Am currently hooked on the cult British series "7 Up" ...and because of its beauty and unique, heartbreaking, thought-provoking ingredients - am starting to consider it sheer genius.The Jesuit motto: "Give me the child until he is seven and I will give you the man" is the inspiration for the 7 Up documentary series, which has been interviewing the same group of British people at seven year intervals since 1964, when they were each seven years old. (so far the series' documentaries include: 7 Up!;7 Plus Seven; 21 Up; 28 Up; 35 Up; 42 Up and 49 Up).
The children were selected back in 1964 to represent the range of socio-economic backgrounds in Britain at that time, with the explicit assumption that each child's social class predetermines their future. Every seven years, the director, Michael Apted, films new material. Filming for the next installment in the series, 56 Up, is expected in late 2011 or early 2012.
7 Up is a landmark in British television, consistently voted Britain’s most influential documentary of all time, as well Europe’s.
The children involved in the project came from differing backgrounds. There were four rich children
- three boarding school boys (blonde, stuffy John Brisby, geeky Andrew Brackfield, and cute Charles Furneaux);
and a girl from a wealthy family (snobby Suzy Dewey);
- two boys from a children’s home (black Simon Basterfield - and white introverted Paul Kligerman);
- four children from the poor working class East End of London - a boy (short, cheeky jockey wannabe Tony Walker)
and three would-be lifelong girlfriends (blond ugly duckling Jackie Bassett, quiet Lynn Johnson, and tall, motherly Sue Sullivan);
- two middle class boys from Liverpool suburbs (outgoing, bright Neil Hughes, and average Peter Davies);
and two ‘wildcard’ kids, who would turn out to be the most self-fulfilled of the fourteen.
The first (Bruce Balden) was an upper middle class sensitive blonde boy whose father abandoned him to the English boarding school system, and wanted to be a missionary when young. The last was the only one from the English countryside... Nick Hitchon, who had a bit of a glow about him from even the first film.
7 Up has the kids at their precocious best. The three rich boys, later dubbed The Three Wise Men, by Apted, already display signs of snobbery, if not outright bigotry, and rich Suzy is certainly a bigot. Poor, short Tony seems a hooligan in the making, and shy, big-eared Bruce seems doomed to be a male wallflower. But there are surprises in store. While the rich boys remain snobs, they are not as predictable as one might think, and while cute and perky at seven - Neil is slated to go on a ride through mental illness and paranoia later in life.
In the first film, they are seen in sharp black and white, bouncing off the walls and full of quips like pre-school Beatles. At age 21, we see them in the gauzy colour of 70s film stock. They are faux-rebellious chain-smokers, reflective and cool-headed, with all the time in the world to spare. At 28, they are still young, but they've made choices that cannot be unmade. They are like adults-in-training. At 42, they are heartbreaking. Youth has quietly slipped away. Spouses have come and gone.
The first (Bruce Balden) was an upper middle class sensitive blonde boy whose father abandoned him to the English boarding school system, and wanted to be a missionary when young. The last was the only one from the English countryside... Nick Hitchon, who had a bit of a glow about him from even the first film.
7 Up has the kids at their precocious best. The three rich boys, later dubbed The Three Wise Men, by Apted, already display signs of snobbery, if not outright bigotry, and rich Suzy is certainly a bigot. Poor, short Tony seems a hooligan in the making, and shy, big-eared Bruce seems doomed to be a male wallflower. But there are surprises in store. While the rich boys remain snobs, they are not as predictable as one might think, and while cute and perky at seven - Neil is slated to go on a ride through mental illness and paranoia later in life.
In the first film, they are seen in sharp black and white, bouncing off the walls and full of quips like pre-school Beatles. At age 21, we see them in the gauzy colour of 70s film stock. They are faux-rebellious chain-smokers, reflective and cool-headed, with all the time in the world to spare. At 28, they are still young, but they've made choices that cannot be unmade. They are like adults-in-training. At 42, they are heartbreaking. Youth has quietly slipped away. Spouses have come and gone.
All throughout the footage - one ends up feeling some kind of hypnotic effect, as repetition (of questions and faces) heightens the domino propulsion of events that bear out the Jesuit motto’s truth. The extroverts and introverts as children are extroverts and introverts in middle age. Those with silver spoons have done well, while those with less struggled, even as their lives are more interesting. Yet, the success of the rich was not for anything special, but their many advantages and priviledged education brought some kind of immediate quality to their lives. It is interesting to note the plethora of lawyers the film follows- John, Andrew, and even Peter, as well as Suzy’s husband. Not surprisingly, they are the least imaginative of the subjects, thoroughly homogenized by what Charles, in 21 Up, called the conveyor belt mentality of British society that spits the upper class kids through boarding schools and Oxbridge colleges. However, this is far more than the class-based polemic of its roots.
How forty or so minutes of scattered quotes by a person (at 7, 14, 21, 28, 35, 42, 49...regardless)
can so intimately convey such huge portions of their character, as well fate, amazes. Most of this is due to Apted, since... while everyone has a story, you need a great artist to tell it, and even when he errs in trying to foreshadow things, or tries to contrast rich Suzy with the working class girls, he never condescends to his subjects, nor his viewers. The art of selection and contrast comes into play in ways any singular film cannot match, as the intercutting forces introspection. This lends itself to irony, as well the foreshadowing implicit in the series’ motto. Watching the films in sequence, in a short period of time, heightens these feelings, while watching them a second time, especially the earlier films, brings a sense of déjà vu to these characters, as you recall things from their past (and yours) while knowing what will befall these people that their onscreen selves are clueless of.
By watching all the films in a row one sees the formation of patterns that, even though none of these people are exceptional, are utterly human and relatable.
Their lives twist in surprising ways at times. The result is that even the most insignificant tic or twitch takes on seeming relevance.
Their lives twist in surprising ways at times. The result is that even the most insignificant tic or twitch takes on seeming relevance.
What the series does best is parallax not only the lives of the individuals filmed, but those of the viewer. We are forced to ask where our families or we were, externally and internally, during the time periods each film captures, as well the corresponding life stages each film represents, and it is almost impossible not to be bound up in this pursuit. Inner character may not fundamentally change, but the seven year intervals always make you feel success, happiness, love, heartache, loss could be just around the corner- ...for the fourteen people featured in the documentary.
And yourself.
No comments:
Post a Comment