Latest news with #Bascombe
Yahoo
24-03-2025
- Entertainment
- Yahoo
Teenage boys are in crisis. The creators of Netflix's ‘Adolescence' want adults to pay attention
The world for kids today looks a lot different than it did for their parents. A scene from the hit Netflix series 'Adolescence' captures just how vast that difference is. In the show's second episode, Detective Inspector Luke Bascombe (Ashley Walters) is at a secondary school to investigate why 13-year-old Jamie Miller (Owen Cooper), the central character, allegedly killed his classmate Katie. Based on their Instagram interactions, he assumes the two were friendly, if not romantic. That is, until Bascombe's son — also a student at the school — tells him he's got it all wrong. The seemingly innocuous emojis that Katie commented with on Jamie's Instagram were actually a coded form of bullying. The dynamite emoji represents an exploding red pill, a reference to the manosphere. The 100 symbol is another manosphere nod, alluding to a theory in those circles that 80% of women are attracted to 20% of men. In other words, Katie implied that Jamie is an incel. It's a dizzying realization for Bascombe and the other adults — who are clearly clueless about the pernicious ideas that kids in their care are exposed to and how that permeates their lives. That disconnect is at the heart of 'Adolescence,' which since its premiere has viewers talking about young men's attitudes toward women, incel culture, smartphone use and more. The British miniseries starts out as a crime drama, but over the course of its four episodes, it explores what exactly could have possessed such an innocent-looking boy to do something so horrific. The answers it comes up with aren't so simple. CNN spoke to series co-creator Jack Thorne about his journey into darker corners of the internet, young male rage and what he hopes parents take away from the show. The conversation has been edited for length and clarity. This series touches on a lot of timely issues: The manosphere, modern masculinity, online bullying. What made you want to tell this story? It started with my friend (series co-creator) Stephen Graham. Stephen called me up and said we should write a show about boys hating girls and about knife crime, which in (the UK) is really problematic right now. That was the start of us talking about male rage, our own anger, our own cruelty. We were trying to build a complicated portrait of masculinity: Of how we were made and how teenagers are being made in a lot of similar ways, but with a lot of differences, too. Were these issues something you had been thinking about for a while? It's something I've been thinking about, but something I'd sort of dismissed. As I was leaning in and trying to understand, I actually found a lot of things that were surprising to me, and a lot of ideas that, if I'd heard them at the wrong time, would have taken me on journeys that I'm very grateful I didn't go on. The ideas behind incel culture are very attractive because they make sense of a lot of things: feelings of isolation, low self worth, feeling unattractive. They tell you that there is a reason why the world is against you: Because the world has been built from a female perspective, and these women have all the power. (These ideas suggest that) you need to better yourself, get in the gym, learn how to manipulate and learn how to harm. What was your research process for writing the character of Jamie? Looking in a lot of dark corners, so Reddit and 4chan, and then changing my algorithm. I had a lot of burner accounts on all the big social media platforms, and I started following the obvious people. The obvious people took me to the less obvious people, and the less obvious people were the ones that I found really interesting. No 13-year-old really is consuming Andrew Tate. What they are consuming is someone that's really into gaming or TV shows or music, who has consumed Andrew Tate and is now espousing it in a different way. That level of the waterfall was the level I concentrated on as I was trying to find the people that had helped build Jamie. Was there an overarching question that you were trying to answer? Why did Jamie do it? We always said, 'This isn't a whodunnit, but a whydunnit.' That's why we go to the school in episode two, because if we hadn't seen the education system, we wouldn't have understood him properly. If we hadn't seen the way that his peers operate, we wouldn't have understood him properly. In episode three, we're trying to understand the way that his brain works and what he's processed. Then in episode four, we're in almost the most complicated place. We're not going to make it easy to blame the parents for everything, but they are partially responsible here. What do they do with that question of responsibility, and how much responsibility should they take? You explored Jamie's descent into violent misogyny from multiple perspectives: His school environment, his home environment, his social media use. Where did he go wrong? There's that phrase, 'it takes a village to raise a child.' It also takes a village to destroy a child, and Jamie has been destroyed. He's being destroyed by a school system that's not helping him. He's been destroyed by parents that are not really seeing him. He's been destroyed by friends that maybe don't reach him in the way that he needs to be reached. He's been destroyed by his own brain chemistry, and