In 42 Up for the first time, Peter, Neil's childhood friend from outside Liverpool who becomes a reluctant schoolteacher, is suddenly missing. No mention is made of him throughout 42 Up, although he received equal time in all the previous films. Where did he go? Did he choose not to participate? Disappear? Die? For those of us who have been following the series since 21 Up, it creates a hole in an otherwise perfect circle of continuing lives. Anyone have any ideas?
shareSymon was also missing from 35 UP, along with Peter, and nothing was said about it--although we were told Andrew was with the BBC and again didn't want to participate. ???
shareI don't know what happened to Peter, but in 42, it's made pretty clear that Symon was in the middle of his divorce during 35, and we can assume that that's why he didn't want to participate. His life is happily back on track by the time 42 is being made. (I just watched all six in a row--all out now in a nice box set called "The Up Series.")
shareI just found this on Amazon.com:
"While Apted is very skillful in using previous clips to make each work stand on it's own, it's far more valuable to see each new clip as it unspools in real-time. For one thing, Apted can't know the future when he makes each installment and so can't edit with an eye to the future (and he admits on the commentary track of 42 UP that the two times he tried, he got it completely wrong -- and in one of those cases lost a valuable participant) . . . Be sure to listen to Apted's commentary on the 42 UP program. He clearly explains why Symon was absent on 35 UP (the reason is one might guess after seeing him on 42 UP) and why John and Paul are absent (probably forever)."
So apparently many mysteries can be solved by listening to the commentary on the DVD! I own the DVD set but haven't listened to the commentary yet--am looking forward to doing so.
Apted explains in the 42 Up commentary that remarks Peter made in the earlier film about the conservative Thatcher government got him savaged in the popular press when it was released. Peter then made the decision not to participate in any future films.
It's John and Charles who are absent, btw. It's a pity that Charles won't participate. John just proves that if you're a pompous jerk by the age of 7, chances are you'll grow up to be a jerk.
Not necessarily bethell-nyc. Bruce Balden started out as an imperialistic, pompus jerk (his plans to save the savages from themselves) and he turned out to be a very good guy. He even turned his back on his privileged upbringing to help economically disadvantaged kids.
Life is never fair, and perhaps it is a good thing for most of us that it is not.
That was typical attitudes of 1960's Britain.
The fact he even wanted to do that says something.
Bruce may have had a christian attitude towards other countries when he was 7 but if you listen to him at 14, let alone follow his life's path, he was most definitely NOT imperialist. He was also not pompous or a jerk at age 7, or beyond. He was one of the most astute commentators from 14 onwards and at 7 was very little (even in his age group) and lost.
A taut thread ties her to me from which hangs the question 'can I trust you?'share
I forgot about Peter but he returned in 56 Up mainly to promote his band. His political comments led to a media backlash in 1985.
Its that man again!!
You can't judge a person just by the 15 minutes or so snippets of interviews every seven year. I find it hard to label someone who is willing to put himself in the program for the public to see, knowing that historically it tended to protray him in a negative light, just for a charity clause he identified with, as a jerk. If you catch the reunion (the only one with all the participants involved) in 21 Up, you would see that he mingled with Tony (the Eastend boy) much better than what you would imagine.
Most of the public resentment for John, I believe, has more to do with his manner than his defense of class structure in England. However, if you pay attention to what he said ("It is not undesirable for people to take advantage of the opportunities/privilege they are given, it is only undesirable when they abuse the privilege", "What the program showed is just the advantage they have over the other, what it didn't show is the hard work they put in to get where they are"), he DOES have his points.
Contrary to what most America who are aliens to the British (educational) system think, just because you get into one of those prestige schools doesn't mean it is a free ride, it actually takes a lot of hard work to succeed in that, particularly when the expectation is so much more
In general, American's don't have problems with people working hard and gaining a lot of material benefits from that work.
We do have a problem with:
- People who act as if they are fundamentally superior human being rather than lucky or have good timing. Millions of people work very hard or have dozens of great ideas but don't manage to hit it big.
- People who don't do the hard work directly but live high off the money and prestige of hard working family members who came before them. Then act as if they are fundamentally superior or smarter human being rather than lucky to have been born to the correct woman.
If people saw John as being part of the 2nd group, he may perceive the negativity as resentment.
People prefer to see humbleness without condescension if someone is fortunate enough to be born into a priviledged lifestyle.
>>Oh, well that's different. Nevermind!<<
>In general, American's don't have problems with people working hard and
>gaining a lot of material benefits from that work.
Sure, but the thing is a series like this would never be able to or interested in showing the kind of hard work you need to put in even if you are in the privileged class as Peter is. All it could show is that they are *sent* to the best education the country gets to offer and it is easy to assume that they got to where they are simply because they "live high off the money and prestige of hard working family members". Certainly the series itself is not being objective about this(even Michael Apted admitted that in his commentary)
What you say has some valid points. From the information we've been shown, I don't believe Peter is part of the "hard work" wealthy.
Many times, families recently arrived at an affluent or wealthy lifestyle are proud to mention their relatively recent accomplishments. That is, if a person doesn't mention the source of their wealth or mention their "up by the boot straps" life experience, I assume they are at least 2 or 3 generations removed from the people who actually worked to make the transition. People who didn't have to go through financial hardships to attain their lifestyle often have a more entitled or contemptuous attitude.
Since we don't know everything about Peter's background, we can only go by how he presents himself. If people think he acts snotty, then that's how they'll react to him. It's a little unrealistic to expect no one to have a negative reaction if they feel like they are being looked down on.
>O Stands For Osom (awesome) ~ New York<
[deleted]
I found the DVD commentary on '42 Up' very difficult to hear, so I turned it off. The movie audio level was too high and Apted did not speak up.
shareI promise that this is the last time I will post! (And I think I'm doing it in the wrong order; I'm not quite sure how to use these.)
ALL is revealed in that fount of knowledge, Wikipedia.com. Look up "Up! Series" and it tells you everything you'd want to know about why people dropped out, and what happened to them.
Sadly, Peter was devoured by a fesnyng of ferrets while walking through the park one day (in the merry, merry month of May).
sharePeter was unhappy with his job as a teacher, quit, went back to school, and eventually became a lawyer. Apted gives the whole scoop on the DVD commentary for 42-UP.
share