Go visit a friend to watch, and binge. Honestly, not much else good is happening on Netflix these days. They have paint-by-numbers drama down to a (not-) fine art.
Can I add something else, which has absolutely infuriated me - the comments by multiple people on social media discussions blaming Katie for her own murder, because she was a "bully".
Here's what happened, as you all know:
The male school peer group revenge-porned Katie with topless pictures of her, mocking and shaming her.
A member of that peer group who had seen the pictures approached her thinking she'd be ashamed and powerless and therefore more likely to accept him (!)
Katie responded to this approach from one of her tormentors with insulting words and emojis.
So he killed her.
Who were the "bullies" in this scenario? Retaliation may be ill advised but it's not bullying.
Wasn't the circulation of the picture and the mockery, bullying?
I watched this show with my 18 year old daughter over 2 nights a week ago and I haven't stopped thinking about it since.... Spectacular television...I have to agree with your thoughts here but am curious as to the writers perspective. (I believe Stephen Graham co- wrote). I tend to think they'd agree with a lot of your analysis but like a lot of the sites which explode on to the scene
Sorry... shows... the commentary around then goes in directions not always anticipated. I'd be interested in any links to interviews with the writers of any of your readers have any.
From what I can tell from various interviews I've seen with Graham, he sees it through the social media lens, but maybe that is just the way the interviews have been structured. I'll do some more digging. You have to think that the matters I highlighted aren't accidental. The whole structure of the show--distinct episodes focussing on almost a single aspect--suggests they were trying precisely to highlight a whole range of causal/correlation factors. A bit like how the The Wire had seasons dedicated to police, politicians, unions, schools and media. Worked brilliantly I thought (both shows).
Not commented on in most discussions of this excellent show is the lack of any meaningful conversations about feelings and emotions between Jamie and either of his parents. His mother treats him like an infant, his dad deflects any deep feelings with banter. So Jamie has noone with whom to discuss and work through his feelings of inferiority. It's shown as generational trauma, causing deep frustration and repeated in a different historical context. Andrew Tate et al symptoms, not causes of alienation.
"we are kidding ourselves if we try and dump all the blame for the sort of violence the show examines onto “internet culture”.
Agreed, Tim. I have absolutely no sympathy for Andrew Tate, a rapist and abuser, however I've become increasingly disinterested in the way he and the rest of his ilk are treated as ground-zero for misogyny. I used to see them as a good starting point for these kind of discussions, but they rarely (if ever) arrive at anything properly substantial.
There is a whole industry of moral panic around these issues looking for easy answers and scapegoats and Tate is from central casting for that. Agree with what you say.
Actually, yes. It is an interesting decision not to give an episode to the court case, but I guess once you do that you are forced into a black-and-white interpretation and they wanted to leave open the uncertainty around how something like this might happen. It is an emergent behaviour arising from a plethora of social and psychological sources rather than straight motivation, if that makes sense.
Spot on, Tim. I was born in 1977 and grew up in Burnie, regional Tasmania: industrial decline, footy, and a hierarchy of violence you learned before you hit puberty. Homophobia, racism, domestic violence, self-harm, the works. It wasn’t a glitch in the system; it was the system. The internet didn’t create that. If anything, it just gave it a new aesthetic and a faster feedback loop.
I don't see a world corrupted by YouTube or TikTok - I saw one I recognised. The threat of violence was ambient. It hummed through houses, schoolyards and cop shops. Boys weren’t groomed online; they inherited it, absorbed it like smoke in their clothes.
I left that town in ’95. The violence stayed. So yes, blaming the internet for male rage feels like blaming the microphone for the song. I have sons aged 18 and 16. I'm heartened by their ability to support their friends - male and female - in ways that were genuinely dangerous back in my teenagehood. You could choose to do the RIGHT thing, but at the risk of violence and exile from the group.
Thanks for writing with nuance, not panic. It’s rare and needed.
You’ve highlighted the two situations that troubled me most:
1. the creepy presence of the guard, and
2. the way in which the entire family is conscripted to help manage the Dad’s bad mood.
“ the way in which women are forced, as a matter of course, to manage men’s anger, not to mention their ever-present sexual overtures.”
Such an interesting program. So many things to consider.
Reminds me of Robin Norwood's book, Women Who Love Too Much. Written in 1985. Highly recommended.
I rewatched Ep 3 on a laptop with headphones, and the guards voice is even more creepy when you hear it like that.
Almost tempted to renew my Netflix subscription.
Go visit a friend to watch, and binge. Honestly, not much else good is happening on Netflix these days. They have paint-by-numbers drama down to a (not-) fine art.