he's been destroyed by the ideas that he's consumed. All these different elements are in play here. I know you have a young son. How are you navigating these issues as a parent? We're not quite there yet. He's just coming up to 9, and he likes 'The Gremlins' and Roald Dahl. He's not quite in the position where he's interested in phones, and he's certainly not interested in vlogs or blogs or any of those things. The question is what we do when the pressure starts to build. What happens when he goes to secondary school and 80% of his class have got smartphones and he wants one, too? (What happens) when they get to take their phone to bed, and he wants to take his phone to bed, too? That stuff is terrifying to me. Trying to work out group solutions to it is probably the answer, rather than trying to govern it from parent to parent. So that's creating discussion groups amongst the parents, so that hopefully when we get to 11, enough of his friendship group have been denied phones that us denying him a phone is not as awful as it otherwise might be. What needs to change to address the radicalization of young men? I think we need to find a way of dealing with social media. How we do that with the people that are governing social media right now is very tough, because it's not going to come from (the platforms) policing themselves. And in America, it's not going to come from legislation either. In Britain, we're trying to talk to the government about the digital age of consent. In Australia, under 16 are banned from social media, and it's the social media companies' responsibility to keep them off it. I hope that in Britain we can start talking about it. But how you do that in America right now, I do not know. This morning, I read about a parent group in Kent (a county in England) who are all working together to stop their kids at that crucial age getting smartphones. That will be huge, but it's a very, very complicated problem. And it requires a lot of complicated solutions. Each episode of the series was filmed as one continuous shot, which was a fascinating creative choice. How did that affect the way you told the story? It wasn't my decision. That was what (director Phil Barantini) and (Graham) took to me when I first got involved, and I was really excited by it. The reason why I love it from a writing perspective is it encourages you to think in a whole different way. (Graham) said there's one rule with writing single-shot shows, which is that the camera can't go anywhere without a human. So you had to find a way of spinning enough stories to keep the audience's attention. We couldn't just stay with Jamie, and we couldn't just stay with Eddie (Jamie's father, played by Graham). We had to be moving inside that police station. We had to find different, other stories to follow. It also forced me to be really partial in my storytelling. Usually your job as a storyteller is to give as much information to the audience as possible. You would be cutting to Katie's family. You would be cutting to Jamie going through the legal process. You'd be cutting to Bascombe dealing with the problem of the missing knife. I can't suddenly move in time and place too rapidly. It shakes an audience out of its normal consumption method. It's forced them out of their comfort zone a little bit and made them uneasy, and that was to our benefit. I found that scene from episode two, in which DI Bascombe's son explains the hidden meaning of those emojis, so striking. What do you think that exchange captures about the gulf between parents and children today? It's one of my favorite scenes because it's about two things: It's about him unpeeling something that he doesn't understand and being bewildered by what he's trying to understand. And it's about a really delicate relationship between father and son that's quite seriously broken. In that scene, he recognizes for the first time that he is Eddie in this situation — he hasn't seen his kid, and he doesn't understand so much of what his kid is experiencing. There's not many moments of positivity in this show, but the gentle love story between Bascombe and his son, ending with them going off to get chips together, is one of the sweeter stories that we tell in the whole show. Have you heard from other parents who have watched the show? It's been amazing. The really gratifying thing has been parents who've watched this show with their kids. Even (UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer) actually talked about watching the show with his 16-year-old and 14-year-old. Close friends have said, 'You've prompted discussions with me and my kids that I've never had before.' That's the best review you could possibly get. You've previously described TV as an 'empathy box.' What do you hope that viewers take away from the show? Listen to kids. They're really vulnerable right now, and they need you. That's everyone. That's not just parents, listen to your children. That's teachers, listen to your students. That's politicians, listen to the young people. I think they're the great excluded at the moment, and I think they're going through enormous pain. And we need to help them, because they're in real trouble. There aren't simple answers to this, but the biggest answer is let them talk, or find a way to get them talking, or get inside what they're worrying about. Then maybe, maybe you can release some stuff that can allow you to help them.
