March TV shows

[dolorosa_12]

Four shows finished this month, as always a mixture of quality and genre.

Escaping Utopia, a documentary about the New Zealand-based Gloriavale fundamentalist Christian cult. Like almost all cults, the arc of this one's existence (founded in the 1960s by idealists seeking utopian communal living, a beacon for vulnerable drifters, the inevitable sharp turn towards physical and sexual abuse and financial exploitation) is familiar, with the usual threats against those wishing to leave that they will be blocked from any contact with their families. The documentary truly succeeds in the emphasis it places on the network of people — both ex-cult members, and univolved individuals (such as the middle-aged couple who live in the farm next door) — working diligently to help convince people to leave Gloriavale, and provide safe haven once they've made the decision to do so. I found their dedication to this long, difficult task truly impressive.

Towards Zero, a three-part adaptation of an Agatha Christie novel. I haven't seen the original, but judging from comments by people who have, it took massive liberties, to the detriment of the story. While the basic shape of the narrative — a murder takes place in a stately home on the southwest coast of England, with a collection of guests who each have plausible motives for being the murderer — is solid enough, some of the characterisation felt unearned or implausible, as if it had been carried over from a preexisting series of books/shows about the same characters and audiences were expected to have seen/read them. All in all, not a strong adaptation in my opinion.

Dope Girls, a miniseries set in the seedy underbelly of London's Soho in the aftermath of World War I, with various bar owners, nightclub dancers, gang leaders, and corrupt police struggling to get by, and to navigate the labyrinthine interpersonal politics of their circumscribed world. The magnitude of the post-war death and trauma hovers, unacknowledged, over all proceedings. To me, this felt as if it occupied the overlapping centre of the Venn diagram of Peaky Blinders and Babylon Berlin, while never quite reaching the heights of either. It was still very enjoyable, however.

Adolescence, the Netflix miniseries about a 13-year-old boy accused of a classmate's murder. I'm always dubious going into something with so much hype, but in this case, the hype is well and truly justified — this is an early contender for my best TV show of the year. Each of the show's four episodes consists of a single shot, and they follow the progress of the case into three institutional settings (police station when the boy is arrested and charged, secondary school where the police attempt to interview classmates and teachers, secure facility where the boy is held before trial and interviewed by a psychologist) and one domestic (the boy's family home and local town, where his parents and older sister are trying to deal with the fallout of the accusation). It reminded me a bit of Line of Duty, in that there is a lot of focus and detail on institutional rules and procedures, and it's very tightly focused on a small handful of characters, with the plot and emotional developments moved along by verbose, almost theatre-style, dialogue-heavy interactions. We learn in the first episode that the boy definitely committed the murder, so there's no mystery there, but — as the psychologist sent to interview him in the third episode says, we're not here to uncover the truth, we're here to understand what he and the other characters believe to be the truth, and how they feel about it. I've seen criticism bubbling up in various places (ranging from a review in the New Yorker to discussions in fannish spaces) that the show tells us who committed the murder, but not why, and I have to wonder at the media literacy informing such criticisms. The show shows us at least four different, interwoven reasons why a teenage boy became radicalised to the point that he murdered this girl, but it trusts the viewer to infer this as the story meanderingly unfolds, rather than spelling it out in unambiguous exposition put in the mouth of a character perceived as morally pure. I like TV that doesn't treat me with condescension, and trusts me to draw my own conclusions, especially when this requires paying close attention not only to dialogue, but also to actors' body language, and visual cues in the set. (The second episode in particular, set in the secondary school, is just a masterclass in devastating visual storytelling: the school facilities themselves are modern, clean, and extensive, including things like tennis courts, a well stocked library, IT suites and so on, and it's plastered with motivational posters with worthy sentiments as to every student's value and potential — and then it's basically a holding pen, with non-existent discipline and teachers who are barely capable of maintaining an environment of calm, let alone facilitating learning.) The writing is exquisitely good, and the cast is fantastic, in particular the child actor playing the accused teenage boy — everything hinges on him, and the success or failure of this kind of show was dependent on the strength of the actor in this role, which he plays with extraordinary talent and perception. I cannot recommend this series highly enough, although it's not a cheerful topic.