Netflix is SO average, but this was out of the box. I hope they have a multi-show deal with Stephen Graham's production company.
Brilliant, Tim. And what Shirley said.
Can I add something else, which has absolutely infuriated me - the comments by multiple people on social media discussions blaming Katie for her own murder, because she was a "bully".
Here's what happened, as you all know:
The male school peer group revenge-porned Katie with topless pictures of her, mocking and shaming her.
A member of that peer group who had seen the pictures approached her thinking she'd be ashamed and powerless and therefore more likely to accept him (!)
Katie responded to this approach from one of her tormentors with insulting words and emojis.
So he killed her.
Who were the "bullies" in this scenario? Retaliation may be ill advised but it's not bullying.
Wasn't the circulation of the picture and the mockery, bullying?
The bar is set so high for girls and women.
Thanks, Helen, and thanks for spelling that out.
I kept thinking about that underlying truism: men are afraid of being laughed at. Women are afraid of being killed.
And I like your distinction between retaliation and bullying.
I watched this show with my 18 year old daughter over 2 nights a week ago and I haven't stopped thinking about it since.... Spectacular television...I have to agree with your thoughts here but am curious as to the writers perspective. (I believe Stephen Graham co- wrote). I tend to think they'd agree with a lot of your analysis but like a lot of the sites which explode on to the scene
Sorry... shows... the commentary around then goes in directions not always anticipated. I'd be interested in any links to interviews with the writers of any of your readers have any.
From what I can tell from various interviews I've seen with Graham, he sees it through the social media lens, but maybe that is just the way the interviews have been structured. I'll do some more digging. You have to think that the matters I highlighted aren't accidental. The whole structure of the show--distinct episodes focussing on almost a single aspect--suggests they were trying precisely to highlight a whole range of causal/correlation factors. A bit like how the The Wire had seasons dedicated to police, politicians, unions, schools and media. Worked brilliantly I thought (both shows).
Highly recommend reading Steve Biddulph's book, Raising Boys.
Not commented on in most discussions of this excellent show is the lack of any meaningful conversations about feelings and emotions between Jamie and either of his parents. His mother treats him like an infant, his dad deflects any deep feelings with banter. So Jamie has noone with whom to discuss and work through his feelings of inferiority. It's shown as generational trauma, causing deep frustration and repeated in a different historical context. Andrew Tate et al symptoms, not causes of alienation.
Yes, the Tates fill a gap that is caused by other factors.
Which is what I think th father ultimately realises and part of why he breaks down as he does.
No easy answers.
"we are kidding ourselves if we try and dump all the blame for the sort of violence the show examines onto “internet culture”.
Agreed, Tim. I have absolutely no sympathy for Andrew Tate, a rapist and abuser, however I've become increasingly disinterested in the way he and the rest of his ilk are treated as ground-zero for misogyny. I used to see them as a good starting point for these kind of discussions, but they rarely (if ever) arrive at anything properly substantial.
There is a whole industry of moral panic around these issues looking for easy answers and scapegoats and Tate is from central casting for that. Agree with what you say.
Difficult show. I was hoping for a little more depth into the motivation for the crime.
And forgive my prurience, but also for some insight into the jurisprudence (if this term is appropriate).
Agree the performances were beyond compare.
Actually, yes. It is an interesting decision not to give an episode to the court case, but I guess once you do that you are forced into a black-and-white interpretation and they wanted to leave open the uncertainty around how something like this might happen. It is an emergent behaviour arising from a plethora of social and psychological sources rather than straight motivation, if that makes sense.
Spot on, Tim. I was born in 1977 and grew up in Burnie, regional Tasmania: industrial decline, footy, and a hierarchy of violence you learned before you hit puberty. Homophobia, racism, domestic violence, self-harm, the works. It wasn’t a glitch in the system; it was the system. The internet didn’t create that. If anything, it just gave it a new aesthetic and a faster feedback loop.
I don't see a world corrupted by YouTube or TikTok - I saw one I recognised. The threat of violence was ambient. It hummed through houses, schoolyards and cop shops. Boys weren’t groomed online; they inherited it, absorbed it like smoke in their clothes.
I left that town in ’95. The violence stayed. So yes, blaming the internet for male rage feels like blaming the microphone for the song. I have sons aged 18 and 16. I'm heartened by their ability to support their friends - male and female - in ways that were genuinely dangerous back in my teenagehood. You could choose to do the RIGHT thing, but at the risk of violence and exile from the group.
Thanks for writing with nuance, not panic. It’s rare and needed.
Thanks, Kris, appreciated.