CNN
22-03-2025
- Entertainment
- CNN
Teenage boys are in crisis. The creators of Netflix's ‘Adolescence' want adults to pay attention
The world for kids today looks a lot different than it did for their parents. A scene from the hit Netflix series 'Adolescence' captures just how vast that difference is. In the show's second episode, Detective Inspector Luke Bascombe (Ashley Walters) is at a secondary school to investigate why 13-year-old Jamie Miller (Owen Cooper), the central character, allegedly killed his classmate Katie. Based on their Instagram interactions, he assumes the two were friendly, if not romantic. That is, until Bascombe's son — also a student at the school — tells him he's got it all wrong. The seemingly innocuous emojis that Katie commented with on Jamie's Instagram were actually a coded form of bullying. The dynamite emoji represents an exploding red pill, a reference to the manosphere. The 100 symbol is another manosphere nod, alluding to a theory in those circles that 80% of women are attracted to 20% of men. In other words, Katie implied that Jamie is an incel. It's a dizzying realization for Bascombe and the other adults — who are clearly clueless about the pernicious ideas that kids in their care are exposed to and how that permeates their lives. That disconnect is at the heart of 'Adolescence,' which since its premiere has viewers talking about young men's attitudes toward women, incel culture, smartphone use and more. The British miniseries starts out as a crime drama, but over the course of its four episodes, it explores what exactly could have possessed such an innocent-looking boy to do something so horrific. The answers it comes up with aren't so simple. CNN spoke to series co-creator Jack Thorne about his journey into darker corners of the internet, young male rage and what he hopes parents take away from the show. The conversation has been edited for length and clarity. This series touches on a lot of timely issues: The manosphere, modern masculinity, online bullying. What made you want to tell this story? It started with my friend (series co-creator) Stephen Graham. Stephen called me up and said we should write a show about boys hating girls and about knife crime, which in (the UK) is really problematic right now. That was the start of us talking about male rage, our own anger, our own cruelty. We were trying to build a complicated portrait of masculinity: Of how we were made and how teenagers are being made in a lot of similar ways, but with a lot of differences, too. Were these issues something you had been thinking about for a while? It's something I've been thinking about, but something I'd sort of dismissed. As I was leaning in and trying to understand, I actually found a lot of things that were surprising to me, and a lot of ideas that, if I'd heard them at the wrong time, would have taken me on journeys that I'm very grateful I didn't go on. The ideas behind incel culture are very attractive because they make sense of a lot of things: feelings of isolation, low self worth, feeling unattractive. They tell you that there is a reason why the world is against you: Because the world has been built from a female perspective, and these women have all the power. (These ideas suggest that) you need to better yourself, get in the gym, learn how to manipulate and learn how to harm. What was your research process for writing the character of Jamie? Looking in a lot of dark corners, so Reddit and 4chan, and then changing my algorithm. I had a lot of burner accounts on all the big social media platforms, and I started following the obvious people. The obvious people took me to the less obvious people, and the less obvious people were the ones that I found really interesting. No 13-year-old really is consuming Andrew Tate. What they are consuming is someone that's really into gaming or TV shows or music, who has consumed Andrew Tate and is now espousing it in a different way. That level of the waterfall was the level I concentrated on as I was trying to find the people that had helped build Jamie. Was there an overarching question that you were trying to answer? Why did Jamie do it? We always said, 'This isn't a whodunnit, but a whydunnit.' That's why we go to the school in episode two, because if we hadn't seen the education system, we wouldn't have understood him properly. If we hadn't seen the way that his peers operate, we wouldn't have understood him properly. In episode three, we're trying to understand the way that his brain works and what he's processed. Then in episode four, we're in almost the most complicated place. We're not going to make it easy to blame the parents for everything, but they are partially responsible here. What do they do with that question of responsibility, and how much responsibility should they take? You explored Jamie's descent into violent misogyny from multiple perspectives: His school environment, his home environment, his social media use. Where did he go wrong? There's that phrase, 'it takes a village to raise a child.' It also takes a village to destroy a child, and Jamie has been destroyed. He's being destroyed by a school system that's not helping him. He's been destroyed by parents that are not really seeing him. He's been destroyed by friends that maybe don't reach him in the way that he needs to be reached. He's been destroyed by his own brain chemistry, and he's been