70 Up - ITV teaser for "later this year"

[Rostio]

This looks fabulous!

My favourites Neil, Symon and Bruce are mentioned, Suzy and Charles return to the programme and tributes to the lovely Nick, Lynn and of course Michael Apted.

Placemark here for sharing the latest news?

Sorry, meant to quote @Auburngal

Oh my gosh. That was emotional.

It's been bugging me who Suzy reminds me of. I was thinking Sharron Davies.

I did admire Jackie for sparring with Michael Apted. I kind of thought why didn't Andrew do that if he was upset about, what he saw was, Apted's agenda.

Emotional though and I wonder if, in 7 years time, some will be twitching and wishing there was going to be another programme.

That second episode was much better than last week’s. I must admit that I fell asleep in the middle (exhausting day) and need to watch it again for the bits I missed, including Nick’s interview. But it was interesting that quite a few of them were really unimpressed by the methods used for the programme- that they were pigeonholed and not portrayed fairly.

im looking forward to their meet up.

Suzy reminds me of Jenny Agutter.

I've just finished watching the last one so reading this thread now. Strikes me that you're almost describing traits of autism in Neil, which was what passed through my mind when watching him.

I agree with what someone else said - they almost deserve their own episode each. But I guess that would have been too intrusive and made them more as individual subjects to study from a psychological perspecitve rather than as a study of society in this country as a whole.

I wondered why we didn't get to see much of their family background, except for the boys in the children's home. I would have liked to have seen their parents on camera talking about their children, as I think that may go a little way to explaining how they might turn out. Or maybe parents were in the very first episode and not really shown since, I don't know. Perhaps if the parents had not been shown sympathetically onscreen they may have withdrawn consent for ther children to be part of the show, so it was maybe a conscious choice of Michael Apted.

Couldn't believe I got emotional at the end. I remember watching it as part of "RE" in the 80s - it would be PHSE now, and found it fascinating and thought-provoking ever since. It was the right time to stop, it would have been just too sad to watch them all dying one by one. The whole series is a stark reminder of how short life is really. I remember seeing the episodes of when they were around the age I am now, mid 50s. It seems to have been only a short time between then and the age they are now - a sobering thought when reflecting on my own life and the next stage of it.

Charles Furneux alluded to the lack of consent when they were children. His own move into tv would have made him more aware of ethics around that, I imagine. Still didn't want to appear on screen, even at 70.

No, Nick was aged 65 when he died, back in July 2023. He was a year younger than the rest so started when he was only six. I'd imagine they did the rest of the new filming last year when most of them were 69.

It's funny reading some of the old 49up and 56up threads on here. A few people worked with either John or Andrew (with varying opinions about him).

I’ve rewatched the whole thing, and found it quite fascinating that none of their parents were ever interviewed at any point. I rather like that - it was all about them as individuals. Spouses and children came into the interviews later on, but never the parents as far as I can remember?

Omg! Yes!

No I don’t remember any parents being interviewed. Obviously saw a few of them such as eating around the table, walking side by side.

@CurlyhairedAssassin I had the same feeling after watching the second episode - the show is a reminder of how short life is. I first watched the show in 1991 when I was a teenager and that feels more like 15 years ago rather than 35.

Before this series began I’d been thinking of past regrets and what Symon said about regretting never asking his mum about his father has stuck with me. How important it is to minimise regrets and say what matters to the people who matter.

No he was 65 as he was around 15 months younger than the rest of them. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Nicholas_Hitchon?wprov=sfti1#

I watched it at school in the 80s and have also been struck by how it underlines how life passes so quickly. Very poignant to see them as 7 year olds flashing forward to 70 year olds. I think stopping at 70 is the right decision- maybe I don't want to see them gradually ageing more. I can't believe some of Michael Apted's questions and loved Jackie taking him to task about them. Found the end very moving.

The absence of parents (and siblings for that matter), and the lack of consideration of the effect family life had on the children, now seems glaring to me. The children in care were questioned about their absent fathers or mothers, but the boys at boarding school, for example, not so much - perhaps as it seemed part of the natural order of things for wealthy/upper-class parents to send their small children away? The parents are mentioned from time to time by the children/adults, for example Lynn getting so emotional about her mum’s death, but it’s all very tangential. We surely now know how important family life is to a developing child.

