63 Up

63 Up (Michael Apted, 2019)

 

"Give me a child until he is seven and I will show you the man"

Aristotle

One of the most impressive film series ever produced, the "Up" series from Granada television began in 1964 when Canadian filmmaker Paul Almond interviewed a dozen 7 year old British children of different backgrounds, classes, and educational situations for a film he called Seven Up!. The purpose of which was to interview these kids to see what they were about, how those different circumstances affected their answers and, more fundamentally, their outlooks.

The film ended with the kids playing and concluded with a dramatic burst of music and the line "This has been a glimpse of Britain's future."

It could have stopped there and been a perfectly fine documentary; the kids were different, depending on their backgrounds and circumstances...and rather dramatically. But, subsequently, every 7 years, director Michael Apted dutifully followed up with the kids—those who agreed to participate, anyway—to see what they were becoming, what their attitudes were, their hopes and dreams, what had changed, what had stayed the same.

The documentary flies in the face of the old adage "you can judge a book by its cover." Yes, the kids maintained their basic personalities in the follow up 7 Plus Seven, but, for some, things radically shifted with the third film, 21 Up, as the kids became adults but with training wheels still on. Things began to shift, fracture, and start to jell into the older people they would become. It's quite natural sounding, right? But—for some reason—ordinary life (albeit under the camera) became fascinating to watch. Everybody became themselves differently and the inevitable "compare and contrast" made compelling after-movie discussions.

The Kids

Tony - Growing up in the East End, the cock-sure little Tony wanted to become a jockey, obsessing over it. He did get into the field, had one victory and his career was over, then becoming a taxi-driver, doing the occasional acting, and at the time of 56 Up was living in Spain hoping to start a business venture. At the time of 63 Up, he's back in Essex, as gregarious as ever, with three kids and three grandchildren. As one can tell by his web-site, he's a relentless self-promoter.

Andrew - One of the three "prep school" boys (comprising, Andrew, John, and Charles), when asked, at 7, what newspaper he read he replied "The Financial Times" All three boys already had ideas of the educational road map they would take and Andrew studied at Trinity College, Cambridge, became a solicitor, married and had two kids. Of the "Prep School Trio" he is the only one who's appeared in every film of the series.

Sue - an Eastender, Sue was always grouped with Jackie and Lynn. Sue married at 24, had two kids, got divorced and has not remarried. Although it's not for want of trying. She jokingly is involved in "the longest engagement in history" of over 20 years. Although she says in 69 Up, "He does have a new love in his life." ?? "Motorbikes." Sue has been a university administrator at Queen Mary, University of London (despite never attending college herself—how cool is she?). Sue is one of the most entertaining of the interviewees. In 63 Up, Apted asks her "Do you imagine about the 70's?" to which she cheekily shoots back "You tell me, Michael."

Nick - a farmer's son of the Yorkshire Dales ("All Creatures Great and Small" territory), Nick attended a small one-room school not far from his home, transferred to a boarding school and eventually graduated Oxford and became a nuclear physicist in America. During his career as a researcher, he studied nuclear fusion and eventually became a professor at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. At the time of 63 Up, he was dealing with throat cancer. Nick died July 23, 2023 at 65.

Bruce - You wanted to just hug little Bruce as he appeared a worried, troubled child with the world on his shoulders during Seven Up! where he was attending a boarding school, and expressing the desire to be a missionary. The experience seemed to make him strongly independent in himself, as he became a teacher after studying maths at Oxford, teaching in Bangladesh, East End public schools and St. Albans. He married at age 41 and has two children. Before the time of the 42 film, he was assisting another of the participants, Neil, who was going through a rootless troubled existence, and Bruce provided room at his flat and moral support. Something of a missionary, after all.

Jackie - part of the Eastenders trio, Jackie was the most vocal critic of Apted and his filming, particularly (in 21 Up) for what she felt were sexist questions, centering on domestic issues which were never brought up with the boys. A single parent, she raised three sons on her own and has been on disability for rheumatoid arthritis for the past two decades.

 

Peter - Born in Liverpool, in the same school as Neil, Peter attended college a bagan teaching. had dropped out of the series after receiving criticism for making disparaging comments about the Thatcher government during 28 Up, but returned for 56 Up to promote his folk band. A lawyer now, he's moved back to Liverpool and remarried.

 

Lynn - part of the Eastenders trio of girls, was a life-long teacher of kids, starting with a mobile library, and was a Chair of Governor's at St. Saviour's school, in Poplar, London until her death in May, 2013. Lynn was the first of the participants to pass on and her dedicated husband and her two daughters talk about her passing and attend the dedication of a wing of the St. Saviour's library in her name.