destroyed by the ideas that he's consumed. All these different elements are in play here. I know you have a young son. How are you navigating these issues as a parent? We're not quite there yet. He's just coming up to 9, and he likes 'The Gremlins' and Roald Dahl. He's not quite in the position where he's interested in phones, and he's certainly not interested in vlogs or blogs or any of those things. The question is what we do when the pressure starts to build. What happens when he goes to secondary school and 80% of his class have got smartphones and he wants one, too? (What happens) when they get to take their phone to bed, and he wants to take his phone to bed, too? That stuff is terrifying to me. Trying to work out group solutions to it is probably the answer, rather than trying to govern it from parent to parent. So that's creating discussion groups amongst the parents, so that hopefully when we get to 11, enough of his friendship group have been denied phones that us denying him a phone is not as awful as it otherwise might be. What needs to change to address the radicalization of young men? I think we need to find a way of dealing with social media. How we do that with the people that are governing social media right now is very tough, because it's not going to come from (the platforms) policing themselves. And in America, it's not going to come from legislation either. In Britain, we're trying to talk to the government about the digital age of consent. In Australia, under 16 are banned from social media, and it's the social media companies' responsibility to keep them off it. I hope that in Britain we can start talking about it. But how you do that in America right now, I do not know. This morning, I read about a parent group in Kent (a county in England) who are all working together to stop their kids at that crucial age getting smartphones. That will be huge, but it's a very, very complicated problem. And it requires a lot of complicated solutions. Each episode of the series was filmed as one continuous shot, which was a fascinating creative choice. How did that affect the way you told the story? It wasn't my decision. That was what (director Phil Barantini) and (Graham) took to me when I first got involved, and I was really excited by it. The reason why I love it from a writing perspective is it encourages you to think in a whole different way. (Graham) said there's one rule with writing single-shot shows, which is that the camera can't go anywhere without a human. So you had to find a way of spinning enough stories to keep the audience's attention. We couldn't just stay with Jamie, and we couldn't just stay with Eddie (Jamie's father, played by Graham). We had to be moving inside that police station. We had to find different, other stories to follow. It also forced me to be really partial in my storytelling. Usually your job as a storyteller is to give as much information to the audience as possible. You would be cutting to Katie's family. You would be cutting to Jamie going through the legal process. You'd be cutting to Bascombe dealing with the problem of the missing knife. I can't suddenly move in time and place too rapidly. It shakes an audience out of its normal consumption method. It's forced them out of their comfort zone a little bit and made them uneasy, and that was to our benefit. I found that scene from episode two, in which DI Bascombe's son explains the hidden meaning of those emojis, so striking. What do you think that exchange captures about the gulf between parents and children today? It's one of my favorite scenes because it's about two things: It's about him unpeeling something that he doesn't understand and being bewildered by what he's trying to understand. And it's about a really delicate relationship between father and son that's quite seriously broken. In that scene, he recognizes for the first time that he is Eddie in this situation — he hasn't seen his kid, and he doesn't understand so much of what his kid is experiencing. There's not many moments of positivity in this show, but the gentle love story between Bascombe and his son, ending with them going off to get chips together, is one of the sweeter stories that we tell in the whole show. Have you heard from other parents who have watched the show? It's been amazing. The really gratifying thing has been parents who've watched this show with their kids. Even (UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer) actually talked about watching the show with his 16-year-old and 14-year-old. Close friends have said, 'You've prompted discussions with me and my kids that I've never had before.' That's the best review you could possibly get. You've previously described TV as an 'empathy box.' What do you hope that viewers take away from the show? Listen to kids. They're really vulnerable right now, and they need you. That's everyone. That's not just parents, listen to your children. That's teachers, listen to your students. That's politicians, listen to the young people. I think they're the great excluded at the moment, and I think they're going through enormous pain. And we need to help them, because they're in real trouble. There aren't simple answers to this, but the biggest answer is let them talk, or find a way to get them talking, or get inside what they're worrying about. Then maybe, maybe you can release some stuff that can allow you to help them.
