"Adolescence"

[Snarky Oracle!]

Just like that? Or are you lulling me into a false sense of comfort?

Yes. Probably.

 

[Frank Underwood]

Then you're right because heavy-handed is a story-telling technique that almost never serves a film well, imho.
But that's the film, not its subject.
I am convinced that every story can be told compellingly and entertainingly regardless of any potential controversies.
I think what I'm saying is that art doesn't need to be "right" it just needs to be "good". Of course there are limits in what you can sell people as entertainment but perhaps not as much as we like to think. MYSTERIOUS SKIN tells its (unfortunately) well-known story in a very surprising way and for the most part is devoid of heavy-handedness.

But how can it not be one-sided if it focuses on that particular topic? And does one-sided inevitably mean single-sided i.e. there's no room for alternative versions?
I often read online comments like "this film could not be made today" and I ususally find that a hollow and populist remark but maybe there's some truth in it.
The whole process of creating art and entertainment has become so very interactive that the piece of art or entertainment is overshadowed by the opinions thereof, and I think there's something very sad about that.
I'm not saying that people ought to be quiet and accept everything that's been thrown at them - if anything, life would be less exciting without discussions - but I don't think it's mandatory to put everything under a magnifying glass to discover if someone has done something "wrong".

And it's really funny how this all connects with wokeness (or our idea thereof) because "they" are objecting to society's one-sidedness and demand a more all-inclusive model, which in turn boosted a lot of backlash.
To say that ADOLESCENCE is one-sided suggests that it should include all points of view just to make sure that it satisfies everybody. Does that mean that anti-woke is the new woke?

My issue with the film is that it paints an incomplete picture of male rage. It seems the creators wanted to condemn toxic male influencers (and rightfully so,) but didn't feel like digging much deeper into the issue than that. It was also meant to serve as a wake up call to parents that they need to monitor their children's online activity, which is also valid.

However, "male rage" isn't just based in "incel culture." Boys are repeatedly condescended to from a young age and made to feel like they're all potential rapists and violent thugs who need to be taught to curtail their impulses. If boys are bullied by girls, it's typically assumed that they provoked it somehow. Instead of giving boys and men positive reinforcement and encouragement to do good, society generally works backwards by thinking the worst of men and chastising them accordingly. All of that can serve to give boys a complex. It becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy of sorts. If you're told often enough that it's in your nature to be a violent misogynist, that might just come true someday.

The showrunners aren't obligated to get into all of those intricacies, but I think that makes it less compelling. That's just my personal take, as I'm well aware that it's impossible for a piece of entertainment to satisfy everybody. However, allowing opinions of art overshadow the art itself is an individual choice. For example, the number of people who dislike TNT's Dallas hasn't stopped your love for it, nor should it. Similarly, fans of the new Snow White film are free to enjoy it, despite the controversy and hate it received. Of course, the interactive angle is interesting. Snow White was retooled due to viewer complaints (and still didn't satisfy them), but that just shows the studio was running scared.

I assume looking at issues from multiple angles is what you're calling anti-woke. If so, I could only hope it's the "new woke" as I certainly find it more nuanced.

 

[Willie Oleson]

Boys are repeatedly condescended too from a young age and made to feel like they're all potential rapists and violent thugs who need to be taught to curtail their impulses.

Not when I was a boy (somewhere in the 20th century).

society generally works backwards by thinking the worst of men and chastising them accordingly.

Okay, but haven't women experienced something similar, like being "weak by design" and being born as female trouble who needs to "suppress her inherent whoriness"?

Of course that doesn't make it right to target men in today's society (and like I said, I had never heard of that incel culture) but I wonder if, now that men get the short end of the stick, it will eventually lead to that precious equality we're striving for.
Maybe this is just a phase we need to go through to make that possible? All that kicking and screaming gives the impression of being sore losers (not you personally, Frank, I think you're awesome).
Another possibility is that this relentless critique - justified or not - forces us to become better people, if only to prove them wrong.
To quote Bonnie Tyler "I need a hero" and perhaps that's a good start: return to the good old-fashioned male heroism and worshipping (I feel a diabolical scheme coming up!).

 

[Snarky Oracle!]

The tactic of feminism seems to be to deny female privilege (through exaggerating abuse and oppression, etc...) as a way of expanding female privilege all the more.

It just is.

"Rape culture"? Rape used to be punishable by death (his, not hers) and not tolerated. And false allegations abounded.

The real pattern is not what they say it is. "Equality" and being "safe" is not what it's about.

 

[Frank Underwood]

Okay, but haven't women experienced something similar, like being "weak by design" and being born as female trouble who needs to "suppress her inherent whoriness"?

