In March of 2025, Netflix released a mini-series called Adolescence. At the time it earned rave reviews and drew a lot of commentary from critics. The series was praised for its acting and was lauded for dealing with the difficult issues emerging in modern Britain. For the critics, these issues were really one thing- men.
The series also drew some criticism, claiming that is has played into the contemporary narrative that masculinity is inherently toxic and beyond redemption. Defenders of the series retorted that they were taking aim at the toxic end of the ‘manosphere’ with characters like Andrew Tate in their sights.
The story itself is about a teenage boy, Jamie Miller (Owen Cooper) who is accused of killing his classmate, Katie Leonard. The film opens with what seems like an over-the-top arrest of the boy, complete with SWAT team and early morning raid on the family home. Viewers cannot help but think this is completely unnecessary, given that the boy although 13 years old, does not look he could do much violence to anyone. The story then unfolds in two parts. The first story is about what happens to families in these situations; the second part tracks the police investigation into what is a horrible crime and what it takes to solve it. I will not spoil the ending for you, because this is worth your time and attention.
The narrative does keep you guessing and sets you up for misdirection that does work in the context of the series. The main character is Eddie Miler (Stephen Graham), the boy’s father. His performance is the standout performance of the series, even though the whole thing is generally well acted. But Graham’s performance, in particular the scenes during the child’s arrest are nothing short of excellent. His acting is just another reminder to traditionalists, that if we are going to change the culture then we are going to have to find a way of engaging and working with extraordinary talent. That is the kind of talent that you just can’t fake. And as we have sad on numerous occasions- talent is blind.
Many people have stated that the series, although trying to highlight the problems of misogyny actually ends up being misandrist. I don’t really think that divide captures the heart of the story. Without doubt, there are a few stereotypes deployed in the series. But stereotypes do have some truth to them. Rather, what I think the series has captured, is the collapse of a culture and the end of British civilisation that had been built after World War II.
One of the key scenes in the series, is when the police visit Jamie’s school in order to gain from his classmates some insight into his behaviour that might explain his alleged crime. This part of the story is narrated through the experience of DI Luke Bascombe (Ashley Walters). The children he meets are not so much in school, as they are part of a zoo. And some of them behave very much like animals. Bascombe is horrified by what he learns about the teen sub-culture that has emerged in which many children, including his own son, have been subjected. This culture has developed its own language, means of communication, hierarchy and laws of behaviour- all of which are antithetical to true human flourishing. In fact, they ensure its downfall. But what is at the heart of this cultural collapse is the myth of multicultural Britain. Multiculturalism is an evil. But we find it difficult to say that because we think multiculturalism is the same thing as multi-ethnicity. The two are not coterminous. There is obvious scope for there being different ethnicities in a given population, but what is not possible is many cultures. I can live in a street where people come form different parts of the world, but what I can’t live on is a street where everyone has opposing views about how to live on the street. One is ethnicity, the other is culture. Culture provides shared habits and expectations across a population. It gives a diversity of peoples a unity of intent. Multiculturalism- and it doesn’t matter specifically what those cultures are- divides the intent of a population, because it creates opposing expectations and conflicting habits. Where there is no shared expectation about how to live, then there can be no peaceable means to living.
The series most definitely sees the world through the lenses of the makers. And those makers would most likely subscribe to a progressive secular narrative. But they are talented and they are trying to be honest, and so they see things they can’t quite understand- but like any good artist- they let us see them too. A dishonest artist cuts away from the things he doesn’t want you to see, just because he doesn’t agree or doesn’t understand them. These film makers have caught on film the heart of the problem- we are in a crisis of culture.
The structure of the story telling in this series is interesting. We have two father-son relationships that are the backbone of the story. One whose son is charged with murder; and the other father who has charged that son with a crime and is now looking to his own son to make sense of it. That alone is worth your time. However, what is missing from this story, is any sense of original sin and its understating. We talk of toxic masculinity and we sometimes talk of toxic femininity- what we are actually talking about is sin. And in particular the effects of original sin that live on in all of us. Because they lack the understanding, they also lack vocabulary. That is why the story ends, but does not conclude. There is a resolution to the case in the story, but there is no resolution as to the question of why there is a case at all. And because faith in God has been sidelined in favour of the idol of multi-culturalism- they can offer no answer.
This is a series worth your time if you are trying to escape the cold or the heat on a Saturday afternoon with nothing particular to do. It is perhaps not something for children who are too young. The series is a reminder to us as traditionalists, that we have much cultural work to do. And that work begins by showing up for the culture and engaging with what it produces, even when what it produces is not entirely perfect.
