User reviews

It is not quite a 50th Birthday invitation, but as most of the original cast of the landmark documentary 7 Up, approach the big 5-0, we are invited back into their lives to celebrate their most recent trials and tribulations in Michael Apted's 49 Up.

It was the Up series that launched Apted's career, and he now has some thirty titles under his belt, including James Bond: The World Is Not Enough and Gorilla's in the Midst.

The Up series began in 1964 as a sociological experiment. Apted, armed with a video camera, set out see if life was pre ordained for children by the class they were born into. To test this concept, 14 children of the same age, but born into varying social strata's were filmed interacting together at a zoo. The Up series is credited with paving the way for other historically important screen documentaries.

It is remarkable in itself that Apted has managed to keep track of the original, and willing Up participants. As her revisits them every 7 years, the footage from these lengthy interviews is what makes up the series. By 49 Up, the 'class outcomes' are put to bed.

Apted should be credited for moving beyond the class wars, and choosing to focus on journey and personal growth of his participants as the greatest mark of achievement. This was summed up beautifully by a UK movie buff: "in a real sense, all are successful, when we define success as finding fulfillment in where you are and in what you do."

The greatest success story and Apted's own personal favourite is the story of Neil. After learning of Neil's stints of homelessness, and battle with mental illness, fellow Up participant Bruce, threw him a life line 7 years ago by offering Neil a place to stay and then went about helping him get on his feet. Now, Neil lives independently with a fixed address and is running for town mayor.

Most participants have something inspiring and surprising in their stories. Even John Brisby, who features in 49 Up as a prominent lawyer, has lived his life very much like her predicted when he was a child. When we meet John at age 7, he was apparently reading the Financial Times, was most concerned about schools becoming free, fearing they would become 'terribly crowded.' He had aspirations of attending Cambridge and becoming a lawyer.

So in 49 Up it was a touch ironic that he had committed a large portion of his life to building free schools in Bulgaria and working to improve the medical system. His reasoning to appear in 49 Up was to 'raise awareness on a greater platform'.

The tearful admission of tough but lovable Lyn Johnson about her loosing fight to stabilize funding for her work she does with disabled children will touch all, and hopefully mobilize the relevant agencies to do something about it. What is also surprising is how media savvy both Lyn and John have become to use the series to further their own causes.

On a lighter note, little Tony, the knockabout kid from the east end who wanted to be a jockey, is now Tony the owner driver of a cab, grandfather and , has a villa in Spain as well as his home in London. He has done some acting work thanks to the Up series, and his honest and welcoming account of his last 7 years is a highlight. However, my favorite is still Bruce, for no prolific reason. You'll have a favourite by the end too.

49 Up intended to be a fly on the wall documentary, but you can't help to wonder if their lives are a product of the experiences presented to them, because of the Up documentaries. It is a phenomenal series, and its format has been copied in other countries and it is used as an education aid in VCE psychology classes, yet, after 42 years, they participants are still bewildered by our interest in their 'ordinary' lives. John offers us his insight about our fascination: " It's like watching Big brother except the viewer gets the added bonus of watching us all grow old and get fat."

For all the differences in their back grounds, the participants are seem to have a similar trait- optimism and resilience, and it is satisfying to watch. Yes the once wide eyed 7 year old are now plumper, greyer, and more precocious then ever, yet there is a little bit of all of them in us, and that is why we will eagerly await 56 Up in 2013.

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.

'give me a child when he is seven and i will show you the man' I have watched all the prior instalments of this programme, with 42up being the best. This instalment is the 7th in the series and will probably be the last one where none of the characters hasn't passed away.

The Up Series is one of the first 'reality' type TV documentary programmes.

I have been gripped by the programme since the beginning, particularly as one of the principle characters is also from my area. (Neil- also from Merseyside.) This instalment is one of the best, with updates on all but a few who starred in the original episode.

The heartwarming moment where we find out what has happened to Neil is most welcome.

i happened to miss this when it was first shown on TV but fortunately managed to get a copy from Ebay.

49up is still proof of that privilege and class are still advantages as much in 2006 as they were when the series was first shown in 1963.

