Adolescence – this is a new four-part series on Netflix, and it is quite remarkable in its execution (directing, acting and story) in bringing forth a review on modern day parenting with teens in the Western world. In what starts as seemingly a Law & Order style arrest for a heinous crime, and what would likely be a legal criminal case where the audience is taken into a defense of this young 13-yo boy, instead turns into a much deeper review into issues of the day with raising children through this act. The heinous crime is the murder of a young lady, around age 13yo herself. The opening scene is the police takedown in full armour, bashing down a suburban family home front door at 6AM to arrest the young 13yo boy, Jamie Miller (played remarkably by Owen Cooper), mom and plumber Dad and and older sister all inside being shocked at the incursion by force. Jamie is handcuffed and put into the back of a police cruiser with the police with him and encouraging him to request legal representation. The rest of the almost hour-long episode, is the formal arrest of Jamie, with his Dad acting as his adult accompanyment. Jamie throughout, even when the legal representative arrives to provide advice, pleads his innocence and that he hasn’t done anything, even to his Dad who asks for his best promise.
Then the police come in, and through an interrogation bring forth their evidence against Jamie, with Dad, defense lawyer and Jamie there. This culminates in a video from CCTV where in a parking lot the offense takes place. It is a turning point for all viewing it. I cannot recall ever seeing the details of an arrest made so clearly from filling in forms, to fingerprinting and mug shots.
The next episode follows the two principal police detective partners at the local school where Jamie and the young woman named Katie attended, and they searching for more imformation but importantly for them and their case, the murder weapon. They visit the classrooms, interview a few students, including Katie’s best friend and some of Jamie’s mates. Clearly this isn’t an average day at the school, with police visiting and also a student being murdered the night before, which is well known amongst the student body already, and another under arrest. But we see a classroom setting that seems chaotic, and very different from classrooms that I remember in the 70s and 80s.
The third episode is an incredible acting performance by both Jamie, but also a therapist, played Erin Doherty a few months later in a detention centre in a stark room. The child therapist is required to provide the court with an independent report on whether Jamie fully understands the nature, quality and consequences of the criminal act for which he has been accused. There are two people in the room, asking each other questions and answering for about an hour. It is gripping. The therapist seeking to better understand this young boy, and his hesitancy at revealing more about himself and his life. She also wants to better understand his idea of what it means to be masculine, what it means to be a man. Their interaction informs us about many things about Jamie, and reveals some further important information.
The final episode is back at the family house with a few more months advanced from the third epiosde, and it shows the impact that all of these events on the three remaining members of the family in the house. Together each of these epsiodes do far more than just examine the guilt or innocence of Jamie. They explore a system (legal, school, and family) and environment currently and how they are impacted by social media, the economy, changes in school, the family unit and smaller towns. It examines parenting, and the discipline of children in a world where the children are impacted on so many fronts. And where the stock answer given by any teen to an inquisitive parent is “I’m fine”. Questions arise: What does a 13yo boy think is appropriate sexual contact with a similar-aged female student? What about sexting, the sending of naked images of students in this age group? How about incels, which is a newer concept that there are many young men who have had no sexual experience due to external factors (presumed) which likely can be permanent and then they will potentially act out. How much responsibility can we put on the child, the parents, the systems in this horrific situation? The writing is excellent, the ability of the actors to act in these episodes is first rate.
What I haven’t spoken about so far is that each of these episodes are directed with a single camera, in a single shot that drifts from one part of the scene and then into others with no cuts. There are a couple of drone shots, but otherwise all of the scenes with the actors are done in single shots. The camera circles around the actors and shows them interacting. This is most effective in the therapist episode 3, but also episode 2 in the school, from classroom to classroom to hallway and then outside. It all adds up to compelling television, with deeply emotional issues that every viewer can relate with. As as adult and parent, I am more sympathetic than ever to a classroom environment that is drastically different than what I experienced in the 80s. Before social media, before cell phone and the ability to take and send a picture at any time. Bullying and cyber-bullying are taken to a new level, and readily seen on any person’s Instagram account. It is yet another layer of complexity, in a school environment that always had different cliques, but they are divided up very differently than in the past. It is excellent. It is watchable, compelling with believable and sympathetic people looking to do the right thing. These are not easy times, although no times really are easy, and each generation has its own challenges to face. Seek this out and check it out. I highly recommend this.
Chariots of Fire: This Best Picture from 1981 I had remembered this solely as a story of a British runner at the Olympics who refused to run a race on Sunday, the Sabbath Day. But there is a lot more to it than that as there is the competition between the two principal actors. Both run the 100m dash. One is Scottish Catholic and NOT British, Eric Liddell (played by Ian Charleston) and the other Jewish British, Harold Abrahams (played by Ben Cross). World War One has ended and the Olympics are to be held in 1924 in Paris.
