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.

[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.

=^..^=~

[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???