In 1964, English filmmakers including director Michael Apted assembled a group of fourteen British children from various economic and social backgrounds, all age 7, and made a documentary about them called 7 Up. Every seven years afterward, Apted revisited the same children and made another documentary about them, chronicling their lives at the ages of 7, 14, 21, 28, 35, 42 and now 49. The first installment that I watched, 28 Up, made me fall in love with these films. Much has been said about the series depicting the rigidity of the English class system, but as decades go by, the human element, the nature and personalities of the individuals being profiled, seems to be almost as important in affecting how their lives turned out. After seeing 28 Up and 35 Up, I remember feeling very bad for one kid who grew up coping with mental health problems and eventually wound up homeless, and thought leaving the theater that he wouldn't be alive for 42 Up. But by then he had moved to London and involved himself in local politics, a rewarding turn of events for him, and for the audience as well. The kids from the upper crust backgrounds have predictably had more affluent lives, and turned out to be the least forthcoming and most guarded on camera as adults, and less easy to warm up to. Some kids had deep seated feelings of shyness and insecurity that stayed with them as adults, and very publicly evaluating their failures and achievements every several years has been very difficult and uncomfortable for them. But even though some seem to resent the filmmakers' intrusion in their lives, they generally seem to understand the larger value of the series and twelve of the original fourteen kids continue to participate, even though they have misgivings or regrets about it. It's interesting to watch marriages and relationships suddenly begin and end, and usually people quickly remarry or find another relationship, often to someone more compatible and attractive. I identified most with the children who grew up to be teachers and academics, highly likable, intelligent people who realize that they aren't the most socially or economically successful but in many ways seem to be the most happy and fulfilled ones of the bunch. Despite their ambivalence, the participants deserve a big round of applause for letting us grow up and old along with them.

In 1963 14 British children, all age 7 but of varying classes, were interviewed about a variety of subjects. Thereafter they were interviewed every seven years. This is the seventh installment. By now only 12 are left (2 dropped out).

This may be deadly boring to some but I found it fascinating--you see the most recent interviews along with clips from all the previous shows. You literally see these people grow up before your eyes--you share their struggles, dreams and triumphs. This was originally done to trace something about social classes--but that seems to have been dropped. There's nothing extraordinary about these people--they're mostly plain, average men and women just doing their best to get through life. Sounds dull but I was spellbound throughout. I saw 28, 35 and 42 Up also and, in a strange way, seeing this was like having a class reunion! You get in touch with people you haven't seen in a number of years and catch up on them. I remember all of these people from the previous episodes and I loved seeing them again and how most have happy content lives. Not for everybody but I couldn't stop watching.

This should really be the last one. One woman makes it clear that she won't do another one and all of the participants comment on how the show negatively affected their lives. So maybe it's time to let them go.

Not for everybody but I give it a 10.

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)

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.

This is not a social science film and it's not exactly an art film either. But neither is it just another version of Big Brother. I personally found this unique project profoundly moving in its originality. Through this film we get a deep sense of the way humans adjust to their circumstances, maintain their personalities and shape their own lives around what they want and can have. I had a sense of the innate decency of most human beings, our capacity for love and survival, the way in which character runs deeper than circumstances, but also the strong effect that circumstances such as the class one is born into can have on us. Most of all I was touched by the unpredictability of life: it would have been hard to say whose marriages would last and whose would not, for example.

Having said that, it is unclear to me why so many of the subjects, who volunteer to take part in the filming, seem to fear and oppose it so much. As someone who would have loved the opportunity to revisit my own life at different stages, I have a hard time understanding the reasons for their reluctance and even hostility.

I watched Ebert's interview with Apted on the DVD, and I noticed that Ebert's love for the series seems almost entirely about the concept of the thing as a whole. He rarely mentions specific moments or elements of the individual films that excite him. Yes, it is a "noble" endeavor, and one that I'm glad exists, but really, the films on their own are mostly pretty dull. Here we have everything settling into middle age, and most of them quite comfortably. Good for them, but what's in it for me? I don't really need to hear about the mundane professions your kids have taken up, or that you love your grandchildren (I kind of figured you did). It's somewhat rewarding to know that these folk have found some degree of contentment, it just doesn't make for compelling filmmaking. I could read about it in a Wikipedia article or something and have the same results. The one really interesting thing going on in this installment is that it seems to get a bit more meta. Several of the subjects address their involvement in the film, some with a measure of resentment or frustration (and maybe I'm mistaken, but I think we hear more of Apted's voice as well). These were the most rewarding parts for me.

