21 Up (TV Movie 1977) Poster

(1977 TV Movie)

User Reviews

Review this title
10 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
9/10
A wonderful film in a great series.
Skeeter70014 May 2005
Warning: Spoilers
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!
11 out of 11 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
Not about making lives extraordinary, but maybe valuable, just valuable...
ElMaruecan8222 December 2017
Warning: Spoilers
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.
3 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
And it begins to gain colors
SnoopyStyle13 November 2013
Director Michael Apted returns to interview these young adults who are now 21 year olds. They are starting to get interesting. They are no longer little kids talking without comprehension.

It starts off with the group watching themselves in the first two movies. Of course Apted starts with Nicholas, the scientist in the group. He pontificates and reflects on the past films. I wonder how much the films are affecting these kids. I wonder who dreads the upcoming interviews. I wonder if they try extra hard to look good in these films.

The most compelling are Neil and Suzy. Neil has drop out and working in menial jobs. He's dropping out of society. And Suzy is now fully into her role as the poor little rich girl. We find out that her parents separated soon after '7 Plus Seven'. These kids from the various walks of life is starting to gain colors. And not all the colors are pretty. But Michael Apted is digging deeper now and we're gaining more insights.
5 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Insights and Reflections
Cineanalyst17 August 2005
Here, the Up series began in earnest. "Seven Up!" and "7 plus Seven" were shorter, and the interviewees, naturally, didn't have much of interest to say. Listening to what silly things cute children have to say doesn't make for a very serious or interesting documentary. The interviews at 14 weren't of much initial value, either, especially with the shyness of two of the participants. Yet, I did enjoy listening to and contrasting the political ideals of young socialist Bruce and conservative John, as well as contrasting their manners. The first two segments do gain importance and value, though, with this and the following installments, as parts of them are intercalated with the new interviews. It's not even necessary to see previous Ups, as a result; each of the latter documentaries stands well on its own.

At twenty-one, the subjects are now young adults and are naturally more insightful, reflective and, importantly, more articulate. Here, as well, Neil had taken shape as the most compelling figure in the series; he is now melancholic, nervous and poor. And, in this episode, he is bitter when discussing his parents and upbringing. With the other participants, I saw confidence and contentment, especially compared to when they were teenagers, even if they were uncertain of their futures--or chain smoking.

What Michael Apted and the filmmakers did with the film that I especially liked was that they brought the gang together to watch the previous two films and caught their reactions to the films and asked them their thoughts on the series. Generally, it seems, they don't see the importance or purpose of the series; perhaps, they even see it as somewhat of an intrusion. I suppose I wouldn't see the purpose or significance of the first two films, either, without having seen "21" and the subsequent films that aggrandize upon their beginnings; it's the subsequent films that give the previous ones significance. As far removed or alienated as one seems at twenty-one from his seven-year-old self, the Jesuit proverb still holds truth, as Apted discovers.

Early in the film, Neil says that by bringing the group together, the filmmakers might be defeating their original purpose of examining class, or socioeconomic, barriers. And, that focus does seem to be forgotten at times in this addition, although, I suspect, for different reasons. Not only has the series taken on more significance than its initial intent, but also, the interviewees are now more concerned with themselves; even on their pasts, there is more reflection and insight. They're looking inward, planning and thinking about their futures and thus looking forward.
18 out of 18 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
At 21, coping with the responsibilities of young adulthood.
TxMike17 February 2006
Michael Apted must be congratulated for having (or perhaps stumbling upon) the vision for this study. Begin with 14 seven year olds in England, film them in a few interesting situations, and follow those same kids as they grow up. Every seven years. Because all of our lives transpire at roughly the same rates, we cannot actually observe children growing up. But this filmed approach is the next best thing.

Each film gets longer, and this the third one is the longest yet. The production values are better and it no longer resembles a home movie so much. Now we get to see the same children at 7, 14, and 21. What a difference the 7 years made. From imagining what college they might go to and now seeing them in their final years of college, studying advanced subjects, grappling with what their professions will be. Or, in the case of some of the girls, already married with children. Still, we can identify characteristics that have stayed with each as they grew up.

We also see clearly for the first time how much the "process" has influenced the "product." In science the "uncertainty principle" tells us that the more closely you try to measure something the more your measurement technique changes what you are measuring. It is the same here. The participants are acutely aware of the process, and of their responses at 7 and 14, and they discuss them. To some degree who they are at 21 is a product of having been in the "UP" series.

This and all the others through '42-UP' in 1998 are on the 5-disk DVD set just out. ("49 UP" has been made but is not yet available on DVD.) However, simply seeing the most recent film (42-UP or 49-UP) is pretty good, because each film contains snippets of each of the former ones, allowing us to see how each child developed in 7-year increments.

Just a marvelous study of growing up.
14 out of 17 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Unique and amazing series of films
runamokprods26 February 2011
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.
4 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
what was and what still lies ahead
Quinoa19846 February 2010
In 21 Up the seven year olds and then the fourteen year olds we saw in previous 'Up' films are now adults, or at least on the cusp of it. Some are married, some are in college (even Oxford), while others are a little more disillusioned or perfectly happy working menial jobs like at a factory. One of the kids wanted to be a horse jockey and he's well on his way. Another, Bruce, who at one time thought he would be a missionary in Africa to help people, became disillusioned and went into another field altogether. And while some get married, they still have words to say about why they are married and how it doesn't change their lives at all.

Where we saw the kids in the first Up film become a little more shy and awkward in 7 Plus Seven, this time we see them a little more sure- or perhaps more sure about their uncertainty in life- and Apted focuses on subjects like marriage, careers, ethnic and racial tensions, politics, things covered in the previous segment but without so much emphasis on juxtaposition between clips (not that the flashbacks to previous films aren't useful). The insights are clear and always interesting, and we see how the same kids are still together in this film, or a little more varied (the three boys, for example, do not quite dress or look a like, one clean-cut and the other with long hair).

