Click here to read the full article.
In 1964, Canadian director Paul Almond filmed a group of 14 British schoolchildren aged seven years-old for a documentary called “Seven Up!” examining the lives of kids across class divides. Seven years later, the children were
filmed again, this time by British director Michael Apted, for “14 Up.” Apted went on to revisit them every seven years, charting their progress, resulting in a further seven films, each equally spaced seven years apart. The result has become one of the most remarkable and original longitudinal documentary series in the world.
Apted, who died in 2019, did not live to see the final two-part instalment, “70 Up,” the first of which airs Tuesday evening in the U.K. on ITV (a U.S. broadcast hasn’t yet been finalized). The baton was handed to “Amy” director Asif Kapadia, who documents 12 of the surviving septuagenarians as they reflect on their lives (two of the original cohort, Lynn Johnson and Nick Hitchon, died during the course of the series).
Kapadia worked hand in hand with ITV’s factual controller, Jo Clinton-Davis on the show, which has a personal as well as professional meaning for her: not only has she worked on three of the 10 films, but watching the series as a child “was what made me want to go and work in telly,” she tells Variety.
Ahead of the broadcast, Variety sat down with Clinton-Davis, who has worked on “56 Up,” “63 Up” and “70 Up,” to talk about how the series has survived more than six decades, whether it could ever be replicated and why she is as “categorical as anybody can be in television” that this two-part film will be the last in the series.
What was it like for you on a personal level working on the “Up” series again?
I’ve always felt both incredibly privileged, in how delicate it is but [also] robust because it’s been going for that long. I watched them from seven, and that was what made me want to go and work in telly. So on a very personal level, it feels the best and most distinctive [series]. And then, on an editorial creative level, you’re working with auteur directors…It’s not like making a program like “Long Lost Family” where they’re brilliant, but [you’re] very, very involved. But on this, I was sort of pretty involved because I felt that there were lots of creative conversations to be had.
In what ways is the series delicate?
It’s delicate because it’s precious. Precious things are delicate, and you don’t want them to break. And that’s what Asif has done. He’s continued this precious legacy and put his own stamp on it in one sense, and then in the other sense, it’s delicate because for this as for all our projects, you have to tread delicately with people when you’ve got their lives that they’re sharing with you, and you must have a delicacy of touch and an empathy and a duty towards them. So for me, it is delicate in that sense. It’s robust because it comes back, and no other documentary series is that robust to have come back — for [63 years]. That’s the robustness of the proposition, and yet it is a jewel of a piece.
Have the challenges been different each time that you’ve worked on it?
In seven years the telly landscape has changed so dramatically, and therefore we cannot guarantee that people are going to come to this because it won’t be in their memory. It’s not like “Big Brother.” And so that brand recognition that existed for the older viewers won’t exist for the younger viewers therefore I was really conscious of things like “What would attract the younger viewers?” You don’t have to be vacuous, we know that, you can see YouTube and the depth of content [they watch], and actually, the younger viewers would want that profundity in the documentary.
I think for me, it’s always been about the universality of something. But for younger viewers, why I love the montages [of the documentary subjects aging] is that there are all these apps where people can watch themselves age or watch other people age so I kept wanting some of that. But at the same time, it was a conceit that was integral to the process. Because where can you see a whole life unfold in front of you for real? This isn’t an app. This is real aging from 7 to 70, but still the process of people growing old in front of you, and for those people who are in it to grow old in front of you, was extraordinary. So I think it was just a little a worm in my brain about making sure that there were these hooks, these montages, the humanity, all of that.
Do you think it would be possible to do the show again with a new cohort?
Look, nothing’s impossible in the telly world. But I wouldn’t want to say — there are many, many considerations [such as much stronger duty of care considerations now]. The BBC did try to do it with “Child of Our Time,” not as successfully, if I’m being really honest. … But I think that this is an absolutely unique project. The lives of children and their hopes, their dreams, their fears, their whatever, is something that people are interested in and there are longitudinal documentaries, [like] “Hoop Dreams.” So the process of the longitudinal doc is not unique to “70 Up.” Although we’ve done it much longer, and it is the definitive longitudinal documentary from my point of view, but you know, there are all other sorts of concerns.
Everything’s possible, but there’s something in me that knows this is truly special.
Has it been difficult to balance the documentary aspect with the fact that there is a camera intruding into the participants’ lives, potentially turning them into reality stars, especially given the intensity of today’s media culture?
I actually am a great believer in documentary and the purity of documentary form. I think there is a market for that. You do have to make sure your heartbreak comes and you’re not [spending] too long on one character or another. But I think the turning them into a reality star — I would never want to turn anybody into a reality star, and I think you’ve got to keep that documentary truth pure.
The best documentaries ever that still have contemporary relevance and still connect with audiences are ones that are deeply human with the power to move, with the power to make you laugh, identify with the characters… There is something in the core of that that is what gets people young and old, I hope.
How do you think the series has managed survive for six decades against all odds?
To see a whole life change in front of you is, I won’t say a “mind fuck” but it is a mind fuck. There are very few things around with the power to move you that much…But to find yourself somewhere thinking, “Oh, my relationship was like that. My loss was like that.” There’s a silent dialogue, I think, between the viewer and the participants. And I think that’s what makes it remarkable. So it’s not just passive viewing.
Is there a chance there could be one more instalment after “70 Up”?
No… As one of the contributors, Jackie, said, “You’d just be filming us in wheelchairs” and you feel then it could be a bit exploitative.
There is something to me really profound about 70. And I don’t think you get any more out of 77, to be honest, you’d have the same thoughts. So this is the pinnacle.
Is there a lesson about life that you’ve taken away from the series?
As one of the characters, Sue, says, life happens, and in a way, it tells you that anything can happen in your life, and you should never be complacent. Shit happens. Good things happen. Loss happens. Love happens. But somehow we are still here and get through it.
This interview has been edited and condensed.