Comments

[falena]

Great Adolescence review. I agree with everything you said and envy your eloquence profoundly, I wrote a review in my journal a few days ago but I can never articulate what I feel so well. :D One thing that struck me, and that I would like very much to discuss with people who have experience of UK schools, is if the depiction of the school is realistic. It shocked me a bit.

[falena]

Ps: you got me curious to give Dope Girls a try. Thanks.

[dolorosa_12]

You're welcome! There's another similar show called A Thousand Blows out at the moment, which is meant to be better at covering this kind of material, but I haven't watched it yet (based on reviews, I wanted to start with the weaker of the two), so you may want to try that as well.

[falena]

I'd heard good things about A Thousand Blows so that's already on my to-watch list. I've added Dope Girls too, and probably watch it first. Your reasoning makes sense. :)

[dolorosa_12]

Thank you — that's very kind of you to say. It's easier for me to watch in some ways because I don't have any children (although I have nieces and nephews, younger sisters who are still children, and of course many of my friends are parents, and I care a lot about the environment in which these children are living and learning), so I was able to watch at more of a remove.

As I emigrated from Australia to the UK as an adult, I don't have any personal experience with current UK schools, but anecdotally from friends who are parents here, or who work in schools, it really is that bad. I have a friend who is a secondary school teacher — she now works in a posh private school, but her first teaching job over ten years ago was an extremely rough state school in a deprived area, and I remember her telling me, among other things, that she caught two twelve-year-old kids literally having sex in a cupboard. I'm sure Dreamwidth friends who have more recent experience working in UK schools can chime in and confirm that the depiction is accurate. There's a whole mess of various social factors (many of which are alluded to in the show) that have got us to this terrible point.

[falena]

Yeah, as a parent it was kinda harrowing. But totally worth it. I think it'd make uncomfortable but necessary viewing material for anyone. as you say, we should be worried about these issue as a society as a whole, not only on a personal level.

I work in a school which serves severely underprivileged students, so it's not like I don't know how bad things can be even here, but maybe because my students are older it is less shocking in a way. What I found hard to watch (and would like an opinion on by people who experience the English school system firsthand) is the way most teachers seemed disaffected or disillusioned and powerless in the show. I definitely feel very powerless in my school too, mind you. Of you happen to read articles or essays or newsletters that touch on the problems of the school system I'd be really happy if you could post me towards them, btw.

[blackcatofmisery]

I'm kinda interested in Escaping Utopia and Adolescence, now. Cults are just wild for how bizarre some get yet still receive enough support to grow. Very few manage to be harmless while remaining a cult.

Murder, however, is wild for how little it takes to commit or to be killed by someone, and there is no age requirement for it. Youngest murderer I can recall off the top of my head was about 8 years old. Just for the heck of it.

I'm even more interested in why there seems to be so much more trouble in schools these days. Maybe I'm just more aware of it. My brother is a high school teacher in one of The Best school districts in the state ($$$), and he's heard of some fights in school but not had any in his own classroom, but the bigger issue he faces is kids mouthing off with slurs and hate speech. Just right in class, with the teacher very obviously within earshot.

There's also something to be said that there's a shortage of teachers around here. Not only is the pay not very good, although it never has been, but some quit due to fearing the school environment and having no means of controlling the students and classrooms. There's no standard of discipline.

I don't know if it's something in the previous generations as parents, the age of immediacy with technology, the lowering grade standards and passing students who would literally be flunking when I was in school, the weird attitude towards children while wanting them to act like adults only in certain ways and be aware yet still children, the free time kids have no versus when they'd work when not in school, or what. Just from your review, I think more could be taken from it than just reasons behind a killer kid's actions. His should be an extreme case, so lesser crimes can be overlooked. They removed that one trouble-maker, and everyone knows, so he's the example of "Look how well we handled this. We at this school care about our students and faculty. Now back to our regularly scheduled BS..." A fifth part could've been made on how things change, if at all.

=^..^=~

[dolorosa_12]

I think there are a whole lot of contributing factors to the situation in schools and with children and teenagers in general (and obviously these factors will vary somewhat from country to country). I liked Adolescence for not giving a single answer, and for not spelling out things plainly to viewers, but rather letting the story speak for itself, and viewers draw their own conclusions. (Unfortunately there's been a rather stupid knee-jerk reaction here in the UK, where it's captured the cultural moment so thoroughly that even our Prime Minister has watched it and mentioned it in interviews, and people are rushing to say that there is clearly one simple solution to all this: to take smartphones away from kids, to ban them from social media, and so on.)