Symon - part of the children's home group, Symon never knew his father and his single mother couldn't cope, so he was carted off to a group home. Symon's rootlessness displayed itself in having little direction in careers, but worked steadily, got married, had five children, and then divorced. He remarried, this time to a woman with two children, and he's been steadfastly integrating the families together.

Paul - part of the children's home group, Paul was there while a custody battle was going on between his parents. His father and stepmother got custody and they moved to Australia and at 21, met the woman he would marry and have two kids with. But the story doesn't end there...

Paul and Symon became close friends, visiting each other with their wives, back and forth between countries. Both consider themselves shy and consequently questioning themselves. Perhaps it because they were both abandoned in children's homes, both men became exceptionally strong fathers.

 

John - His is a story. In the first programs, John seemed a candidate for "upper-class twit of the year" smugly saying that he desired "fame and power" at age 14 and seeming quite full of himself. Time wounds all heels, it's said, but John's is a story of how experience improves a person and time imparts wisdom. "I'm a big disappointment to myself" he wryly laughs in 63 Up. Maybe to himself, but not to anyone else watching. He did become a barrister in the QC, but the death of his father, a year in the Army and his marriage evolved John into a quiet, contemplative man of charity (the reason he returned to the series after not liking the way he was coming off and taking the 28th year off was to promote contributions to his charity work in Bulgaria, where his wife is from and where his family had ancestral roots).

Suzy - Found at a posh London day school, her life-long antipathy to the program—at 14, she called the series pointless and silly—finally bubbled up so that she didn't participate in 63 Up, (but did 56 Up "out of loyalty to it"). Still, Susie was always interesting—feigning indifference, a bit of shyness, then defiantly chain-smoking through the interview at 21, dropping out of school at 16, not interested in marriage or children, then—suddenly—marrying at 28, raising 3 kids, and finding a happiness and stability she never had in childhood despite her background. She works as a bereavement counsellor. If anybody would be good at coaching people around a corner, she would.

Neil - "I want to be an astronaut. If not, I'll be a coach-driver." Liverpool-born, Neil became the "Up" child with the most interesting story and the one frequently held in mind after viewing a new film. Neil seemed to change the most between films and one saw a steady decline in his personality and state every seven years. In the 21 and 28 films, he was homeless and rootless, maintaining on odd jobs and never completing University. At one point, Apted bluntly asks "Do you ever worry about your sanity?" to which Neil can only reply that he does. At 42, he was living with Bruce in London, earned his BA and entered politics! In the 63 film, he's a reader in the C of E, owns a home in France, but still works as a district councillor. Neil's appearance always provokes a sigh of relief with each new film.

Neil through the years.

Charles Furneaux, ironically enough, refuses to take part in the series and has even sued to have his footage removed from the films. I say "ironically" because Furneaux is, himself, a journalist and documentary filmmaker. Maybe he knew something the others didn't?

Observing a situation or phenomenon necessarily changes it.

Werner Heisenberg

Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle

One does have to say that the "Up" series is a good example of Heisenberg's principle (which works on the macular as well as the molecular level). If these people weren't filmed, would they have turned out any different? Because they were watched, were they changed?

In 56 Up Tony tells the story of picking up a fare, who just happened to be "Buzz" Aldrin, the second man on the Moon, and another cabbie pulled up and said "Can I get your autograph?" and Tony handed the thing to Aldrin and the other cabbie said "Not him. YOU!" 

It's a funny story, but proves the point. These people became famous from the "Up" series, recognized and no doubt changed by it, either accepting it, using it, or recoiling from it. They can't be said to have normal lives when it is so examined and one has to take that into account when talking about that premise that started the whole thing. Perhaps it should have been "Give me a child until he is seven, photograph him every seven years, and I'll show you the man...but not the same man you'd've had if you'd left them alone."

What changes had the program instilled? Would Bruce have come to Neill's aid without it? Would John have become more introspective and humanitarian? Would Paul and Symon have become such steadfast transatlantic friends? Would Apted have become a more sympathetic and egalitarian filmmaker? 


Hard to say. But, it is also hard to deny that the kids' lives were changed, maybe not in major, but in incremental ways, by their participation in the films. Apted, by expanding the time-frame, gives you the y-axis of the story-graph as opposed to just the one. That fourth dimension perspective makes one re-think taking any documentary at face-value as new facts might arise and new developments come into clarity with the passage of time.

In itself, the "Up" series is timeless. 

Time, time, time/See what's become of me?

"A Hazy Shade of Winter"

Paul Simon

 

Or is it? The kids' 70th years are coming up. Two of them are now dead. And director Michael Apted died January 7th, 2021. 

