49 Up

I have recently watched all of the Up series, finishing with 49 Up this evening. While I have enjoyed the series and been fascinated by the people involved, I did agree with John somewhat that it's a bit like Big Brother or some other reality series.

Upon talking it over with my husband, however, I find that I have misjudged it. The series does have a lasting value that is not present in entertainment based reality TV shows. What does the series teach us? Tolerance and acceptance of our own fallible judgments. We see these people at 7 and we decide what they will be doing at 21 or 35. Inevitably we're wrong on some important level. What this shows us is that we can never truly know someone, especially someone we don't have an intimate family relationship with, because we never get more than a glimpse into their inner life.

At 7 I didn't like Tony. At 21 I didn't like Suzie. The only person I have admired from the beginning is Bruce. Now, at 49, I find them all interesting, individual people and I have a great deal of respect for each of them. They have made their lives something to be proud of. They bring value into the lives of their families and communities, but also to those of us who only see a tiny portion of their lives every 7 years.

This isn't reality TV. This is reality- this is life being lived by real people. I hope they will continue to do the program, despite the intrusion. I hope they will understand that they do bring something more into our lives than a couple hours entertainment.

The seventh film in the unique "Up Series" - documentaries made for Granada, the privately held British television corporation - that has followed a group of 14 ostensibly normal English subjects, of differing backgrounds, from age 7 to 49, issuing a follow-up film every 7 years. This latest installment is the best to date. It is well organized, presenting one person's life at a time rather than skipping around among them. Nearing age 50, these people have become highly thoughtful and articulate; they're all more interesting now than ever before. And the director, Michael Apted, has also vastly improved his skills at interviewing his subjects, which makes a great difference for the better. What impresses is how well nearly everyone has done in life.

The original thesis of the series is that kids grow up without much change from the way they were early on, a view put forward in the 16th Century Jesuit aphorism: "Give me the child until he is seven, and I will give you the man." But the life trajectories of a number of these individuals belie that view, suggesting instead that people often do change in response to life circumstances, a view supported in several 20th Century accounts of human development across the lifespan (e.g., the work of the Harvard psychologist Robert White and his contemporary, the psychoanalyst Erik Erikson).

The original thesis in the first film, "7 Up," also held that social class, or socioeconomic opportunity, had a controlling effect on development, a view that excludes the influence of both hereditary and learned aspects of individual psychological makeup and adaptation. Roger Ebert lists the "Up Series" among his top ten film productions of all time, and has said that the series represents "…an inspired, almost noble, use of the film medium." I heartily agree. My grades: 10/10 (A+) (Seen on 10/17/06)

I grew up in England, and saw the first documentary there. I emigrated to Canada at 18, and have seen the rest of the series here. It has been both an opportunity to see how England and the English have changed, as well as seeing "old friends" every seven years. I grew up in a Navy family,we were not wealthy, but because my father was a Naval Officer, we were considered upper middle class, so I rode horses, went to the Continent on Holiday and and attended boarding school from age 10. I also attended a 1 room schoolhouse and changed primary schools with alarming rapidity, so I met many kids just like all the ones on 7-UP, I could even understand Nick's Yorkshire accent! My favorite is also Bruce, but I love Tony, Neil and Symon, and can totally empathise with Suzy! Funny how so many of the kids had broken childhoods, but became wonderful parents themselves. I am looking forward to catching up with them at 56!

"49 Up" (2005), co-produced and directed by Michael Apted, is the seventh episode of a unique venture in film-making. Apted began filming a group of children at age seven, and has followed and filmed their lives every seven years since then.

For us, as spectators, following the progress of the lives of these children has been fascinating. However, the children themselves, who are now well into middle age, don't appear to be very happy with themselves or with the project.

I have two questions about this. In the first place, why are these people so angry at Michael Apted? (We never see Apted, but the individuals confront him, and we hear his answers to their comments.) Naturally, it's hard to know what Apted puts into his films, and what he leaves out. However, as far as I can tell, he's fair and objective in what he shows us. The characters in the movies certainly don't like the films, and most of them don't like Apted. One person, while conceding that being in the film helped him raise money for his favorite charity, refers to the process as the poison pill that he swallows every seven years. The United Kingdom has a population of about 60 million people. That means that these people had roughly a two in a million chance to be chosen for the project. No one else in England--even the Queen--is scrutinized in quite this way. Why aren't they happy to leave a record of their lives?