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!

Everyone in the world should have the treasured opportunity to watch these brave souls grow up before our eyes. I recommend all the films beginning in 1963. Certainly the class system is exposed as the monster it is, but I do find increased options for the children of the "less born to privilege", 49 year old subjects.

I love the reticence and modesty of the subjects in this film. They seem to grasp the massive cultural contribution they are making but prefer not to think about it. I applaud the subjects for saying that they want to drop out but I do hope they ultimately don't. In this day of fake reality TV, it is wondrous to see the power of the Real McCoy of documentary film/TV. I am close enough in age to the 49 ups. Through them I have a brilliant record of the world I grew up in and that of my English family. Bravo for an historic act of courage and generosity by all concerned.

Michael Apted returns again with his kids. This time is a 3 hour extravaganza. It seems this one is more about the kids. While it's wonderful to see everybody happy with their kids, the drama isn't always there. The problems are very much everyday problems that happens to everybody all the time.

I'm watching this after the events of the financial meltdown and the part with Tony is haunting.

Jackie comes after Michael Apted and he really comes off as one of the characters for the first time. It's a bit of behind the scenes moment which makes it absolutely riveting. She's breaking down the 4th wall a bit here.

For whatever reason, the participants are more forthcoming now. It seems that they're more open about the past. It's as if the facade don't need to stay up anymore. Nicholas can finally admit that his research has come to nothing, and gave some great insights into divorce.

It's as if most of them have past some kind of milestone. They are mostly content and looking forward to their children and grandchildren. Most of them are settled and trying to make sense of their past.

It all started with the thought-provoking "Seven Up", from a very socially loaded channel, and was meant to showcase the shift between children from upper and lower classes and how their future would be conditioned by their background. LikeApted pointed out in his wonderful chat with Roger Ebert, it's only after the "21" episode that it stopped being about politics, but something of a more existential level.

But each episode has its charm, a charm that depends on personal memories and age, whether a viewer is younger or older than these kids or guys will create a totally different experience, but no age will ever diminish its value, because we can all relate to any of their struggle or doubts or exhilaration as youngsters, their period of doubts and questioning as adults.And in my recent review, I complained that the format felt a bit repetitive but that was because the documentary was made for TV at a time where a few viewers had access to the previous episodes, the editing was indispensable and this is why I waited a little before watching "49".

But I couldn't wait for too long because I also love the real time travel the film provides and as a viewer told Apted, he could watch all the episodes in one day and it was like a metaphysical experience. I believe so and I understand why Ebert put it in his Top 10 movies of all time, it IS an experience, but now I feel like a broken record because I kept praising the documentary. I think this 7th episode is perhaps the best (which is appropriate, right?). I loved it because it was nicely conclusive about the subjects, without meaning it was the end of the journey, but they all seemed happy or at least contented.

As usual, it starts with the most contented of all, Tony. Tony is perhaps the best thing about the documentary, I used to say Nick because he was the eternal question mark and a sort of cliffhanger, but Tony defied the odds... Apted admitted he thought he'd had the makings of a criminal, Tony's evolution proved him to never take anything for granted. Basically, Tony did everything, he was a jockey, at least he tried, his job as a cab driver allowed him to buy a house, he took acting courses, had small TV roles. And now, we see him leaving Britain for Spain, because, as he says, the East Side has totally changed, and became too ethnic for his own liking, as he admits it honestly, he feels like a traditionalist. Was I angry at him? No. Did I think it was racist? No.

That's the key of the film, I have followed this kid from the start and I could get his point precisely because I followed his evolution and the way Britain evolved. Now, Tony thinks he's paid enough wages, lives in Spain and predicts a collapse of the economy... for someone who never studied, he showcases a real astute thinking. It is even more troubling that John, one of the posh kids, agrees with him indirectly. His conservative views were in-character but I didn't mind because I was glad he was participating this time, for some reason, I've always regarded him as one of the show's most instantly recognizable faces, because he really knows how to occupy the screen, he's a snob but quite a scene stealer. He's still indecisive about politics, if he had half Tony's spirit, he'd have been Prime Minister.

