ADOLESCENCE. One-liner series full of oversimplifications

The phenomenon of Adolescence – a British miniseries that has triggered a flood of comments, reviews, and analyses – prompted me to reflect more deeply on its true message. After reading over a dozen critical opinions, I was struck by a certain paradox: none of the reviewers paid attention to a key line spoken in the production, which in my opinion constitutes the very essence of its message. This significant oversight seems characteristic not only of the critical community but – surprisingly – also of the creators themselves.

Before I get to the heart of the matter, it’s worth acknowledging the undeniable technical merits of the series. From a production standpoint, Adolescence impresses with its precision and consistency. Masterful acting, flawless formal construction, and storytelling carried out through uninterrupted, long takes all contribute to a production that is technically stunning.

The widespread media enthusiasm, framing the production as an unprecedented television masterpiece, dulled my natural critical vigilance. I gave in to the collective expectation of a deeply moving and transformative experience. However, the actual encounter with the series left me with a much more modest impression – the confrontation with the miniseries left me with a distinct sense of unfulfillment.

Governmental Response

I find myself pondering the reactions the series evoked in the UK and possibly in other countries. The government budget included funding for screenings for schoolchildren across the United Kingdom. Given such a strong response, it’s worth asking about the credibility of the social image presented by this production.

The phenomenon of mass violence inspired by the ideology of male online movements simply does not exist on the scale portrayed in the series.

The script of the series could be described as “plausible,” but it must be clearly emphasized: in reality, no case has been recorded that corresponds to the story depicted. There has never been a situation where a thirteen-year-old boy with a clean record, good academic performance, and a stable family environment committed a brutal attack on a classmate solely under the influence of what he saw online.

Documentary or Fiction?

Particularly disturbing is the fact that politicians and influencers, during public statements, refer to Adolescence as a documentary. This is not only a factual error but a symptom of a much more serious problem. We are witnessing a dangerous trend in which a work of fiction begins to be treated by opinion-shaping circles as a record of reality. The more people confuse artistic creation with a documentary social testimony, the more serious the consequences for the reception of this series may be. It leads to the formulation of educational and social policies based on a fictional, emotionally charged portrayal rather than on real data and sociological analyses.

The Pill Confusion

The series also presents a significant oversimplification concerning online ideologies. The creators mention the “blue pill,” which supposedly represents not seeing the world in its true form, and the “red pill,” which supposedly symbolizes seeing reality as it is. This simplification is particularly striking because the creators completely omit the “black pill” – an ideology actually followed by incel communities, which were supposedly the main theme of the series. Importantly, black pill adherents reject both the worldview of the “blue” and “red” pills. They look down on the former, viewing them as unaware “average people,” and feel contempt for the latter, believing they have seen part of the truth but deliberately refuse to fully embrace it. This inaccuracy shows how superficial the creators’ understanding of the depicted community is, which further undermines the credibility of the series as an educational tool.

The scene in which Bascombe’s son explains what emoticons and the different “pills” mean came off as particularly unrealistic. It was presented as though the boy were conveying some secret knowledge accessible only to the initiated, almost on the level of esoteric wisdom. This is completely disconnected from reality – the average parent who pays any attention to raising their child and the online world would be well aware of the meaning of these symbols. This scene is another example of artificial dramatization and exaggeration of the issue by the creators, who clearly assume that adults are completely ignorant of youth internet culture.

An Unnecessary Episode

A few words about the final episode of Adolescence, which may be the most striking example of the series’ wasted potential. Watching this final installment turned out to be such a frustrating experience that I repeatedly found myself checking how many minutes were left until the end. From a critical perspective, it’s hard not to get the impression that the creators simply didn’t know how to conclude the story they had started.

Despite solid execution, the episode contributes virtually nothing to the understanding of the tragedy presented, nor does it deepen the psychological portraits of the characters. The only concrete piece of information we receive is an enigmatic message about Jamie’s unresolved legal status. An attempt to find artistic justification for such an ending leads to the hypothesis that the screenwriters deliberately avoided definitive answers, suggesting a multifactorial nature of the issue – from toxic online content and adolescent insecurities to identity issues.

Although the series breaks away from conventional tropes, avoiding simplistic explanations such as a pathological home environment or domestic violence, the creators fail to provide in return a thorough analysis of the social phenomenon that the series claims to address. On the contrary – the series remains on the surface of the problem, ultimately offering a more sensational story than a reliable social study.

Was the Protagonist a Psychopath?

When we talk about the credibility of the presented story, it’s also worth considering the psychological construction of the main character. In the third episode, Jamie displays traits that in my opinion clearly indicate dissociative identity disorder, commonly referred to as split personality or multiple personality disorder. This disorder is characterized by the presence of at least two independent personalities within one person. Of course, nothing of the sort is officially confirmed by the creators, but the scene with the psychologist is portrayed and acted in such a way that this impression is strongly conveyed. This, in turn, significantly complicates the interpretation of the character’s behavior – he is not simply a person with psychopathic tendencies, as some might suggest, but rather a clinically complex psychological case. This makes his story even less representative of the broader social issue the series attempts to portray.

The Mythical Sentence

We finally arrive at the key element of the series that inspired this article. In the second episode, during a conversation between Bascombe and his partner Frank, a line is spoken that should resonate in the minds of parents, educators, policymakers, and everyone involved in shaping the future of the younger generation:

“All children really need is one thing that allows them to feel good about themselves.”

This seemingly simple thought carries a fundamental message that resounds much louder than the sensational plot of the series. I view this through the lens of my own experience – like Jamie, I went through difficult moments in elementary and high school. The difference, however, was that I encountered someone and discovered a passion that allowed me to build a sense of self-worth.

Adolescence tries to suggest that increased parental vigilance and involvement could have prevented the tragic unfolding of events. However, this approach is based on a deeply unrealistic view of the relationship between parents and teenagers. It does not stem from negligence or parenting failure, but from the natural dynamics of adolescence – how many teenagers willingly share their deepest struggles with their parents? That rhetorical question seems to have eluded the creators of the series.

Of course, controlling the online content a young person is exposed to has value and should not be downplayed. The series rightly highlights potential dangers lurking in the digital world. However, the mistake lies in placing this issue at the forefront, as if monitoring online activity could replace genuine relationships and support. The internet is just one of many environments in which a teenager functions – important, but not solely determinative of their development and choices.

In this context, the role of teachers and the entire education system takes on particular significance. It is precisely the school – with engaged and supportive educators – that serves as a key element in building the psychological well-being of youth. Instead of focusing on sensational but statistically marginal cases of violence inspired by online content, we should turn our attention to systemic support for the teaching staff. Recognizing their work, providing appropriate diagnostic and therapeutic tools, and ensuring decent pay become, in this light, not just professional demands but a social necessity.

Final Note

Adolescence is a series which, despite its undeniable technical qualities, suffers from oversimplifications and a sensational approach to a complex problem. Its true value lies not in media hype or alarmist social diagnoses, but in a simple yet profound message: a young person primarily needs a point of support – something that allows them to build a sense of self-worth.

Instead of focusing on digital surveillance or demonizing online communities, we should ask ourselves: how can we create an environment in which every young person has the chance to find that “one thing” that helps them survive the turbulent period of adolescence? The answer may be less spectacular than the series suggests, but certainly more effective.

Written by Krzysztof Zwirski