ElMaruecan82
The more "Up" episodes I watch, the more I question the validity of its "show me a boy until he's seven" slogan.I was the first to agree with the notion of a certain point of childhood where your becoming as an adult is pretty much sealed. But how depressing life would be if that was true! If our personality is conditioned by social, material, physical and cultural factors, circumstances do have a say, don't they? And maybe the real achievement is to be able to defeat the odds and beat any adversity undermining the path we're building.Take the Yorkshire kid, Nicholas. In my review of the "14 Up" short, I referred to him as a "painfully shy" teenager with the voice of the McLovin actor. I really expected him to grow more timid, isolated... unhappy. Instead, I saw a dashing handsome young man who built quite a lot of confidence and charisma. He studies physics, helps his father in a farm and provides a nice comment about his childhood's "nervous" answer about girls, calling it sensitive, this boy has learned to look at the bright side of life, basically, proving his previous awkwardness to be just a phase.Another surprise came from Jackie, the chubbier girl from the girls' trio. I mean no disrespect but she always struck me as the more 'homely' one and I knew she was going to be married by the time of the 'next' documentary. But I just love how assuming she is and that she always talks about marriage as a source of balance and happiness. Lynn is also married, Sue not yet, but when they are asked various questions about life and marriage, it's Jackie who takes the lion-share of answers, some tough cookie! And when asked if she wished she had the same chances than Suzie, the rich girl, she doesn't even take Suzie's happiness for a fact, and if only she knew how right she was, unfortunately...Indeed, at that part of the documentary, we knew already that Suzie wasn't really happy. She seemed to be the one who had the harder time, despite being that disciplined girl, dancing ballet and born in a rich family. A divorce when she was fourteen made her lose faith about marriage as an institution and a lifestyle and she became a chain smoker. She exposes her personal views without the pretension of holding them as truths, which makes her sadder than cynical. Some achievements though we could see coming. The three posh kids grew up almost as expected, John is the perhaps the most blatant case of a successful education, Cambridge studies and such, and I wasn't the bit surprised when I heard he wanted to be a barrister. On the other hand, Charles was glad his plans didn't go as expected (he didn't make it to Oxford) and seems to have gotten rid of this "rich kid" look... if Charles is the one with divorced parents (I'm still not sure about some names). Charles' so called failure was a nice twist on the previous episode where the three kids were exactly in the schools they expected Life can derail your plans and that's how it teaches you the best lessons. But as Charles or John (or was it Andrew) pointed out: the merit of an education is less to program you for success than to guarantee a safety net, just like the protection of your parents in case you fail. As usual, the documentary doesn't even need to rely on a particular editing, each layer of life's complexity is covered by one of the protagonists. Three portraits were particularly riveting: Bruce, the missionary kid, always extremely mature and convinced he had to find himself before finding the right girl. His sentiment echoed what someone said about money, it's not about needing something but being aware of what you miss in priority. There was also Simon, who I expected to grow a bit
bigger, like the Muhammad Ali he referred to, it was sad to see him working in an average blue-collar job, but he knew he still had to figure out what to do in his future, but he wasn't set-up, unlike his childhood friend Paul who had emigrated to Australia.Maybe Simon indirectly highlighted the merit of education, it gives you options. But then you have Little Tony who brings the counter-argument. He's always dreamed to become a jockey, he was a stable boy, made it as a jockey for a brief time then became a cab driver. His small stature doesn't bother him and at least, he's moving forward and makes end meet. He's one of these "instantly recognizable" faces of the program and I just love how confident and optimistic he stays.Now, it would be impossible to cover all the documentary in one review, especially since this one is much longer (surely at 21 we have more things to say). And the insights from Neil and Peter were also relevant, Neil was kept for the end probably because most of his statements worked in a conclusive way and leaves many doors open for the next episode. As for Andrew, he gives one of most memorable answers when he says his dream is to leave a mark in this world, maybe that says a lot about his age. At 21, we start to question the value of our life and no matter how different our challenges are, we all try to make life valuable.Watching him talking about dreams, maybe Apted was thinking at that moment, "well, I know, I'm leaving that documentary for posterity". It is a fantastic work and it says a lot that the film featured a reunion (unlike the "teen" episode) maybe because they were finally aware they went on board on a very special program and they were interested to have other insights and perspectives... just like us.
runamokprods
The 'Up Series' represents one of the most fascinating and unusual uses of film in cinema history - a documentary life-long chronicle of the lives of 14 people starting at 7 years old, revisiting them every seven years through age 49 (so far). While I could quibble, wishing for a bit more depth here and there (especially with the women, where there's a bit too much emphasis on love and marriage at the expense of all else), it's really an astounding, moving, frightening and uplifting document. There's no way to watch this remarkable series of films without reflecting deeply on one's own life, and how you have changed (and stayed the same) over your own lifetime. While Michael Aped deserves every bit of credit he's received for this amazing piece of cultural anthropology, it's important to note this first film, 7 Up,was actually directed by Paul Almond, and Apted was a that point a researcher for the project.
Skeeter700
What a wonderful series of films! The 'Up' movies are certainly the most interesting documentaries I have seen. Fourteen people from Britain being interviewed every 7 years of their lives on topics as far ranging as education, marriage, politics, and class. I'm not sure what rewards these individuals find in participating in the documentaries, however I find them very generous in sharing themselves so openly with the world.21 is perhaps the least interesting of the series. That is not much of a slight considering how exemplary the whole series is. Myself, I voted a 9 for this instalment. 21 suffers from the uncertainty and guardedness that many of the participants seem to be feeling at this age. Many are just finishing their schooling. They are unsure of what they should do next. They lack the distance from their education to make a clear judgements about it. Most have not yet entered a long term relationship or had children. Perhaps the director could have used this state of transition better and improved his film slightly. However, these complaints are small.21 is significant in that all the individuals are still participating in the film. Seven years later, in '28 Up" the first two people will drop out. As well, at the age of 21, the interviewees are more articulate, thoughtful, and independent then at previous ages.The theme of the documentary continues to be an investigation into 'class mobility'. Personally, I enjoy watching these people, who are much older then myself, grow up. All change, and yet very few stray very far from who they were at the age of 7. The shy 7 year old girl is a quiet 21 year old. The outgoing and direct 7 year old boy is the same at 21.While all the characters in these films are so very interesting (mostly because of how real they all are), three stand out for me: John - a self-assured upper-class individual who has is very sure of his beliefs despite how harsh they sometimes come across as being. It is a shame he did not participate in several of the following documentaries. He seems to suggest he feels the films do not portray him fairly. This is a fair complaint considering the interviews only occur every 7 years leaving a lot of living off screen. It would be very interesting to see how he changes as he experiences life.Tony - who is so direct. Tony sets a goal and goes off to achieve it. Of the people being interviewed he often seems to be the most happy because, well, he just chooses to be happy and satisfied with what he has.Neil - perhaps Neil is the most interesting character. At 7 he seemed so bright and happy. Yet at 21 he is a squatter. Nick's journey, particularly in the next 2 films, is the most interesting. He is the character who stays with you the longest and most clearly.Overall, 21 is another wonderful film in a great series. It can not be recommended enough!
