49 Up — keeping up with the Britons

Last updated on: October 24, 2006 at 9:34 am by Peter T. Chattaway

49 Up — keeping up with the Britons 2006-10-24T09:34:00-07:00 Peter T. Chattaway

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

I caught 49 Up — the latest in the series of films that Michael Apted has shot every seven years since the 1960s, documenting the lives of a dozen Britons — at the Cinematheque a few nights ago.

The only other film in this series that I have seen is 28 Up (1985), and since it does not appear in the film journals that I have kept since 1989, I can only assume I saw it even earlier than that — back when I was still a teenager. I recognized some of the bits from that film that appeared in the new film, and it was strange to think that, the last time I had seen those clips, all the characters in them had been a decade or so older than me and in some sense had represented possible futures for me — whereas now, all the people in those clips are nearly a decade younger than I am now.

It was also strange to realize just how tumultuous the lives of some of these people had been since I last checked in with them, and to realize that, for some people in the audience, these developments would not have been a surprise, because there had already been two other films documenting these developments since then.

The biggest change between 28 Up and 49 Up, it seems to me, is that the series may have lost some of its political impact, though in some sense it may still be politically significant.

What I mean by that is this: To judge by the clips we see of the original film, Seven Up! (1964), the series was initially conceived as a way of seeing “the future of Britain”. (The narrator in that film even talks about the year 2000, which is now in the past!) The point of the first film — inspired by the Jesuit maxim “Give me the child until he is seven and I will give you the man” — apparently had something to do with the rigidity of the class system in England, and the first few sequels bore this out; I vaguely remember reviews of 28 Up underscoring how everyone’s lives turned out exactly the way you’d expect from the first film.

But I’m not sure 49 Up supports that point any more — or at any rate, the point has become more complicated, thanks to the subjects themselves. For example, the upper-class boy who, at age seven, predicted which schools he would go to, and then went to those schools and followed the career path laid out for him in his youth, has now changed course and found a different job. And a number of the other interviewees have also begun to define themselves in ways that suggest they are taking control of their own lives and coming to “own” them more, now. (Most heartening, in this regard, is the former homeless man who is now actively involved in local politics — and who seems to have moved beyond the doubts of his earlier years towards some sort of faith in God.)

Granted, the choices that these people make are still limited and influenced by their backgrounds, but they don’t seem so determined — or, more to the point, predetermined — any more.

In addition, a number of the interviewees have moved out of the country altogether — to America, to Australia, even to Spain — and very few of the people that grew up in East London live in their old neighbourhood any more. They say that the neighbourhood has changed, it’s no longer the place for them, and the film gives us just the briefest of glimpses of the burgeoning immigrant communities that now reside there. So, to what degree does this series represent “the future of Britain”, now?

One of the interviewees tells the director, somewhat testily, that this just might be the first film in the series that is about them, and not about the director’s idea of them; and, in a sense, her comment could be targeted not just at the filmmakers who began the series with a certain idea about class structures, but at the structures themselves and the society that set them up.

Meanwhile, one of the other interviewees remarks dismissively that this series is a little like a precursor to the “reality TV” shows of today, and he admits that catching up with a dozen people every seven years and following them as they get older must be “fascinating”, but he’s not sure it really means anything.

I think he has a point. I’m not really sure what the series “means” any more either. But yes, it still is fascinating.

And the fact that most of these people seem reasonably content with their lives at 49 — even though a number of them had significant troubles at 28, 35 and 42 — is kind of reassuring, too.

Uncategorized

Previous Post

October 24, 2006

Former film critic falls into full-blown fuddyhood

Next Post

October 24, 2006 Death of a President -- only in Canada, eh?

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category Anglican Planet Articles BC Christian News BC Report Bible Movies Bible Review Blog Books & Culture Campus Times CBC Radio Christianity Today ChristianWeek Essays Faith Today Festival Cinemas Guide Film Journals Georgia Straight Interviews MB Herald National Catholic Register Salvationist Today's Christian Two Chairs Ubyssey Uncategorized Vancouver Courier Vancouver Sun

Select a Month August 2025 April 2025 January 2025 December 2024 November 2024 May 2024 February 2024 December 2023 May 2023 March 2023 November 2022 July 2022 June 2022 May 2022 April 2022 February 2022 January 2022 December 2021 November 2021 October 2021 September 2021 August 2021 July 2021 June 2021 April 2021 March 2021 February 2021 January 2021 December 2020 November 2020 October 2020 August 2020 July 2020 June 2020 May 2020 March 2020 February 2020 January 2020 December 2019 November 2019 September 2019 July 2019 May 2019 April 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 December 2018 November 2018 October 2018 September 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 April 2012 January 2012 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 November 2003 October 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 January 2003 December 2002 November 2002 August 2002 July 2002 June 2002 May 2002 March 2002 January 2002 December 2001 November 2001 September 2001 August 2001 July 2001 June 2001 April 2001 March 2001 February 2001 December 2000 November 2000 October 2000 September 2000 August 2000 July 2000 June 2000 May 2000 April 2000 March 2000 January 2000 October 1999 August 1999 May 1999 April 1999 February 1999 January 1999 December 1998 November 1998 October 1998 August 1998 July 1998 June 1998 April 1998 March 1998 January 1998 November 1997 September 1997 July 1997 June 1997 April 1997 March 1997 February 1997 January 1997 December 1996 October 1996 September 1996 June 1996 March 1996 February 1996 January 1996 April 1995 November 1994 September 1994 September 1991

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

How was Haman punished for his plot?

Select your answer to see how you score.

He was hanged on the gallows he built He was turned into a pillar of salt He was beheaded He was exiled