 

Whither the "Up" series? As with everything concerned with this series, only time will tell.

"This has been a glimpse of Britain's future"

Here's a little squib of a review from an old web-blog of one of the entries in the series, written at the time of that film's release to theaters.

49 Up (Michael Apted, 2006) The latest in Michael Apted's seven-year cycle of films examining (although some of the participants would say "intruding") the lives of a handful of British citizens that were first introduced in the television program Seven Up. A "reality show" in every sense, every seven years they are interviewed, filmed and their current situation in life presented.

For those who've been following the films, it's a bit like catching up with old friends and it's particularly interesting to see how they've changed in the last seven--some have grandchildren, some are starting new families, some have had their dreams dashed and are rebuilding new lives. And short answer for those who've seen the series--Neil is alive...and doing well. There is also a good interview between Apted and Roger Ebert where Ebert asks the hard questions --"What will you do when one of them is about to die?": "Who'll take over this project when you die?"

Fascinating stuff. Highly recommended.

Jackie, Sue, and Lynn at the time of 49 Up.

"The kids" altogether at 21.

Making Waves: The Art of Cinematic Sound

Making Waves: The Art of Cinematic Sound (Midge Costin, 2019)

 

This one's on me. Maybe, it's too technical, I don't care. Maybe you don't like learning "how sausage is made." I don't care if you're interested in watching it. I don't care if you'd just as soon watch something else.

 

Just be aware that if you watch something else, this nifty documentary covers something that you might not be aware of. 

That what you're hearing in movies, commercials, TV shows, whatever...is faked.

People do this for a living. They try to make things better than reality...or, more crudely, they're "selling" you something that you have every intention to buy, whether you're conscience of it or not.

But, I think it's important that people know stuff like this. I sometimes read comments from people, or see things that people have posted, and it's apparent to me that an awful lot of people know very little about "the magic" than can happen in post-production to enhance what we're seeing...and now, we're of an age where one can't accept anything "on faith." Sounds (which this doc focuses on) and images can be produced or manipulated that you should probably not believe what you're seeing.

Ben Burtt recording the bear that made up the bulk

of the vocalizations of "Chewbacca" in Star Wars.

Why do I care? Because I used to do this for a living. In my past-life, I used to do "post-sound" for radio, television, film, and computer programs. It was something I was interested in when I was a kid, and somehow managed to do it when I grew up, taking "the kid" with me. And it was fun...it could be a lot of fun and had an inherent joy in making things "work." But, it could also be painstakingly tedious (which was readily apparent whenever I showed somebody "my work"—the attraction to the process would always "thin" for observers).

But, the thrill of the finished project always made it worth it. I especially loved when I made something out of elements so completely different from what the visuals were and people "bought it" anyway. It was a little conspiracy I played with an audience that took advantage of their natural proclivities to see an image, hear a sound with it and put two and two together in their heads. Manipulative, sure. But, nobody cared because they were "in on the act."

And I was lucky to get in on this when everything was changing, when sound wasn't part of a corporate department to be done using stock sound effects that had been in the vaults for 30 years, but became something new and creative—I remember sitting in the Crossroads theater to see THX-1138 (sound-designed by Walter Murch) and being stunned by the sounds and created environments I was hearing and wanting to do stuff like that. Then, American Graffiti. Star Wars. I was blown away attending a very early screening of Apocalypse Now (also designed by Murch, but more importantly he'd also personally set up the speaker arrays in the theater!) and having my mind blown when the helicopters in that first sequence flew right through my head. Murch and Ben Burtt and the others in their foot-steps would become as much a reason to see the film as the actors or who directed it.

And Making Waves shows all of that—the technical advancements and the advancements in creativity—of what was possible, without compromise. Of how the old ways of doing things were left by the way-side because the new ways became better and took over, so that now the sound isn't just a paint-by-numbers formality, but is, in itself, its own art.

 

Now, all of that is behind me. I watch things and don't even notice the sound-design anymore. Oh, I do if something's "off" or if I recognize an old library sound that I used a couple decades ago (it happens more frequently than I'd like!). These days I appreciate when a film doesn't throw a sonic kitchen-sink at everything. I appreciate the silences...the judicious choices...the spareness...and the realization of what's important. 

And I appreciate the time spent doing it.

Don't Make a Scene: The Laundromat

The Story: Two grifters explain basic economy to you.

And not just money. The absence of money. Who knew that the absence of money was just as important as money? As happens every ten years or so, the American economy goes through some sort of slump, so if you want to save for a rainy day, you'd better have a lot of money or a good meteorologist. Because in order to keep the gears going, you need money. Absent that, you need the promise of money. Which isn't real and promises can be broken.

