Adolescence

Wasn’t sure if I should put this on here because it’s not a film but oh well. I didn’t really love Adolescence that much surprisingly and I’ve spent a couple days trying to think why. From what my parents were saying and from what BBC news were suggesting I was imaging the series would be life-changingly good and really enlightening… and I’m not sure I particularly felt that. I think what Adolescence is is a series aimed at parents - it’s a parent’s worst nightmare after all - and probably evokes some visceral anxiety in them. I found myself explaining a lot about Andrew Tate et al. to my parents after they finished this and I think this was the reason I didn’t like this show that much: my nine years at an all boys school meant that Jamie wasn’t particularly a surprising character to me (well, besides the murdering). What Adolescence relies on in my opinion is shock value and novelty - and to a viewer that isn’t particularly fazed by it all, it doesn’t work as much. That’s why I liked the first episode so much more than all the others I suppose - it was the shock, the tension, and the excitement of an arrest. But beyond all the shock and novelty of Adolescence, the series fails at properly exploring what it sets out to do. After its four episodes, I’m still not sure I could tell you why Jamie murders Katie. I could make broad gestures (the internet, the manosphere, porn, bullying, loose parenting, circumstance) but I couldn’t confidently tell you exactly why. And that for me is the root of the problem. For all its advocacy (and the reaction) for social media control and protection of young boys from toxic misogyny, it’s not at all revealing of how boys take in those ideas or act upon them. Like Barbie maybe, it’s a shallow exploration of an important idea. It’s exciting TV (at times) sure, but perhaps Adolescence might have benefitted from being four episodes leading up to the murder. It’s also probably worth talking about the formal aspect of Adolescence - each episode being filmed in one take. Like the series, it only really worked for me in episode one (and episode three to some extent). And that’s likely because even when filming the series in one take, they still conform to cinematographic conventions - close ups, tracking shots. The first episode was the only one that worked because that was the best way to film it - the uncut shot conveyed the chaos and speed of the arrest and it really helped to get a sense of how the police station was arranged in our heads - useful because the entire episode was filmed in a small, but complex fixed location. While I don’t necessarily think it was gimmicky, for the other episodes it was limiting. Instead of have good camera angles and editing in episodes 2-4, they were limited with acting without retakes and a casually moving camera. One of my favourite films, Birdman, is filmed with 12 (seamless) cuts and works much better. The camera follows a single character permanently through the film and almost has a life of its own, moving in unconventional ways - it serves the story, rather than limits it.