And, ultimately, we get a sense of what the Up series will evolve into: finding about who these people are by tracking what's happened over time and what they think could happen (or might not) in the future. And in 21 Up it's about coming of age, going through those teenage years into something else, or the same thing as they thought they would be at 7. It's never boring, and we want to see what will happen next or how their view has changed with the passing of time and history around them.
3 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
21 Up
MartinTeller10 January 2012
I hate to say it, because this series is so highly regarded, but I remain rather ambivalent. Certain characters are emerging as people whose futures I'm curious about: John the douchebag, Suzi the bored little rich girl, Tony the cabbie, Neil the squatter. Others I'm less curious about, although Apted often spends unreasonably long stretches of time talking to them and eliciting little of interest. Oddly, it's not the use of clips from the prior films that inflate the running time as much as these long-winded interviews. This installment does get a leg up in the sense that a larger picture is being drawn, we can see more of a development through these peoples' lives. But there still isn't a ton of compelling material, nor much in the way of unexpected sociological observations. It's all pretty much what you'd expect. I considered bailing out of the series here, but I'll give it one more chance to win me over. I do consider age 28 to be an interesting time in my life, maybe it will be in theirs as well.
1 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Moving the series along
asc8518 July 2009
I saw "49 Up" first, and that's what made me decide to see the series from the beginning. I enjoyed seeing them as 7 and 14 year olds. This film was interesting, except I thought Apted's emphasis towards the man who wanted to become a missionary at 7, and who's Dad lives in Rhodesia (sorry, I forget his name) was an editorial mistake, and slowed the film down, and made that part of the film quite boring. Apted spent an inordinate amount of time on this guy, and I have no idea why. It's of course a subjective thing, but I think we were supposed to find him interesting, and I couldn't see why.

Neil of course is the most compelling person to observe and see grow. An extremely sensitive guy, and I don't say that disparagingly. As I already saw "49 Up," I know what happens to Neil and the stuck-up little rich girl (again, I forget her name), so it's all very interesting to see what they were doing at that age.

Onto "28 Up"!
0 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Watching the Watchers
tedg5 February 2007
My situation: an American watching these as films rather than TeeVee, and in sequence. I am at the leading edge of the postwar baby boomers and the people profiled here are the tail of that bulge.

So my perspectives are quite different than the audience this was created for, at least through this third installment. England before the war was the most classbound society in Europe, which is to say the then modern world. They really came close to extinction during the war and — in their own minds at least — won because every citizen set aside every social convention and pulled together as a collective. A new notion of nationhood was hovering over the isle, one modelled after America, that former colony who bailed them out, funding them during the war effort at several times their national product.

After the war, the national will was to restore British society, but the question was to what? When this was made, there was extreme introspection as to what the nature of the British (I should say English) nation should be. No nation is as publicly introspective in their art as the English. So it is no surprise that we see this in British films, from here all the way to "The Queen," which I saw recently.

So. Pick 14 children. No immigrants. No non-whites, the residue of empire. Allow one child who we only learn in this edition, has a white, "purely English" mother, the father being completely out of the picture. Start with the premise that despite some modernization, England's rigid caste system is back as Strong as ever. Pick kids from different classes. Say over and over that their lives are determined by the age of seven.

Start.

I have no idea how far Aptet wanted to take this. It seems clear that he intended at least one followup to the interviews at seven. In this film, our subjects are 21. I expect Apted to develop more subtle richness in his perspective as he goes. After all, he will be growing and who has seven years to think about the next layer of pats work, each layer sort of reinventing the earlier ones? I do expect him to evolve, but he hasn't yet. He is still banging on one theme, that of class.

Our three lower class girls are obviously stuck, doomed. Our upper class girl is a mess; for all I know she will self-destruct but do it with creature comforts handy. Our three upper class boys are amazingly repellent in different ways and I suppose that is the point.

In between, we have a smattering of individuals, all challenged, all developing into fascinating stories that carry meaning far beyond that of any individual. I wonder why I like this so.

I think there are three reasons. One is that I watch a lit of movies, some with actors that with support can create reality. But even the best of these fades when confronted with real reality. These kids are tender, not professionals. Their stories are real. We only glimpse, and because we know how full each day in our own lives are, we fill in behind what we see: pains and joys, many, many disappointments. Loves.

This is helped immensely by a basic choice Apted has made. He's decided to give us real people with real lives that we know could only be narrated by giving us the entire seven years. Its an open world he is giving us. But he has stuck to closed world narrative conventions. The only parts of the story we learn about any of these people is 1) what we saw in previous installments, generously replayed and 2) what our heroes and heroines choose to tell us in their own words.

The power of constraining the narrative this way is immense, a terrific decision. Apted rarely (it seems never) tells us for instance that so and so had a drug problem, had two abortions and so on. If the people themselves don't tell us, we don't know. I am in awe of this decision and wonder how it will play in future installments. Surely he has tons of footage that he didn't use in the earlier films that would be insightful; but if it wasn't actually broadcast, it doesn't exist.

So part of the thrill here is in watching the filmmaker's shaping of the narrative, because of course he is asking the leading questions, weaving what we get from what happened.

But there's another soap opera at work here. I mentioned that I am an American, someone who finds notions of class quaint, puzzling, offensive, illogical. So while I watch what amounts to a soap opera of 14 lives, and I watch the way a strictly cinematic story is pulled out of them, I also watch the soap opera of an alien people try to preserve these social anomalies because their person story is tied to their national one. And this interstory story is close to what life is about.

Ted's Evaluation -- 3 of 3: Worth watching.
13 out of 22 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews


Recently Viewed