Some others were less ambitious and are just enjoying the time they had with their family and spouses and it was a nice touch to show Paul and Simon reuniting after 28 years, they both have changed, less hair, more weight (who didn't?) but the eyes don't lie, they still have that sparkle and that smile. Suzie was there, too and smiling as usual, saddened by the fact that her children left the house empty. It is possible that we wouldn't see her in the next episode because she felt she came to a closure. I don't know if I would take her words too seriously, if there's one thing I've learned from "Up" is that you should never say never. But there was more in that episode than the usual vignettes on each others' lives, the tone has changed too.

I noticed how more confident they all speak to Apted, Apted is 15 years older than them, which doesn't mean much now. There is an extraordinary exchange with Jackie where she finally opened her feelings about a nasty question Apted asked in the "21" and how bad she felt about it, smelling some preconceived ideas about lower class girls, she held quite a grudge against him. It took almost three decades to settle that record and you can tell that some people need time to finally vent their feelings, well, time is the one luxury the documentary can afford. And I guess Apted might have regretted his bold question from the start, but he's supposed to evolve as well, he's the last subject of the documentary.

He also evolved in the making, the digital format allowing him to get more footage, but since he didn't want to fall in a trap of contextualization, he avoided asking timely questions because their lives spoke enough statements.. Tony mocked the posh kids at the age of seven, together would almost share the same views in 2005, that says a lot. As for the ones I didn't mention, Neil is still unmarried but is a more eloquent politician, he doesn't see Bruce anymore, Bruce has children, better late than never, Nick went through a divorce but remarried, it's all about ups and downs but the thrills of life is to find in the downs the sources... of "Ups".

"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.

At this moment i am watching 7,14 and 49up in my Sociology class. I also watched it a year ago when 49up came out. It was so exciting, not because of Bond like action or Saw type horror, but because it's real people in the real world changing and inviteing you into their lives. You can feel the reality of class and gender groups example John, Andrew and Charles. And listen to all their hopes, dreams, mistakes and on 49up, family joy. Opinions have changed and view of the programme is also put forward. Always they talk about us, the viewers, and tell us their opinion about being watched in the UK. All together a great watch and worth making some time to watch it whether with your class or family.

This is the film documentary of the lives of a dozen English children filmed at 7 years intervals starting at age 7. They are from a wide variety of backgrounds. A few turn out with predictable lives, most do not.

On the plus side, this is the story of people who grow up, deal with life's challenges, and grow into maturity. Some of them are relaxed and open with the documentary, such as the African/English fellow (sorry -- I'm bad with names). Many of them are profoundly concerned with the welfare of others, and became teachers, or philanthropists.

On the dark side, most of these people are clearly annoyed with the project -- tho they have participated in it for years. Also, one must assume the best on the part of the director of these films, for the devil is in the editing. How balanced is it really? And there is also one more point which detracts somewhat from the appeal of this movie: it's about the English, the most guarded, self-efacing and embarrassed people on the face of the earth. The physicist tells a joke about the extrovert engineer who looks at the feet of the *other* person when he's talking, and one wife talks about how her husband was always apologizing to her for nothing, but that just about sums up the English social milieu, typically an uptight people who are embarrassed with life.

Maybe this is why I found the fellow with mental illness to be so refreshing, poignant and profound. He had come to terms with life -- as they all had -- but he was able to conceptualize it and share it.

Watching a film like this inevitably inspires one to compare oneself with the people on screen, or more accurately inspires one to look at one's life a little more closely and how one has handled the ups and downs of life on this planet. In that sense, it's surely a good film.

Unless one is a thoroughly incorrigible voyeur, some parts of this film will be boring and irrelevant, but overall a good experience.

49 Up is a continuation of a documentary begun in 1963 with fourteen 7 year olds of various economic backgrounds. Every seven years director Michael Apted catches up with the group (2 have dropped out completely) to discuss their present situation as well as their past. It is a remarkable document to watch unfold.

I first discovered the series at Up 28 then back tracked the first three episodes to catch up. Since then each subsequent episode is like having family or friends visit to talk about what's been going on in their life. By 49 all the participants have reached their pinnacle though some still hold onto dreams and while illness and divorce have taken their toll it has not dampened the spirit or drive of any of them. While some at the age of 7 (Peter: "I read the Financial Times")are the men they are today none are in the doldrums of not having turned out different than what they thought they would be. Loyal partners, children and grandchildren have more than buttressed against the disappointments and bumps in the road we all come across as we go through life.