Yes, and it was just as sexist. It seems we've largely moved passed that, but not the "men are sexist brutes by design" mantra.

Of course that doesn't make it right to target men in today's society (and like I said, I had never heard of that incel culture) but I wonder if, now that men get the short end of the stick, it will eventually lead to that precious equality we're striving for.
Maybe this is just a phase we need to go through to make that possible? All that kicking and screaming gives the impression of being sore losers (not you personally, Frank, I think you're awesome).
Another possibility is that this relentless critique - justified or not - forces us to become better people, if only to prove them wrong.
To quote Bonnie Tyler "I need a hero" and perhaps that's a good start: return to the good old-fashioned male heroism and worshipping (I feel a diabolical scheme coming up!).

Aw, you flatter me.

I'm all for equality, but I don't believe that sexist treatment of men is the way to counteract sexist treatment of women.

There are men in crisis, but the Andrew Tate's of the world aren't entirely to blame for that. Men are also ridiculed quite often for opening up about the issues they face.

In another twist, people are now counteracting the counteractions. With the focus on how terrible men are lately, the mirror has been held up to women in order to expose some of their double standards (particularly when it comes to objectifying men while opposing being objectified themselves.) It seems the tit for tat (as it were) will never end.

 

[Angela Channing]

I really think people need to watch the show before that can speak about what it does and does not contain with any authority. Watching a couple of clips on social media cannot, by definition, tell the full story.

I think it's a wonderful piece of entertainment, superbly written, well acted and beautifully directed.

 

[Frank Underwood]

I may watch it someday (I don't currently have Netflix.) However, the review I posted (by a mother of boys, no less) pretty much tells me exactly what I'm in for.

People's tastes and views on the subject matter vary, so I'm not surprised that some people love it and some don't. That said, the performances look good from what I've seen.

 

[Angela Channing]

I may watch it someday (I don't currently have Netflix.) However, the review I posted (by a mother of boys, no less) pretty much tells me exactly what I'm in for.

People's tastes and views on the subject matter vary, so I'm not surprised that some people love it and some don't. That said, the performances look good from what I've seen.

It's a piece of entertainment, not a documentary and needs to be viewed that way. That said, it has opened up an interesting conversation about influences on young boys and girls and whether or not there needs to be more controls on them.

Personally, I wouldn't abdicate my opinion on a subject to a single individual who has written an article.

 

[Frank Underwood]

It's a piece of entertainment, not a documentary and needs to be viewed that way. That said, it has opened up an interesting conversation about influences on young boys and girls and whether or not there needs to be more controls on them.

Personally, I wouldn't abdicate my opinion on a subject to a single individual who has written an article.

Yes, but even entertainment can be preachy or have an agenda. On the other hand, one can take it with a grain of salt knowing that it's fiction.

I'm also not abdicating my opinion, but I have a good idea what I'm in for when I'm finally able to watch it.

 

[Angela Channing]

Yes, but even entertainment can be preachy or have an agenda. On the other hand, one can take it with a grain of salt knowing that it's fiction.

I'm also not abdicating my opinion, but I have a good idea what I'm in for when I'm finally able to watch it.

Adolescence is a lot of things but it isn't in any way preachy nor has it got an agenda, it's just telling a story and encouraging a conversation.

 

[Willie Oleson]

Rape used to be punishable by death (his, not hers)

Hm. That may depend on where you live.

Aw, you flatter me.

If we want to prove that we're good human beings then we may as well start today.

It's a piece of entertainment, not a documentary and needs to be viewed that way.

I think that's how I would like to watch it, but when it becomes yet another controversy or cause for unhappiness then it takes a little bit of fun out of it.
And maybe that's why it's usually more fun to watch these films/series when the situation has calmed down or forgotton entirely.
I like Al Pacino's CRUISING for the film that it is but at the time of release the gay community was having none of it.
Incidentally, it's funny that both Al Pacino and Robert De Niro were taken to poundtown in the year 1980.

Personally, I wouldn't abdicate my opinion on a subject to a single individual who has written an article.

I don't live in America and perhaps that explains why I'm not always on top of everything that's going on, but every now and then I get the impression that an opinion becomes a "they're saying", or that an isolated case of controversy becomes a world problem (e.g. the transgender/changing room debacle, and how that almost became the essence of being transgender).

 

[Snarky Oracle!]

There's talk of a Season 2 of ADOLESCENSE due to high ratings.

Will the boy kill a nurse in the juvenile hall infirmary?

Turns out he's the Son of Michael Myers!

 

[Angela Channing]

The writers have repeatedly ruled out the possibility of a second season because Jamie's story has concluded and they have no interest in telling the story from Katie's point of view.