THE 鈥楢DOLESCENCE鈥 PARADOX: How many lambs to the slaughter?
Print Edition
Unless you鈥檝e been under a rock, you鈥檝e heard of 鈥淎dolescence,鈥 the No. 1 streaming show around the world. Like some other 90 million people, I binged it.
It was bloody brilliant. The four-part drama about a teenage boy radicalized by Andrew Tate-style content is so compelling that the UK prime minister discussed it in Parliament.
One of the brilliances of 鈥淎dolescence鈥 is that you鈥檙e left with more questions than answers. This one hit me:
In a show about a 13-year-old boy being radicalized by toxic content, we cast a 15-year-old boy to play his part. This real teenager performed scenes requiring sexually explicit language, misogynistic rhetoric and acting out the stabbing of another student. He adopted a hyper-masculine persona beyond his years and inhabited a character consumed by violent ideology.
Does anyone see the irony?
To warn society about children accessing Andrew Tate鈥檚 dangerous content, we placed an actual child directly in his toxic path. Not only that, but in front of cameras, performing scenes channeling dangerous ideologies. The entire premise of 鈥淎dolescence鈥 is that young minds are vulnerable to harmful influences, yet we鈥檝e asked a young mind to immerse himself in them. Yes, he鈥檚 an actor. But so what?
Yalda Uhls, former film executive and child development researcher, writes: 鈥淲hen we put children in adult situations and adult worlds, we鈥檙e asking them to emotionally handle things that developmentally they鈥檙e not ready for.鈥
How does a child process the complex horrors Owen Cooper acted out? Or the fame that comes with starring in the world鈥檚 No. 1 series?
We鈥檝e seen this story play out before with devastating consequences. Michael Jackson being the most obvious example. A boy catapulted to fame who became a man accused of sickening sexual violence.
Britney Spears famously shaved her head and attacked a car with an umbrella during a public breakdown, later testifying: 鈥淚鈥檝e lied and told the whole world I鈥檓 OK and I鈥檓 happy ... I鈥檓 not happy. I can鈥檛 sleep. I鈥檓 depressed. I cry every day.鈥
Drew Barrymore was in rehab at 13, later reflecting: 鈥淚 was a sad, confused, lonely little kid. I was basically alone. My parents weren鈥檛 there. I was basically raised by my make-up and hair people.鈥
Liam Payne, former One Direction star who entered the spotlight at 16, recently died after falling from a hotel balcony, following years of mental illness.
Lindsay Lohan, Macaulay Culkin, Amanda Bynes, River Phoenix ...
Need I go on?
These aren鈥檛 just the complaints of spoiled celebrities. There鈥檚 substantial psychological research backing up what these former child stars have experienced. Donna Rockwell, clinical psychologist who studies fame, explains: 鈥淐hild stars often experience a fundamental break in natural child development. Fame establishes an identity for them that isn鈥檛 based on a natural, organic development but something external and artificial.鈥
I know the counterarguments. The young actor in 鈥淎dolescence鈥 has protections. There are child psychologists on set. His parents are present during filming. There鈥檚 carefully controlled exposure to disturbing content. But safeguards fail. Protocols get compromised. Good intentions aren鈥檛 always enough.
What I鈥檓 asking is a broader question, and one I don鈥檛 have the answer to: Is it ever OK to put a child in the limelight? Are they ever ready for it, no matter how much cotton wool we wrap them in? No matter how good the performance, no matter how important the story, should we put children on stage? And who decides when it鈥檚 OK?
This is not a case against 鈥淎dolescence.鈥 I think it鈥檚 an incredible piece of art. I recommend everyone watch it, and I鈥檇 even go as far as to say watch it with your teenage children and talk about its importance. The series brilliantly captures the dangers of online radicalization and deserves every bit of acclaim it鈥檚 received.
What I鈥檓 wrestling with is the paradox that struck. In trying to highlight the dangers young people face online, we鈥檝e potentially created another kind of danger for another young performer.
Next week, I鈥檒l be writing about 鈥淎dolescence鈥 through another lens: the devices we carry in our back pockets and what endless access to information means. What responsibility do parents, schools, tech companies and society bear in protecting young minds from toxic content?
For now, I鈥檓 left with the 鈥淎dolescence鈥 paradox. How many lambs are we willing to slaughter for entertainment? I don鈥檛 have a neat answer, but I think it鈥檚 a question worth asking.
See you next week.
- About Us
- |
- Terms of Use
- |
-
RSS - |
- Privacy Policy
- |
- Contact Us
- |
- Shanghai Call Center: 962288
- |
- Tip-off hotline: 52920043
- 娌狪CP璇侊細娌狪CP澶05050403鍙-1
- |
- 浜掕仈缃戞柊闂讳俊鎭湇鍔¤鍙瘉锛31120180004
- |
- 缃戠粶瑙嗗惉璁稿彲璇侊細0909346
- |
- 骞挎挱鐢佃鑺傜洰鍒朵綔璁稿彲璇侊細娌瓧绗354鍙
- |
- 澧炲肩數淇′笟鍔＄粡钀ヨ鍙瘉锛氭勃B2-20120012
Copyright 漏 1999- Shanghai Daily. All rights reserved.Preferably viewed with Internet Explorer 8 or newer browsers.