CNN
22-03-2025
- Entertainment
- CNN
Teenage boys are in crisis. The creators of Netflix's ‘Adolescence' want adults to pay attention
The world for kids today looks a lot different than it did for their parents. A scene from the hit Netflix series 'Adolescence' captures just how vast that difference is. In the show's second episode, Detective Inspector Luke Bascombe (Ashley Walters) is at a secondary school to investigate why 13-year-old Jamie Miller (Owen Cooper), the central character, allegedly killed his classmate Katie. Based on their Instagram interactions, he assumes the two were friendly, if not romantic. That is, until Bascombe's son — also a student at the school — tells him he's got it all wrong. The seemingly innocuous emojis that Katie commented with on Jamie's Instagram were actually a coded form of bullying. The dynamite emoji represents an exploding red pill, a reference to the manosphere. The 100 symbol is another manosphere nod, alluding to a theory in those circles that 80% of women are attracted to 20% of men. In other words, Katie implied that Jamie is an incel. It's a dizzying realization for Bascombe and the other adults — who are clearly clueless about the pernicious ideas that kids in their care are exposed to and how that permeates their lives. That disconnect is at the heart of 'Adolescence,' which since its premiere has viewers talking about young men's attitudes toward women, incel culture, smartphone use and more. The British miniseries starts out as a crime drama, but over the course of its four episodes, it explores what exactly could have possessed such an innocent-looking boy to do something so horrific. The answers it comes up with aren't so simple. CNN spoke to series co-creator Jack Thorne about his journey into darker corners of the internet, young male rage and what he hopes parents take away from the show. The conversation has been edited for length and clarity. This series touches on a lot of timely issues: The manosphere, modern masculinity, online bullying. What made you want to tell this story? It started with my friend (series co-creator) Stephen Graham. Stephen called me up and said we should write a show about boys hating girls and about knife crime, which in (the UK) is really problematic right now. That was the start of us talking about male rage, our own anger, our own cruelty. We were trying to build a complicated portrait of masculinity: Of how we were made and how teenagers are being made in a lot of similar ways, but with a lot of differences, too. Were these issues something you had been thinking about for a while? It's something I've been thinking about, but something I'd sort of dismissed. As I was leaning in and trying to understand, I actually found a lot of things that were surprising to me, and a lot of ideas that, if I'd heard them at the wrong time, would have taken me on journeys that I'm very grateful I didn't go on. The ideas behind incel culture are very attractive because they make sense of a lot of things: feelings of isolation, low self worth, feeling unattractive. They tell you that there is a reason why the world is against you: Because the world has been built from a female perspective, and these women have all the power. (These ideas suggest that) you need to better yourself, get in the gym, learn how to manipulate and learn how to harm. What was your research process for writing the character of Jamie? Looking in a lot of dark corners, so Reddit and 4chan, and then changing my algorithm. I had a lot of burner accounts on all the big social media platforms, and I started following the obvious people. The obvious people took me to the less obvious people, and the less obvious people were the ones that I found really interesting. No 13-year-old really is consuming Andrew Tate. What they are consuming is someone that's really into gaming or TV shows or music, who has consumed Andrew Tate and is now espousing it in a different way. That level of the waterfall was the level I concentrated on as I was trying to find the people that had helped build Jamie. Was there an overarching question that you were trying to answer? Why did Jamie do it? We always said, 'This isn't a whodunnit, but a whydunnit.' That's why we go to the school in episode two, because if we hadn't seen the education system, we wouldn't have understood him properly. If we hadn't seen the way that his peers operate, we wouldn't have understood him properly. In episode three, we're trying to understand the way that his brain works and what he's processed. Then in episode four, we're in almost the most complicated place. We're not going to make it easy to blame the parents for everything, but they are partially responsible here. What do they do with that question of responsibility, and how much responsibility should they take? You explored Jamie's descent into violent misogyny from multiple perspectives: His school environment, his home environment, his social media use. Where did he go wrong? There's that phrase, 'it takes a village to raise a child.' It also takes a village to destroy a child, and Jamie has been destroyed. He's being destroyed by a school system that's not helping him. He's been destroyed by parents that are not really seeing him. He's been destroyed by friends that maybe don't reach him in the way that he needs to be reached. He's been destroyed by his own brain chemistry, and he's been