. Delving into Jamie’s psyche in Episode 3, where we’re shown his lack of self esteem, the series exposes the manipulative tactics used by the manosphere. This helps us understand how these online influencers cultivate a sense of grievance and resentment, feeding into a narrative of victimhood that they use to justify violence.
The show compels us to ask: where were the adults? Where were the interventions? Where was the critical thinking that could have countered these poisonous messages? Where is the regulation holding social media moguls to account for the toxic hate speech they are allowing their platforms to disseminate?
The series isn't just about Jamie's individual actions; it's a societal mirror, reflecting our collective responsibility to understand and combat the forces that radicalise young people. It's a call to action, urging us to recognise the signs, to challenge the hateful rhetoric, to better regulate the online environment and to provide young men with alternative narratives that promote empathy, respect, and healthy masculinity.
By ignoring the online breeding grounds of radicalisation, we become complicit in the tragic outcomes that 'Adolescence' so powerfully portrays. It's an uncomfortable truth, that we all could have done more, and we all must do more, if we wish to avoid similar tragedies in the future.
‘Adolescence' and Media Literacy: Arming Youth Against Online Radicalisation
Contrary to many online comments, Thorne and Graham's program is not problematic in and of itself; the problem lies in the tendency of viewers to read it at a surface level. This is a complex, carefully crafted show that requires a high level of media literacy and critical thinking to fully appreciate. If we focus only on the violence it warns of, we miss half the picture. From years teaching English and Media, I know that without proper scaffolding, many young people, and potentially many adults, will not fully understand what the creators are doing.
It would make a great text for a senior English or Media class, where time is spent guiding students to consider the construction of the show, look closely at the nuances, and discuss in depth how it positions the viewer. In fact, a structured educational environment is perhaps one of the most effective ways to arm young people against the very dangers 'Adolescence' portrays.
When we study a film in the classroom, we not only dissect the text’s themes, we engage critically with the socio-political context it's created in - carefully unpacking the values and norms of the society it depicts. We look deeply at the text’s construction, analysing its narrative techniques, and engaging in deep, thoughtful discussions. All of this builds media literacy and critical thinking skills that are vital in today’s online landscape. Teaching these skills is one of the ways we can actually help to protect young people from the harmful effects of content they consume online, whether that’s fake news, the hate speech of misogynist influencers, or damaging depictions in pornography.
However, the responsibility doesn't solely fall on educators. Parents must also play a crucial role in fostering critical thinking and open communication with their children. Rather than dismissing or demonising the content young people come across online, whether it’s toxic influencers like Andrew Tate, or pornography, parents need to engage in open, curious conversations about what their teenagers are seeing. A dismissive or punitive approach risks further alienating young people and driving them deeper into the very echo chambers 'Adolescence' warns against.
By creating a safe space for dialogue, parents can help their children develop the ability to critically analyse online content and recognise the manipulative tactics used by extremist groups. This involves asking open-ended questions, encouraging critical thinking, and fostering empathy. It’s about equipping young people with the tools to discern truth from manipulation, and to build resilience against the insidious messages that permeate the Manosphere.
Ultimately, it's not the show 'Adolescence' that's the root of the problem, but the absence of critical thinking and media literacy skills. And this lack is just one key facet the manosphere preys upon when they target adolescents. The show serves as a stark reminder that protecting our youth requires a multi-faceted approach, one that involves both education and open, empathetic dialogue at home.
Let’s Talk About X was founded by two secondary school Media teachers passionate about breaking down damaging gender norms and preventing gender-based violence. Learn more about us or take a look at free resources and RSE programs for schools.