You don't really need to make a fifth episode to the show, because it's really clear from the second, third and fourth episodes that nothing has changed beyond the circumstances of this one boy, his family, the death of his victim, and its effect on her loved ones — the same factors that led to all these events still remain.

[blackcatofmisery]

I can't say I'm surprised at the reaction, unfortunately. Maybe banning personal cell phones and social media really are the answer! Who knows, until it's tried? Hate always finds a way, though.

It doesn't sound like even a hopeful ending to the show, then. Maybe a lesson in awareness. Being fictional, I'd like a little bit more. Still may check it out myself, if I find it online.

[lirazel]

is solid enough, some of the characterisation felt unearned or implausible, as if it had been carried over from a preexisting series of books/shows about the same characters and audiences were expected to have seen/read them. All in all, not a strong adaptation in my opinion.

This makes me even more glad I didn't finish it!

Yes, Adolescence is, as Caroline O'Donohughe would say, Very a Play. But I love Very a Play media!

I have to wonder at the media literacy informing such criticisms

WHAT! The second and third episodes are all about why!!! I am sympathetic to the people who argue that we don't get to know Katie--I don't think they're wrong at all. But arguing that we don't get a why???

[dolorosa_12]

I think the fourth episode is about why as well: it's full of non-verbal signals about the kind of family in which Jamie grew up, and the things he will have learnt by osmosis. Throughout the episode, the father is the only person in the family who is allowed to have emotions, his inability to regulate these emotions spills over everything, and his wife and daughter twist themselves into knots trying to pacify and accommodate those emotions, to the detriment of their own feelings, being dismissed by him constantly while all this is going on. It doesn't mean that any of them are bad, irredeemable people — I know so many versions of this specific family dynamic — but it's another piece in the puzzle, the ambient background cultural noise that contributed to Jamie doing what he did.

The criticisms that fail to notice this, as well as failing to notice what was being said in episodes two and three, seem to come from people who want everything spelt out in blazing letters. It's as if they wanted a courtroom scene in which Jamie suddenly admitted his guilt and motives like a comic book villain speech, or for some other character (the psychologist, or perhaps one of the two police officers) to almost turn to the camera and tell viewers the motives in unambiguous terms.

I understand where that criticism re: Katie is coming from, but I also fundamentally feel that it's criticising the show for not doing something it was never trying to do to begin with. I'm also not sure I agree with the timeline (the writer seems to be arguing that Katie's Instagram comments came before Jamie's abortive attempt to ask her out, and radicalised him, whereas I think he was already somewhat stewing in incel culture before that; the timeline I recall from the show is: her topless photos get spread around the school, Jamie thinks she'll consequently be feeling vulnerable and asks her out (i.e. classic manosphere attitudes towards women and relationships), she rejects him and then writes the stuff on Instagram).

Anyay, definitely a show that has provoked a lot of discussion (especially here in the UK).

[lirazel]

You are so right about episode 4! I hadn't thought of it in that way (and honestly I hadn't picked up on everything you mentioned, probably because my family's dynamic is very similar except...moreso).

seem to come from people who want everything spelt out in blazing letters. It's as if they wanted a courtroom scene in which Jamie suddenly admitted his guilt and motives like a comic book villain speech, or for some other character (the psychologist, or perhaps one of the two police officers) to almost turn to the camera and tell viewers the motives in unambiguous terms.

Absolutely. They've been trained by other shows to want that, too--that often happens at the end of, like, a Law and Order episode.

Your understanding of the timeline is the one that makes sense, but I think it is implied in the show that he didn't know what the 80/20 thing was until Katie used it, which seems highly improbable to me if he'd already been in the incel stuff.

[dolorosa_12]

Your understanding of the timeline is the one that makes sense, but I think it is implied in the show that he didn't know what the 80/20 thing was until Katie used it, which seems highly improbable to me if he'd already been in the incel stuff.

Yes, I think you're right about that.