destroyed by the ideas that he's consumed. All these different elements are in play here. I know you have a young son. How are you navigating these issues as a parent? We're not quite there yet. He's just coming up to 9, and he likes 'The Gremlins' and Roald Dahl. He's not quite in the position where he's interested in phones, and he's certainly not interested in vlogs or blogs or any of those things. The question is what we do when the pressure starts to build. What happens when he goes to secondary school and 80% of his class have got smartphones and he wants one, too? (What happens) when they get to take their phone to bed, and he wants to take his phone to bed, too? That stuff is terrifying to me. Trying to work out group solutions to it is probably the answer, rather than trying to govern it from parent to parent. So that's creating discussion groups amongst the parents, so that hopefully when we get to 11, enough of his friendship group have been denied phones that us denying him a phone is not as awful as it otherwise might be. What needs to change to address the radicalization of young men? I think we need to find a way of dealing with social media. How we do that with the people that are governing social media right now is very tough, because it's not going to come from (the platforms) policing themselves. And in America, it's not going to come from legislation either. In Britain, we're trying to talk to the government about the digital age of consent. In Australia, under 16 are banned from social media, and it's the social media companies' responsibility to keep them off it. I hope that in Britain we can start talking about it. But how you do that in America right now, I do not know. This morning, I read about a parent group in Kent (a county in England) who are all working together to stop their kids at that crucial age getting smartphones. That will be huge, but it's a very, very complicated problem. And it requires a lot of complicated solutions. Each episode of the series was filmed as one continuous shot, which was a fascinating creative choice. How did that affect the way you told the story? It wasn't my decision. That was what (director Phil Barantini) and (Graham) took to me when I first got involved, and I was really excited by it. The reason why I love it from a writing perspective is it encourages you to think in a whole different way. (Graham) said there's one rule with writing single-shot shows, which is that the camera can't go anywhere without a human. So you had to find a way of spinning enough stories to keep the audience's attention. We couldn't just stay with Jamie, and we couldn't just stay with Eddie (Jamie's father, played by Graham). We had to be moving inside that police station. We had to find different, other stories to follow. It also forced me to be really partial in my storytelling. Usually your job as a storyteller is to give as much information to the audience as possible. You would be cutting to Katie's family. You would be cutting to Jamie going through the legal process. You'd be cutting to Bascombe dealing with the problem of the missing knife. I can't suddenly move in time and place too rapidly. It shakes an audience out of its normal consumption method. It's forced them out of their comfort zone a little bit and made them uneasy, and that was to our benefit. I found that scene from episode two, in which DI Bascombe's son explains the hidden meaning of those emojis, so striking. What do you think that exchange captures about the gulf between parents and children today? It's one of my favorite scenes because it's about two things: It's about him unpeeling something that he doesn't understand and being bewildered by what he's trying to understand. And it's about a really delicate relationship between father and son that's quite seriously broken. In that scene, he recognizes for the first time that he is Eddie in this situation — he hasn't seen his kid, and he doesn't understand so much of what his kid is experiencing. There's not many moments of positivity in this show, but the gentle love story between Bascombe and his son, ending with them going off to get chips together, is one of the sweeter stories that we tell in the whole show. Have you heard from other parents who have watched the show? It's been amazing. The really gratifying thing has been parents who've watched this show with their kids. Even (UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer) actually talked about watching the show with his 16-year-old and 14-year-old. Close friends have said, 'You've prompted discussions with me and my kids that I've never had before.' That's the best review you could possibly get. You've previously described TV as an 'empathy box.' What do you hope that viewers take away from the show? Listen to kids. They're really vulnerable right now, and they need you. That's everyone. That's not just parents, listen to your children. That's teachers, listen to your students. That's politicians, listen to the young people. I think they're the great excluded at the moment, and I think they're going through enormous pain. And we need to help them, because they're in real trouble. There aren't simple answers to this, but the biggest answer is let them talk, or find a way to get them talking, or get inside what they're worrying about. Then maybe, maybe you can release some stuff that can allow you to help them.