The second question is, If they hate the project so much, why do they continue to participate? (I don't know if they are paid--that's never been made clear.) In any event, they certainly don't have any legal, moral, or ethical obligation to allow Apted to film them. They could just tell him that they're finished with the project. Why don't they? (Some have, but most return every seven years.)

I had a thought about this after seeing 49 Up. This time, I found the film pretty depressing. Naturally, some people were happier than others, but no one appeared to be really satisfied with his or her life. Could it be that something about being filmed every seven years has altered the trajectory of the lives of these people? Maybe they think they would have been happier if they had never heard about Apted's project. Maybe they're wrong, but maybe they're right.

Michael Apted's unique longitudinal TV study of the lives of twelve (originally fourteen) London schoolchildren from a variety of backgrounds all born in 1956 is here updated to 2005. Reality TV is intrusive TV and Apted's subjects do not relish his probing into their lives every seven years. The original "lefty" Granada producers (Apted was a junior researcher on the original show) saw this "World in Action" program as a way of demonstrating how class in Britain determines outcomes, but with each iteration class becomes less important and personality and character more important. Each kid still has the capacity to surprise, just as life has the capacity to surprise them.

At 49, most of them are leading fairly settled lives with long-term partners and an increasing number of grandchildren. One striking feature, though it is typical of their generation, is the number that are on to their second and even third marriages. In some cases their careers have been more stable than their relationships. Another feature is that the disadvantaged kids of 1963 have by and large done better than expected. No-one has gone to jail or been murdered and many of their children have done better educationally and career-wise than they have. The girls have had a rougher time than the boys, being pushed out into the labour force yet still having to do the lion's share of family maintenance.

John, Andrew and Charles, the three upper class boys, have had a relatively easy time. John, now a Chancery Silk (was it he who read the "Financial Times" at seven?) allowed Apted into his life again only to give his Bulgarian charity some publicity, but he clearly has a comfortable and fulfilling lifestyle. Andrew, a solicitor, is "guarded about being guarded" and gives very little away (he did not appear in "42") but he seems comfortable enough also. Charles, the BBC producer, left the series after "21". Suzie the upper class girl who went through a bad time as a young adult is now mature, poised and affable. She says however this "Up" will be her last.

By contrast the three working class girls, Jackie, Sue and Lynn, have done it tougher, especially where men are concerned. But they have held down jobs, brought up children and generally have become solid citizens. Tony the jockey turned cabbie, despite his infidelities, is still married to the same woman and they have grandchildren, and (something unimaginable for them in 1963) a holiday villa in Spain. The two "orphans" Paul and Simon, one from a broken home and the other the son of a white mother who had a fleeting affair with a black man, are still working class, but again solid citizens with jobs, children and grandchildren.

The middle class boys, Bruce and Nick (son of a Yorkshire farmer), have succeeded in academia, Bruce as a maths teacher in a colorful array of schools and Nick as a Professor of Physics at the University of Wisconsin. Bruce surprised everybody (and probably himself) by getting married for the first time at 42 and producing two children. Nick's first marriage folded and he is now married (at long distance) to another academic. His career faltered when his longstanding research into nuclear fusion hit insuperable obstacles, but he continues to be a gifted teacher.

And of course there is Neil. A delightful, imaginative seven year old, he was a troubled adolescent,dropped out of university, and slid in his 20s into depression. His thirties, spend in some of the colder parts of the UK such as Scotland and the Shetlands, were not much better and he became the most likely candidate for the first permanent disappearance from the program. But something happened to Neil in his 40s, and at 41 he had moved back to London and become a local councilor in Hackney. Now at 49 he has moved to Cumbria, got on the local council there and become a lay preacher. Somehow, you think this man has found God, if not himself, though it has been a long and lonely journey. This is the kid who at seven said he didn't want children, and the man has the same view, but he has found a niche in society for himself.

I've no doubt Apted will go on with this until he drops – to get this far indicates a fair degree of obsession (it is not that the busy director has nothing else to do). I can't help feeling things are going to flatten out a bit – 49 to 56 are usually fairly stable years and this group (even Neil) are a fairly stable group. But, to repeat, it's a unique program, and maybe there are some more surprises in store.