Showtimes & Tickets Enter Zip Code:

49 UP
Directed by: Michael Apted.
Produced by: Claire Lewis & Apted.
Director of Photography: George Jesse Turner.
Edited by: Kim Horton.
Released by: First Run Features.
Country of Origin: UK. 134 min. Not Rated.

Inspired by the Jesuit maxim, “Give me the child until he is seven, and I will show you the man,” the Up documentary series began in 1964 as an attempt to speculate on England’s future by looking at a cross-section of seven-year-old children representing the spectrum of British society. The series is a shining example of the visual medium’s potential to observe a subject for a sustained period of time – in this instance, nothing less than the cycle of life. Checking in with the willing participants every seven years, director Michael Apted’s films manage to insightfully shed light on the ever-debatable “nature versus nurture” question, whether it is the external factors in one’s environment that determines one’s future, or, rather, if it is preordained. While these movies suggest a mixture of both, there are numerous other elements that, on their own, make these ponderings seem like the tip of an existential iceberg. The topics of race, class, and cultural influence are trumped by an ineffably poignant feeling that transcends such prosaic notions that try to get at the meaning of life.

Emerging as an outstanding quality is the perspectives of some of the participants. Jackie, one of the East End girls, at one point rails against Apted, proclaiming he edits the films as he sees fit, that she is just a reflection of his perception; John, the posh barrister with political aspirations, declares he can see why some find the series entertaining in a titillating, reality TV-sort of way, but doubts its value; and Suzy, another upper-class “specimen,” states that, as a private person, the scrutiny is uncomfortable for her.

Nevertheless, it is interesting that they continue to participate, perhaps because, despite their professed reluctance, they recognize its worth. Indeed, there is an intrinsic significance in understanding the development of human nature – whether it be how, personality-wise, Simon and Neil appear to have not changed fundamentally, or how there have been transformations. Bruce, who had once longed to teach the underprivileged – and who had actually fulfilled his mission – found the difficulty of his work taking its toll. He has since become an instructor at an upper-class school. John, who appeared to have all the makings and life plans of an insufferably snobby twit, changed his stripes, and has become an active philanthropist.

Most affecting, though, is the number of times in which the participants hark back to their younger selves. In their simplicity, their childhood opinions often contained a level of profundity, like young Paul explaining the problem with marriage is that he might be forced to eat food he didn’t like, or Simon now recognizing himself as still being the boy who dreams while looking up at the sky. Ultimately, while some viewers may think there isn’t enough socio-cultural or historical background, it is Neil, the participant who had earlier experienced a nervous breakdown, who best contextualizes these films. When describing how a butterfly, which doesn’t live long, still delights in being beautiful, he says, “Perhaps there isn’t, actually, more to life than that, than just being what you are.” Reymond Levy
October 6, 2006