And so can economic systems. And governments. Ways of life.

All for something that isn't real. Really.

Steve Soderbergh's The Laundromat is one of those rarities—an anthology film—inspired by the revelations of The Panama Papers, documents leaked by a whistleblower showing the invisible strings of promises and absent money all funneled through a business address which was just a mail-box for 214,000 shell companies to avoid taxes and governmental sanctions. I'm sure there's a lot of Russian money going though the eyes of such loop-holes right now.

 

But, the true lesson of economy is value. Nothing is worth anything unless it is valued, be it money, bit-coin, oil paintings, luxury cars, even movies. Without gold backing it up, money is just paper. And coins? Just minerals without the gold hiding behind it.

 

And our tour-guides here, Jürgen Mossack and Ramón Fonseca, they're real people (portrayed by actors, who metaphorically leave destruction in their wake), who quite blithely made a mint...until they got caught. So, what they have to say may be of some value.

Or, perhaps, it isn't worth anything.

 

The Set-up: There is no set-up. This is the start of the movie. In fact, you could say this is the set-up itself. And now, here are your guides, Jürgen Mossack (Gary Oldman) and Ramón Fonseca (Antonio Banderas), both formerly of the firm Mossack Fonseca.

 

Jürgen Mossack: First of all, there are some things you should know before we begin. For instance, we are real people, just like you. 

Ramón Fonseca:  Secondly, we did not write a word of this. To be perfectly frank, we would have preferred all of this remain a secret.

Jürgen Mossack: But we had no choice in the matter. We just woke up one day and everything changed. 

Ramón Fonseca: There were stories about us everywhere: TV, newspapers, and the internet. 

Jürgen Mossack: And now it is our turn to tell a few stories. Think of them as fairy tales that actually happened. 

Ramón Fonseca: Don't worry, these stories are not just about us. They're also about you. 

Jürgen Mossack: And how is that possible? 

Ramón Fonseca:  Because all these stories are about money. 

Jürgen Mossack: The idea of money. The necessity of money. The secret life of money. 

Ramón Fonseca:  Before money, there was only the barter system. You tried to trade what you had or you could do for what you needed. You have bananas, but you need a cow. 

Ramón Fonseca:  I have a cow, but I hate bananas. So, as you can imagine, there was a limit to this system. Bananas turn brown over time and cows can, you know, wander away. 

Ramón Fonseca:  So an agreed-upon medium of exchange was needed. 

Jürgen Mossack: What is a medium of exchange? Well, it could be a... a nugget of gold. 

Jürgen Mossack: Or some other shiny rocks that are generally found to be scarce. It could be a... 

a slip of paper - with words on it... - Aah! Or pictures of powerful people.

And if you read those words, you will see that they are arranged into a promise of value.

Jürgen's cell phone pings

Ramón Fonseca:  Slips of paper... 

Ramón Fonseca:  Which you cannot peel and eat, and do not give milk are what we all agreed to call "money." 

Ramón Fonseca:  And these slips gave birth to many other pieces of paper with more writing on them.

Jürgen Mossack: And some of those words, they told the story of credit. 

Ramón Fonseca:  Oh, stay with us now, this is important. 

Jürgen Mossack: Credit is an invention that meant you no longer needed to carry around, uh, millions of bananas on slips of paper.

Ramón Fonseca:  So, you now have something invisible, credit, 

Ramón Fonseca:  ...standing in for something tangible, a cow. 

Jürgen Mossack: Credit said that even if you didn't have all the bananas you need for what you want, you could borrow bananas from the future. 

Ramón Fonseca:  So, credit is just the future tense of the language of money.  

Jürgen Mossack: Speaking of the future... 

Ramón Fonseca:  Uh, things have gotten a little more complicated.

Ramón Fonseca:  Actually, a lot more complicated. 

Jürgen Mossack: There is more money than ever before. 

Ramón Fonseca:  Our money has more names than ever before. 

Jürgen Mossack: Commodities, loans, stocks, and bonds. 

Jürgen Mossack: Funds and funds of funds. 

Ramón Fonseca:  Futures, equity, derivatives, securitized debt, shorts and margin calls. Financial instruments. 

Jürgen Mossack: Words. 

Jürgen Mossack: Invisible. Abstract. 

Jürgen Mossack: Very different from cows.

 

The Laundromat

 

Words by Scott Z. Burns

 

Pictures by Steven Soderbergh (as Peter Andrews) and Steven Soderbergh (as Steven Soderbergh)

 

The Laundromat is available for streaming on Netflix.

The real Mossack and Fonseca