The world kids inhabit today is vastly different from the one their parents grew up in. A scene from the hit Netflix series “Adolescence” starkly illustrates this divide.
In the show’s second episode, Detective Inspector Luke Bascombe (Ashley Walters) is at a secondary school investigating why 13-year-old Jamie Miller (Owen Cooper), the central character, allegedly killed his classmate Katie. Based on their Instagram interactions, Bascombe assumes a friendly, if not romantic, connection between the two.
However, Bascombe’s son—also a student at the school—corrects him, revealing a profound misunderstanding. The seemingly innocent emojis Katie used in her comments on Jamie’s Instagram were actually a coded form of bullying. The dynamite emoji represents an exploding red pill, a reference to the “manosphere.” The 100 symbol is another manosphere nod, alluding to the theory that 80% of women are attracted to 20% of men.
In essence, Katie was implying that Jamie is an “incel.”
This revelation is a jarring eye-opener for Bascombe and the other adults—who are clearly unaware of the harmful ideas their children are exposed to and how deeply these ideas permeate their lives.
This disconnect is central to “Adolescence,” which has sparked widespread discussion about young men’s attitudes toward women, incel culture, smartphone use, and more.
The British miniseries begins as a crime drama, but over its four episodes, it delves into what could drive an apparently innocent boy to commit such a horrific act. The answers it uncovers are far from simple.
CNN spoke with series co-creator Jack Thorne about his exploration of the internet’s darker corners, young male rage, and what he hopes parents will take away from the show.
The conversation has been edited for length and clarity.
This series addresses many timely issues: the manosphere, modern masculinity, online bullying. What motivated you to tell this story?
It began with my friend (series co-creator) Stephen Graham. Stephen called me and said we should write a show about boys hating girls and knife crime, which is a significant problem in the UK right now.
That led to our discussions about male rage, our own anger, and our own cruelty. We aimed to create a complex portrayal of masculinity: how we were shaped and how teenagers are being shaped in similar but also very different ways.
Were these issues something you had been thinking about for a while?
They were, but I had somewhat dismissed them. As I began to investigate, I discovered many surprising things and ideas that, had I encountered them at a different time, could have led me down dangerous paths. I’m grateful I avoided them.
The ideas behind incel culture are very appealing because they provide explanations for feelings of isolation, low self-worth, and unattractiveness. They suggest that the world is against you because it’s structured from a female perspective, giving women all the power. (These ideas suggest that) you need to improve yourself, go to the gym, learn manipulation, and inflict harm.
What was your research process for writing Jamie’s character?
I explored many dark corners of the internet, like Reddit and 4chan, and adjusted my algorithms. I created burner accounts on major social media platforms and followed relevant individuals. These individuals led me to others, and those less obvious figures were the most interesting.
No 13-year-old is directly consuming Andrew Tate. They consume content from those who have absorbed his ideas and are reinterpreting them. I focused on this level of influence to understand the people who shaped Jamie.
Was there a central question you were trying to answer?
Why did Jamie do it?
We always emphasized that this was a “whydunnit,” not a “whodunnit.” That’s why we explore the school environment in episode two—to understand his context. In episode three, we examine his thought processes.
In episode four, we tackle the complex issue of parental responsibility. We don’t aim to solely blame the parents, but they bear partial responsibility. How do they address this, and how much responsibility should they take?
You explored Jamie’s descent into violent misogyny from multiple perspectives: his school, home, and social media use. Where did he go wrong?
There’s the saying, “it takes a village to raise a child.” It also takes a village to destroy one, and Jamie was destroyed.
He’s failed by a school system that doesn’t support him, by parents who don’t truly see him, by friends who don’t reach him effectively, by his own brain chemistry, and by the ideas he consumed. These factors all contributed.
In episode three, a child psychologist (Erin Doherty) interviews Jamie to assess his understanding of his actions. Their conversation reveals a disturbing aspect of his character.
I know you have a young son. How are you navigating these issues as a parent?
He’s still young, around 9, and enjoys “The Gremlins” and Roald Dahl. He’s not yet interested in phones or vlogs.
The question is how we’ll handle things when the pressure builds. What happens when he goes to secondary school and most of his classmates have smartphones? What happens when they’re allowed to take their phones to bed?
This is terrifying to me. Group solutions are likely the answer, rather than individual parental control. We need parent discussion groups to collectively address these issues.
What needs to change to address the radicalization of young men?
We need to address social media. This is difficult with current social media governance. And in America, legislation isn’t likely to solve it.
In Britain, we’re discussing the digital age of consent. In Australia, social media is banned for under 16s, and companies are responsible for enforcement. I hope we can start similar conversations in Britain. But I’m unsure how to approach this in America right now.
This morning, I read about a parent group in Kent (England) working to prevent their children from getting smartphones at a crucial age. This is significant, but it’s a complex problem requiring multifaceted solutions.
Each episode was filmed in a single continuous shot. How did this affect your storytelling?
It wasn’t my decision. Director Phil Barantini and Graham brought this idea, and I was excited by it. From a writing perspective, it encourages a different approach.
Graham said the rule was that the camera couldn’t move without a human. This forced us to create multiple storylines to maintain audience engagement.
It also required me to be selective in my storytelling. Usually, the goal is to provide as much information as possible. But we couldn’t rapidly shift time and place.
This method disrupts the audience’s normal viewing habits, making them uncomfortable, which was beneficial.
The scene in episode two where Bascombe’s son explains the emojis’ hidden meaning was striking. What does this exchange capture about the gap between parents and children today?
It’s one of my favorite scenes because it portrays Bascombe’s bewilderment as he tries to understand something unfamiliar. It also highlights the broken relationship between father and son.
In that moment, he realizes he’s like Eddie—unaware of his child’s experiences.
The gentle love story between Bascombe and his son, ending with them getting chips together, is one of the show’s few positive moments.
Have you heard from parents who have watched the show?
The response has been amazing. The most gratifying feedback has been from parents who watched the show with their children. Even UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer discussed watching it with his teenagers.
Close friends have said it sparked conversations with their kids that they’d never had before. That’s the best review.
You’ve described TV as an “empathy box.” What do you hope viewers take away?
Listen to kids. They’re vulnerable and need you.
This applies to everyone—parents, teachers, politicians. They’re often excluded and experiencing significant pain. We need to help them because they’re in real trouble.
There are no easy solutions, but the most important thing is to let them talk or find ways to facilitate communication. Then, perhaps, we can help them.