As young men, Abrahams enrolls in Cambridge and quickly tries to establish himself, building the repuation as a fast runner and a winner. He shows that he is a fast runner by completing a run around the courtyard before the courtyard clock tolls twelve. Meanwhile in Scotland, pious young Liddell is well known for his running but his sister frets about his soul by running instead of focusing on God and religion. Eric convinces his sister that he honours God to do some running in competition. In a head to head regional race, Abrahams is soundly defeated by Liddell which sets his confidence back. Abrahams only wants to win, but he recognizes that he may need some help to improve upon his raw running skills. He approaches a well known coach, played by Ian Holm, to make him faster. Holm sees promise in him and agrees. Both young men are successful in being invited to be part of the British Olympic team.
It was at the Olympics the issue of the race heat for the 100m set on sabbath arises for Liddell and he steadfastly refuses. The British Olympic Committee is not pleased and looks to strong arm him to change his mind. Instead of running the 100m dash heat, Liddell ends up running another race instead, the 400 metre race on a weekday and won the race. He broke the Olympic and World records in the effort, which stayed in place for twelve years. Abrahams ran to fight discrimination, as well as to show coached athletes can be better, without any bending of the rules. Both men succeeded in their goals. Both won gold medals.
This won Best Picture and it has a terrific score from Vangelis. Add in solid performances, some good costumes and sets and this still is compelling to watch still. The religious aspects don’t resonate with me but I respect the conviction of the runner. I am less sympathetic to the sister’s attitude in looking to prevent the running to begin with. Surely he was given a gift of being fast which is something that should be explored to its fullest while he can?
Notably it was executive produced by Dodi Al-Fayad, who died with Diana Princess of Wales in Paris in August 1997. Well worth a watch.
Everest. From 2015. Starring Josh Brolin, Jason Clarke, Keira Knightley, Jake Gyllenhaal, Sam Worthington, Robin Wright and Emily Watson, which is an impressive cast, this movie tells the true story about Everest expeditions in May 1996. In 1996, the idea of commercializing treks up the highest peak in the world was just being more fully explored. Jason Clarke plays New Zealander, Rob Hall who had set up a company (Hall Adventure Consultants) to bring high-paying clients to venture to the summit with him and his team. Hall had previously climbed each of the Seven Summits (including Everest) before he had formed this company, so he was a seasoned professional climber. The Seven Summits are the highest mountains on each of the traditional seven continents and include (with some disagreement): Everest, Mont Blanc, Kilimanjaro, Denali, Puncak Jaya, Aconcagua, and Vinson. This should not be confused with the seven highest peaks in the world, mostly in the Himalayas including K2, Kangchenjunga and others. There of course were other teams on the mountain in 1996 and at base camp at the same time as Adventure Consultants including Jake Gyllenhall’s (playing real life Scott Fischer) who was an American mountain guide.
The early part of the movie introduces you to Clarke and his team and those people who were to be going up to the summit on this adventure. Each brought forth their own story including a teacher from the UK and a married adventurer (Brolin) who only felt alive on these mountains. Clarke we learn has a wife, played by Keira Knightley who is pregnant with their first child together. She is due at any time.
What transpires is a story about the challenges faced in bringing this troop to the summit from base camp to intermediate camps and then the summit. We learn that the mountain and its weather can be very unpredictable. The teams are told that windows that open to the summit can close quickly and that times outlined for ascent and departure are to be strictly enforced, meaning no matter where a particular climber is on their climb up, if at the chosen time they weren’t at the summit, they are to head down. Things happen with this group and the weather turns dramatically against those on the mountain. Lives are lost.
I don’t recall this movie being released, and looking back on it 10 years later it has a very impressive cast. It is well told, and well acted. The scenes on the mountain, while some are clearly sound stages, are convincing. As someone who likes a good trek, I have no interest whatsoever in taking on this mountain. I don’t feel like Sir Edmund Hillary who wanted to climb Everest “because it was there”. No thanks. It all seems so very precarious, and that your life is hanging by a rope or a seemingly $10 ladder joined together with other $10 ladders with you wearing spiked hiking boots in freezing temperatures in high altitude. One false step and you can be finished, and there are still bodies left up there that have never been recovered. All to get a photograph of the summit; a selfie! These days, long lines of people queuing on Everest to get the Bucket List selfie is out of control. I just don’t feel the need for such risky travel adventures. Clearly these people were willing to pay big money to put their lives at risk for this moment. Sometimes Mother Nature has very different ideas. This was worth viewing.
Mondays With Robbie 