This incredibly unique series was begun as England and the world was about to go through a great social metamorphoses. The Beatles, iconoclastic playwright John Osbourne, political assassinations and Viet Nam were beginning to pick up speed. It was the world that was about to be handed to these children in which they would become its caretakers. But thankfully the series skirts the larger political issues and concentrates more on each participants personal journey which makes for a far more intimate and engrossing study.

Director Apted (as well as his candid and willing subjects) is to be highly commended for his commitment and perseverance in keeping this 42 year long documentary on the same steady path. In today's shameless society reality TV presents us with self absorbed tattooed and silicone freaks dumb as a post feigning sincerity coached by handlers for maximum shock effect. There isn't an ounce of truth in watching this detritus perform since it is more akin to a carnival freak show then reality. Up 49 and those before it allows the viewer to see the dignity of the common man unfold from childhood to adulthood and beyond in the real and changing world we live without phony fanfare or shocking exhibitionism to juice the content. Told in a straight forward style it showcases human experience in an objective and respectful way without condescension while still asking the tough questions. It is an outstanding achievement and magnificent example of the power of film at its most subtle.

This is probably one of the most profound films I have see in awhile. I think most of us have asked ourselves "What am I doing with my life?". The movie won't provide easy answers to this question, but it might point you in the right direction. The common pattern I found in the film with their lives, is that the teens and early twenties are the most tumultuous period of life, and not always a good indicator of who you really are, or where you're headed. But if you look closely, most are now content in their late forties because they seem to have come full circle from age seven.

Compare their thoughts at age seven, to their lives at 49. Now ask yourself: Who was I at seven? What did wish for in life? What am I doing with my life now?

In 49 Up, viewers are privy to some sort of voyeuristic, circular life process that has simply never been achieved before in the history of film. Overstepping any significance this particular documentary offers, the Up series adds up to the ultimate in classy reality programing. What started off in 1963 as a study of the future in England, as filtered through 14 children ranging all backgrounds, has evolved into a regularly updated saga every 7 years which offers the most comprehensive and all encompassing documentation on the first fifty years of existence we will likely ever get too watch.

This regular (scenes are recapped in each subsequent release making them more or less self-contained) British television staple, helmed ever since 1970's 14 Up edition by Michael Apted, has maintained it's potency not because of any charisma laden cast, but the often painful realism that pervades these lives that are encyclopedically covered, who have somehow morphed along with the viewer's interpretations as "subjects". One of the most painful subtleties to this particular installment, despite the generally uplifting tone, is the weariness many exude when eagerly relaying how participating in this ongoing fifty year documentary has distorted their psyches. Whatever self-conscious mannerisms these unique interviews produced though was secondary to seeing most of these adults really begin to enjoy the second part of a more fulfilled, mature lifestyle that seemingly brought much peace. With the arsenal of footage and half a century to play with, 49 Up can at times be an astounding revelation; in interviews as graceful and dramatic as they are awkward and subtle, just like real life, though here we watch an entire twelve (two have walked away from the project) existences carve themselves out in just over two hours. Though people in the documentary itself question the validity of the project, undoubtedly around every corner throughout this successful experiment, regardless of Apted's questioning tone or otherwise, comes something profoundly comforting and substantial the scope no other documentary can really compare to. Let these poor test subjects not have frazzled their nerves all these years in vain.

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.

I know that it probably seems pretty silly of me to watch the latest installment before watching the previous ones - and I never really planned to do it like that - but I've watched "49 Up", and I really admired it. All twelve of the interviewees provide strong incite into the present state of affairs. True, Michael Apted has interviewed them so many times that it very likely is getting somewhat intrusive, but I think that we do need documentation of what the world is like every couple of years; I mean, just look at what all's happened in the world (or even in the characters' lives) since 1998.

Anyway, I'm now very eager to see the other installments. And I intend to watch them chronologically. I definitely recommend this one.

It seems to me that director Apted's brilliant 'Up' film series appeals deeply because they're the first in-depth film biographies of ordinary people. After all, each of us has seen innumerable film biographies of the rich, the famous, and the notorious (as well, in recent years, we've seen phony "reality" programs about supposedly "ordinary" people posed into artificial situations). It's purely fascinating to see, to follow every seven years, your contemporaries, to feel a curious kinship with some and a distance from others of them, and to compare your own life's fortunes and the choices you've made in it with theirs.