Buzz Feed
19-03-2025
- Entertainment
- Buzz Feed
"Adolescence" Writer Reacts To One Of The Show's Biggest Unanswered Questions
This article contains spoilers for the Netflix drama Adolescence. Adolescence's distinctive one-take filming technique makes for a gripping and claustrophobic viewing experience, but because the camera is unable to cut away from the main action, it does mean some big questions never get answered. In season two, detectives Bascombe and Frank (played by Ashley Walters and Faye Marsay) find themselves at suspect Jamie Miller's high school to try and tie up a few loose ends – namely what could have motivated him to kill fellow teen Katie Leonard, and what he's done with the murder weapon. While Bascome is eventually able to get to the bottom of where Jamie found the knife with which he killed Katie, viewers never actually find out what happened to it. Screenwriter Jack Thorne told Deadline: 'I think that there is a real joy in the incomplete. There is a real joy in how partial this show was able to be. It was written in a really partial way, we couldn't cover all corners. 'For instance, episode two has a whole question going through it, of where is the knife? That's why DI Luke Bascombe is there. We cannot answer that. We don't answer that.' Netflix He continued: 'I could have tried to fit it into dialogue in episode three, but that would have felt inauthentic and wrong.' Pressed by Deadline, Jack refused to answer where the murder weapon ended up, out of fear of 'spoiling' the show in its intended form, but did confirm that he and Stephen Graham do have an answer. 'Stephen and I worked everything out,' he insisted. 'But the point is that we didn't have to answer it, and by not answering it, we create a question, and that question hangs on.' After Adolescence began streaming last week, Netflix has taken viewers behind the scenes of the show, lifting the lid on how some of those incredible one-shot techniques were pulled off – and exactly what happened if anything went wrong. Cinematographer Matthew Lewis has also opened up more about some of the on-set blunders that led to entire takes being discarded.
The Guardian
16-03-2025
- Entertainment
- The Guardian
The week in TV: Adolescence; Michael Sheen's Secret Million Pound Giveaway; Chess Masters: The Endgame
Adolescence (Netflix)Michael Sheen's Secret Million Pound Giveaway (Channel 4) | Masters: The Endgame (BBC Two) | iPlayer After the horrific death of a teenage girl in Adolescence, the camera follows a day's events in a police station in one single extraordinary shot, and then does the same at her school. But the real eye-opener is which of the two locations turns out to be more redolent of crime and menace. Stephen Graham, who co-wrote this four-part series with the prolific Jack Thorne (This Is England '86/'90, Help, Kiri, Toxic Town), plays Eddie, a father who looks on in stunned bewilderment while officers process his 13-year-old son Jamie for murder as if they were filling out their timesheets. At the school, by contrast, bullying and fist fights happen under the noses of teachers who can barely keep order. Everything is the wrong way round. Even level-headed DI Bascombe, the detective leading the murder inquiry, loses his cool. The school 'looks like a fucking holding pen', mutters Bascombe, an impressive Ashley Walters, on the other side of the tracks from his drug-dealing kingpin in Top Boy. The police have studied Instagram accounts and taken at face value the heart emojis the victim sent to Jamie (strikingly assured newcomer Owen Cooper). Was this a teen romance that went horribly wrong? It takes Bascombe's son, Adam, to explain that they should be looking at the different colours of the heart symbols. The girl was calling Jamie an 'incel' in code. 'It's the 80-20 rule,' Adam goes on: the majority of young women are attracted to just a fifth of men. The inquiry leads Bascombe's team towards the rank and misogynistic 'manosphere'. 'The Andrew Tate shite,' groans Bascombe's partner, DS Misha Frank (Faye Marsay). 'I've heard the boys talk about him,' says a teacher. But this important and affecting series highlights broader issues: boys in search of an identity, and technology dividing children from their parents. Eddie has never even glanced at his son's socials. Tate isn't the only toxic male in the US who cast his shadow over last week's new television. In his latest role, the actor Michael Sheen, who has portrayed real-life figures including Tony Blair, Brian Clough and David Frost, appears as a kind of anti-Elon Musk. While the richest man in the world wants to take a chainsaw to the social security system on which poor Americans depend, the more modestly resourced Sheen is spending his own cash to help families escape the gnawing hardship of owing money. Michael Sheen's Secret Million Pound Giveaway attempts to do for Britain's debt crisis what the movie The Big Short – albeit without Margot Robbie in a bathtub – did for the financial crash of 2008. This is an exposé that carries the audience along with it, despite digressions about abstruse financial instruments. More than 2 million families in