In episode three of Adolescence, the new four-part Netflix drama, a child psychologist asks the thirteen year old boy she’s assessing whether any of his ‘mates’ happen to be girls.
I've just finished watching Adolescence with my partner and agree with everything you've said. It's a heartbreaking piece of work, and one of the most important pieces of television I've ever seen.
The acting is superb throughout, but I do think special mention has to be made of episode 3. The tension that's maintained throughout it is incredible, and both the performance of the child, who lurches between innocence and pure rage, and the psychologist, almost desperately seeking to maintain her professionalism, is about as raw as it gets.
I feel exhausted having finished episode 4 as you just can't avoid being drawn into feeling the pain of the family.
As someone who regularly has to read difficult social care files, I'm afraid it is also, sadly, all too real.
I rarely watch television or visit the cinema, but your thoughtful analysis inspired me to view the four-part Netflix series Adolescence. Its intricate layers left me grappling to fully comprehend the forces at play—so many threads weave through its narrative. From a Kantian perspective, a profound struggle with duty and autonomy emerges, most strikingly in episode three, where the psychologist probes whether Jamie’s actions stemmed from reason or impulse. A Utilitarian lens also surfaces, particularly in that same episode, as the two detectives clash: one, viscerally Kantian, insists the ‘why’ is irrelevant—Jamie’s deed alone condemns him—while the other weighs the cascading misery and its broader fallout. The series subtly suggests Jamie’s character was molded by his cultural milieu, a nod to Virtue Ethics, which shines through in episode four. There, Eddie wrestles with the enigma of his son’s transformation, while Manda joins him in a quiet battle to quell their gnawing fear that they failed to instill virtuous traits in him. Episode two reinforces this, exposing a chaotic school environment and the teachers’ varied responses. Yet, the series closes in real-time sorrow—offering no resolution, no glimmer of hope. For me, this is pivotal. Duty and autonomy, outcomes, or virtuous character alone cannot untangle the web; they lead us in ceaseless circles. There must be more—otherwise, we are left without hope, adrift in despair.
Jose, this is such a wonderful comment to read, thank you. I do feel there was some hope to be found in the series, but it didn't come in the final episode.
That is true, Dariush, and I believe in episode 3 as Briony tries to understand Jamie although I didn’t see it as offering hope…the fleeting acts of love, decency and effort amid the wreckage could be glimmers of hope. The ending did remind me of the beginning of L’Etranger and Meursault’s famous opening words: “Aujourd’hui, maman est morte.” I’m not sure why, except perhaps that I experienced an existential melancholy at the end.
I only just started Adolescence, after realizing I needed to watch it before reading your always valuable take. It is difficult to watch, so I am still only one episode in. I look forward to the depth it clearly brings to the conversation. We don’t often enough have deep conversations. Maybe that is part of the problem with society, as well.
'Conversations' seem to have become reduced to attention-grabbing headlines, lacking any sense of nuance. I too hope this series sparks a serious, meaningful dialogue.
I agree - this is a compelling and important piece of work. And I'm glad you mention the single takes. More than once I was thinking, oh please, give us a cut. The camera work became a little bit too obsessed of itself. But stunning nonetheless.
I've just finished watching Adolescence with my partner and agree with everything you've said. It's a heartbreaking piece of work, and one of the most important pieces of television I've ever seen.
The acting is superb throughout, but I do think special mention has to be made of episode 3. The tension that's maintained throughout it is incredible, and both the performance of the child, who lurches between innocence and pure rage, and the psychologist, almost desperately seeking to maintain her professionalism, is about as raw as it gets.
I feel exhausted having finished episode 4 as you just can't avoid being drawn into feeling the pain of the family.
As someone who regularly has to read difficult social care files, I'm afraid it is also, sadly, all too real.
Thanks very much for taking the time to write. Yes, I was left quite shellshocked by it too, and I don't shy away from hard-hitting dramas.
I just hope enough people watch it so that some real, positive change is brought about.
I rarely watch television or visit the cinema, but your thoughtful analysis inspired me to view the four-part Netflix series Adolescence. Its intricate layers left me grappling to fully comprehend the forces at play—so many threads weave through its narrative. From a Kantian perspective, a profound struggle with duty and autonomy emerges, most strikingly in episode three, where the psychologist probes whether Jamie’s actions stemmed from reason or impulse. A Utilitarian lens also surfaces, particularly in that same episode, as the two detectives clash: one, viscerally Kantian, insists the ‘why’ is irrelevant—Jamie’s deed alone condemns him—while the other weighs the cascading misery and its broader fallout. The series subtly suggests Jamie’s character was molded by his cultural milieu, a nod to Virtue Ethics, which shines through in episode four. There, Eddie wrestles with the enigma of his son’s transformation, while Manda joins him in a quiet battle to quell their gnawing fear that they failed to instill virtuous traits in him. Episode two reinforces this, exposing a chaotic school environment and the teachers’ varied responses. Yet, the series closes in real-time sorrow—offering no resolution, no glimmer of hope. For me, this is pivotal. Duty and autonomy, outcomes, or virtuous character alone cannot untangle the web; they lead us in ceaseless circles. There must be more—otherwise, we are left without hope, adrift in despair.
Jose, this is such a wonderful comment to read, thank you. I do feel there was some hope to be found in the series, but it didn't come in the final episode.
That is true, Dariush, and I believe in episode 3 as Briony tries to understand Jamie although I didn’t see it as offering hope…the fleeting acts of love, decency and effort amid the wreckage could be glimmers of hope. The ending did remind me of the beginning of L’Etranger and Meursault’s famous opening words: “Aujourd’hui, maman est morte.” I’m not sure why, except perhaps that I experienced an existential melancholy at the end.
I only just started Adolescence, after realizing I needed to watch it before reading your always valuable take. It is difficult to watch, so I am still only one episode in. I look forward to the depth it clearly brings to the conversation. We don’t often enough have deep conversations. Maybe that is part of the problem with society, as well.
'Conversations' seem to have become reduced to attention-grabbing headlines, lacking any sense of nuance. I too hope this series sparks a serious, meaningful dialogue.
Thanks very much for writing.
I agree - this is a compelling and important piece of work. And I'm glad you mention the single takes. More than once I was thinking, oh please, give us a cut. The camera work became a little bit too obsessed of itself. But stunning nonetheless.
Yes, the single take technique is suitably oppressive.
Thanks very much for writing.