I also note the change in Neil from the carefree, skipping 7-year-old to the haunted, anxious 14-year-old, full of worry about falling behind at school. What pressure was he put under? I’m not necessarily blaming his parents as they may have been loving for all we know. But so much is unexplained.
Then again, there’s only so much a television programme can do, and how intrusive it can be…

@Quebeccles I've been contemplating on what the programme does show in terms of human behaviour. It's a really interesting watch and I'm grateful to the participants for sticking with it, but the varying questions and approaches to the participants make it difficult to take much of value from it

I do think though there is a glimmer of a narrarive around the value and importance of strong relationships, support etc? I think Paul is an example of that. As PP have said many of them comment that as they age those are the important things.

There is as they get older and can talk about it themselves, agreed. I was thinking more about the first couple of series, and especially the 7 and 14 editions, really.

A few things I've picked up from series. V heartwarming to see both the children's home kids enjoying family networks as they progressed through life, especially Symon and his wife with the fostering. Was nice that late bloomer Bruce eventually managed to settle down and give back a lot to those less fortunate than himself.

Neil's at times heartbreaking trajectory resonates with me - I can think of at least 2 people I know including a close family member, v intelligent with a lot to offer but struggled due to late/undiagnosed mental health conditions. In later series Neil does become able to better articulate how he is as a person and come to terms with it.

On the class angle I don't quite agree with John saying we're in a classless society now. The country is still v class obsessed though I would say less so compared to when this group were growing up. The paradox of course being that social mobility has reduced (debt saddling tuition fees, rocketing house prices and decline of stable permanent well paid jobs in a few sectors) at the same time. It feels like successive generations after those featured in series have on the whole had progressively fewer opportunities for social mobility.

Was nice that late bloomer Bruce eventually managed to settle down and give back a lot to those less fortunate than himself.
He wasn't a late bloomer though. He went from university to teaching in an inner city comprehensive so he was helping those less fortunate than him from early on. He may have married a bit later but maybe he was very tied up in his work and was waiting to meet his soul mate.

I liked Bruce, he was such a sweet, "nice" child who it appears grew into a nice, caring man.

Suzy reminds me of my sister in law!

Autism crossed my mind with Neil as well.

Bruce is a lovely, lovely man.

I had always assumed that his non-participation also had something to do with working for the BBC at a time where the two networks were massive rivals and ITV had a very successful programme with the Up series. That and the chip about not getting into Oxford whilst his two peers from the sofa both succeeded.

I take his point about consent but that is an issue between him, his parents and possibly the school rather than the programme itself. It would also be slightly more convincing if part of his own catalogue of productions didn't include reality type programmes featuring children - "The Unteachables" and "Teen tamers" for example. In general it was the wealthiest participants who complained the most and implied they had no choices and were put into "roles". The remit of the programme was to look at social class and of course they were in roles to some extent. Suzy was the most honest about her level of privilege and the impact it had had on her life - she grew on me a lot over the years. Bruce also was honest about his advantages although I suspect he was from a much less wealthy background than Suzy or the sofa threesome.

I was also amused by sofa threesome claiming society was now classless/class wasn't an issue and desperately trying to play down their advantages. Not quite as crassly as when John insisted that any factory worker could afford his education if they just prioritised it over fancy cars and foreign holidays (a line straight out of the contemporary tabloids). Notably the working class participants were a lot more clear eyed about the realities of class in modern society - money still buys massive advantages and choices.

I think Nick also had the earliest understanding of the value of the programme to others rather than focusing on what an inconvenience it was to himself every seven years as a few of the participants kept saying. He grasped the magnitude of the project very early and I loved his comment for 70up about it becoming a timelapse film of human lives.

I think his view was spot on and what is heartening from it is how much value most of the participants put on building and maintaining a family even if relationships did not work. Symon's first marriage broke down but he did keep working to rebuild relationships with his children and went on to fostering. Jackie and Ian had plainly worked at co parenting even after they stopped being a couple. Tony's marriage did survive his affair and they worked to support their children and grandchildren.

Of the WC children I would assume Tony would have been the one expected to go off the rails - father in and out of prison, mother in and out of the pub. He said the stables gave him the structure and stability missing at home. I can remember men saying this about national service - its value point for some boys was giving them structure and stability where it hadn't existed. The WC girls all came from strong and enduring families as Lynne pointed out when Apted was quizzing them about young marriage.

Jackie, Lynn and Sue seemed more capable of actually challenging Apted at a younger age which I thought was interesting given Andrew, John and Charles' 'superior' education. They just complained about it later.