Linkshoch Wonderful Movie

UnowPriceless hyped garbage

ShangLuda Admirable film.

Cleveronix A different way of telling a story

Horst in Translation (filmreviews@web.de) Unless you've lived under a rock for the last 1.5 years, you probably have heard about Richard Linklater's "Boyhood", one of the best-received movies from last year. We see a young boy grow into a man and people praised this movie for its uniqueness. Well, it's not that 100% unique. Actually the Up Series did a similar thing. In this 40 minute black-and-white documentary from 1964, several children at the age of seven are interviewed about their dreams, their lives and all kinds of stuff. And every seven years, they came together again and added another chapter. This first one here is actually the shortest. All the later ones easily cross the two-hour-mark. So by now, there are eight editions already and the kids from 50 years ago are approaching 60. Sadly, since the last meeting one of the girls (Lynn) died and also the director Paul Almond, who started this endeavor, is no longer with us. Michael Apted, who directed all the films since the second entry is still alive, however. The boy named Charles (a filmmaker himself) is the only one from the bunch who decided to be not a part of it anymore. I quite enjoyed watching this television documentary. As a film of its own I would give it a 6. It's certainly worth a watch and also tells us about life in England 50 years ago. The whole project I'd rate much better, maybe an 8/10. As interesting it is to watch, it's also a bit of melancholy to see these as there is always some transience in there. Anyway, it's really a great idea and nice to see they kept the concept going for so long. The next entry will probably come out in 2019, when everybody is in their early 60s.

postmanwhoalwaysringstwice "Seven Up!" is the forty minute documentary from 1964 that stands as a prologue for the most forward thinking documentary series of all-time. The film brings together a group of surprisingly articulate seven-year-olds from a variety of backgrounds in England. Through a number of questions posed to each of the children, the audience gets the opportunity to get to know the world through these children's eyes, and often presumably through the parent's eyes and therefore only quoted through these children. Personalities more than perspectives ring through the strongest in this first film, and the glimpse at the education system circa 1964 is intriguing. Unfortunately, as "characters" that will ultimately be seen for another forty years to come, the thick accents of some of them make for a rough start. All in all this is important cinema regardless.

gentendo The filmmaker's ideological argument is one that is pervasive throughout the film: "Give me the child until he is 7 and I will give you the man." Set in London England, the director exposes this argument by interviewing an average group of elementary school children. His questions include a variety of topics that allow the viewer to become better acquainted with the thoughts and desires of what these children hope to become. The mere fact that his subject is elementary school children demonstrates his ability to fulfill one of the rules of documentary film-making: giving a voice to the voiceless. These children under normal circumstances would not have a voice in the world at such a young age. They are not celebrities; they are just like any other child—ingenuously funny, naïve, and inquisitive. Most of them aspire to become great things (i.e. astronauts, teachers); however, the director seems to implicitly suggest that given the immaturity of their present beliefs as seven-year-old children, those dreams they wish to fulfill are idealistically unattainable. How? Because given his argument, he suggests that because these particular children are "fully developed" and still immature at the age of seven, he presupposes that the nation of England ought to greatly fear the rising generation and what skills they will lack in the world. The last line of the film implicitly demonstrates this, "We have now seen a look at what the nation of England is in store for and what potential there lies within." Observing how the audience and myself was laughing at the naivety of these children (as I'm sure was intended to show how ignorant they are) I personally felt it was unfair for the director to cast such judgment on them because I don't believe a child is fully developed at the age of seven. One cannot presuppose such a threat to a nation based off what a child's inclinations and aspirations are at such a young age. Why? Because there are many factors that can and do contribute in refining a child's behavior into something better through a space of time and development. The director seemed to suggest that such a space for developing would not be necessary to determine who they would become in the future, namely, bums.There are several filmic techniques that the director used to support his argument. First, he asked specific questions that he knew would exploit the children through their own responses: "What do you do after you get home from school?" to which most of the children responded, "Watch TV!" The implication here of course suggests that their lack of diligence and acquiescence to passivity and mind-numbing entertainment would cause them to become slaves inside of Plato's cave—something not fit for a future nation to thrive on. Second, he captures on film moments of the children fighting with each other. This is more of an explicit ideology of showing that violence and aggression reign supreme amongst such a young crowd as this. The implicit ideology seems to suggest that if these children are fighting with their hands and feet now, how will they fight in the future?—with guns, knives? Overall, I felt this documentary was promoting activism on behalf of the parents—how to discipline your children better! I felt this was rather ridiculous because they are only children—there's still plenty of time for them to grow and develop into more responsible beings.

tedg I get most all of my films by recommendation and this is universally the most recommended to me of those I haven't seen. The series I mean. I suppose it wouldn't make any sense at all to see them out of order so as with everyone, we all start here.To do that, we have to place ourselves in several other worlds. I'm an American. Though I spent a few years in school in the UK, We came home when I was five and I have few memories. For Americans, England — at least the pre-Thatcher England — was a sort of fairy- tale place where privilege was sprinkled here and there and strongly supported on the backs of the relatively poor remainder because by such tax they helped define what it meant to be British.There aren't many blanket statements that can be made of the US — and this is less true now — but it is still true that Americans define themselves in large measure against this tradition. The idea of class immobility seems a perversion of nature.Naturally, that's at the center of how this experiment starts. I'm sure the filmmakers never intended to follow these children as markers (more than representatives) of the collapse of privilege. Not the injustice and wealth, but the willingness which Brits poured into protecting a country (twice!) against barbarians so that their rich could continue pulling the traditions along.So start here, fellow voyager. This first installment is completely without merit except in how it sets the starting point for a voyage through the transformation of an old two-class system to a "modern" two-class one, seemingly only for the amusement of the rest of the world.Perhaps it would have been more interesting to have selected all girls.Ted's Evaluation -- 3 of 3: Worth watching.