the UK had 'high interest' loans as of October 2024, according to Sheen, and the industry is worth £55bn. Debt is a burden if you owe it but an asset if you hold it, and one that can be traded. While a borrower's exposure increases, the miserable arithmetic of these unlikely goods means that the debt itself becomes cheaper the more it changes hands. With the help of a former insider from the murky debt collection racket, Sheen hoped to pay £100,000 to take over £1m of loans that he would write off, relieving the pressure on 900 people in south Wales, where he grew up. Unkempt but upbeat, Sheen compares his one-man campaign to a 'heist'. He establishes his 'HQ' in a disused warehouse that looks like a location from Ocean's Eleven, 'or in my case, Ocean's One', says the star. He has to set up a company and get the backing of financial service watchdogs. Sheen's mole warns him that he shouldn't draw attention to his activities because the highly secretive debt business likes to keep it that way. The actor meets a working mother in arrears to the tune of £12,000, which she can't clear. In a greasy spoon near the doomed Port Talbot steelworks, waitresses tell him that grown men wept at their tables at the sight of the last ships delivering to the plant, which leaves Sheen close to tears himself. A loan shark claims that he performs a public service but admits he would make a 'nuisance' of himself outside the house of a debtor who didn't pay up. 'I won't beat you up for a grand,' he says, as if that would be beneath him. Sheen points out that this predator has at least talked to him, unlike the bankers and regulators he approached. After an 18-month wait, Sheen's heist comes off. He rips up a piece of paper representing the debt he has cancelled. Data protection rules mean he doesn't know the names of his beneficiaries, so director Paul Taylor is denied a heartwarming payoff to his film. The programme improvises, with Sheen making a speech to a cafe full of people who express their gratitude. The documentary ends in anticlimax – somehow appropriate given that debt remains grindingly remorseless for so many. For a game with such a strict set of rules, chess has proved highly adaptable. Matches between champions of the east and west were proxies for the cold war, and garlanded players took on computers in a rehearsal of what may lie ahead for mankind and AI. The game's history on British TV has been chequered. Matches haven't been screened for 30 years, but now BBC Two has co-opted chess for its Monday-night brainbox slot. Buttressed by Mastermind and University Challenge, two valuable pieces on the BBC's grid, Chess Masters: The Endgame sees a dozen enthusiasts compete against one another while Sue Perkins MCs. Like aficionados studying games of the past, the producers have borrowed signature moves from other shows: MasterChef's slo-mo walking shot of the contestants; excited experts following events remotely, courtesy of The Piano; and The Traitors' flaring candelabra and backstage gossip. Competitors are invited to solve a chess problem. But programme-makers also face a puzzle from which there is no easy escape, known to chess grandmasters as zugzwang. What to do about the viewers who don't understand the rules? Will they be bored stupid? To get around this, various camera angles and sound effects made the loss of a piece as dramatic as a WWE grappler hitting the canvas. And the players are furnished with nicknames and backstories. Lula, AKA the Chess Princess, took up the game after she watched 2020 film The Queen's Gambit, starring Anya Taylor-Joy. Fifty-six-year-old Londoner Nick, 'the Swashbuckler', has a spell in prison behind him and now teaches inmates the game to help build mental resilience. He brings an unlikely vibe of Commissioner Selwyn Patterson from Death in Paradise to his matches. In another familiar ploy, one contestant is removed from the board each week. I was disappointed not to see an eccentric genius among the players, such as the old Russian master David Bronstein, who is said to have begun one game by staring at the board for 50 minutes without touching a piece, though admittedly that might not make great TV. But I'm punching my clock and waiting for the showrunners to make their next move. So far, so good. No need to go back to square one. Star ratings (out of five) Adolescence ★★★★Michael Sheen's Secret Million Pound Giveaway ★★★★Chess Masters: The Endgame ★★★ Death in Paradise (BBC One) The beating heart of this Caribbean Cluedo is Don Warrington's Commissioner Selwyn, with his motorcycle sidecar, rumpled fatigues and RSC-honed command of the elusive Saint Marie accent. Match of the Day(BBC One) We'll miss Gary Lineker when he goes at the end of the season. The BBC chairman is daft to suggest there should be more analysis and less football. Television is about show and tell, not one or the other. Saturday Night Live (X) Mike Myers (Austin Powers, The Cat in the Hat) makes a welcome comeback as a madcap Elon Musk on the long-running comedy revue. His impersonation ('Glitch!') is even more of a tonic than whatever pick-me-up his wired tech bro appears to be taking.