It's not difficult to appreciate the resentment or dissatisfaction of some of the 'Up' series' participants with their having been chosen in the first place, and with being asked to participate serially every seven years, in the films. Yet I suggest that the participants might ponder this: before the advent of film, especially of home video, diary-keeping was widespread - especially among the educated and upper classes, and diary-keeping demands a lot more daily thought and toil from a diarist than being filmed every seven years requires from the 'Up' series' participants. The only advantage that viewers of the 'Up' series have over reading the journals of deceased diarists is in the immediacy, unique to motion pictures, of the Up films: these are, in their cinematic way, quite like diaries only more timely than diaries in that the 'Up' series' participants are living contemporaneously with the sharing of their motion picture diary with a vast public. It's doubtful that today's busy individuals would take the time to daily compose diary entries, and so in the 'Up' series the film medium enters, it substitutes for and improves in some ways upon, the ancient art of diary-keeping. Granted that diarists carefully chose - edited on the fly, if you will - the words of their writings, but so too have the 'Up' series' participants always had a measure of editorial control over what director Apted will or will not include in each of the series' installments.

Have any of the participants grasped that all of them will be watched, studied, analyzed, enjoyed, and vicariously bonded with by viewers for decades, centuries, and perhaps even for millennia? - that they're the first ordinary people to have the significant events and their own experience of their lives recorded for posterity? This series, whether Apted or its participants, and whether we viewers or film critics have yet grasped this fact, is not yet the anthropological gold mine it will in the near and distant future surely become: in viewing these films we're not archaeologists looking for clues to be construed - or misconstrued! - from cave paintings, potsherds, art works, and common artifacts, we're seeing actual ordinary people of our time speaking and acting (i.e., behaving) in their actual lives. Do any of the participants perhaps find it a bit eerie to know in advance that hundreds, perhaps thousands, of years on utter strangers (as well as their own ever-reproducing descendents) will be viewing, hearing, studying their twentieth to twenty-first century lives?

All that said, the 'Up' films, as they've evolved to be to date, spur me to moot the notion, based on the knowledge that 'Up' series' participants' relatives and co-workers, friends and acquaintances, children and grandchildren have all been affected by the films, that a much larger film series of monumental proportions - gaining in size and scope as the original participants' children, grandchildren, great-grandchildren reproduce - could, theoretically, be produced and filmed. Such would be a vast opus, requiring increasingly many more film crews, interviewers to film ever-burgeoning numbers of participants. It could spawn among viewers factions of fans who might like and support one branch of the growing families and dislike and detract its other branches, and thus perhaps teach us much about the whole of the human condition - about the development among disparate groups of respect, disrespect, suspicion, envy, competition, enmity, etc. Such a vast series would amount to the Story Of Our Species, begun albeit, much later than the latter-in-our-species-evolution debut of motion picture technology allowed for having begun the series with Adam and Eve. No, it was impracticable then - with Adam and Eve - as it is now...but then as camcorders and webcams have only just come on the scene, there will one day exist gazillions of miles - or digits! - of footage of the lives of ordinary people: and who would ever, say, even ten years from now, endeavor to try to sort through all of these film records to try to discern, let alone to try to tell, the story of our species members?! - especially since camcorders have inspired legions of amateur filmmakers who are already producing gazillions of miles and digits of amateur motion picture fiction. (One can get really carried away with imagining endless extrapolation from the 'Up' series, can't one? I just did!)

It can only be dimly anticipated how future viewers of the 'Up' series - viewers who will see it long after Apted, the series' participants, and its contemporary viewers will have long been dead - will relate to the 'Up' films, and especially how they will relate, or not, to their participants (no doubt it will be easier, because of the immediacy of motion pictures, for future viewers to relate to the 'Up' participants than it is for us early third millennium people to relate to, say, pre-Norman Conquest Britons, or to the people who constructed Stonehenge). But it would be lovely to know how those future viewers will feel about the 'Up' films - perhaps lovelier than it would be for me to know how I'll feel about it if I should live long enough to enjoy '56-Up'!