Annotated much?

Note: If you're reading my blog and find that my posts tend to vary a lot, good! Sometimes reading random pieces of writing are better than reading a single theme over and over again. The following are my first annotated bibliographies. Writing them was harder than I thought, but hopefully I did a good job. Here I go!

Thorne, B. "The Seven Up! Films: Connecting the Personal and the Sociological."Ethnography 10.3 (2009): 327-40. Print.

In the article “The Seven Up! Films: Connecting the Personal and the Sociological," Barrie Thorne argues how over the years the UP! Films loosened from Apted’s original theme, how social classes and inequalities in England determined an individual’s life, and focused on each individual’s humanity. Throughout her article, Thorne depicts how the Jesuit Maxim became a hypothesis rather than a fact as the series’ now emphasized each individual’s evolution throughout life’s course, his family or intimate relationships and his unique personality in a social context. Thorne acknowledges Apted’s challenges (as an ethnographer) to review and update each film, but she believes the shift provides “a growing sense of complexity and contingency… [that] unsettles the linear image of pre-set destinations.” (339)  In addition to offering an overview of the films’ shift to human nature, Thorne’s article also provides insight of how sociological patterns and issues can be discussed in an individual manner.

Apted, Michael. "Michael Apted Responds." Ethnography 10.3 (2009): 359-67. Print.

In the article "Michael Apted Responds," Apted discusses what he believes is the nature of the Up! Films and defends his decisions and the outcomes of each film from critics (i.e. Barrie Thorne, Mitchell Duneier and Paul).  Throughout the article Apted argues that the films are inspired on his view of the world and that there is no philosophy in them because each film was unplanned; that as the series progressed, he felt a burden to modify his initial decisions concerning sociological context and the audience reception and to make new decisions such as: controlling his determinism to focus on each participant’s close-up. Apted acknowledges his work gets him in trouble, but he still criticizes the writers’ attempts to predict the outcome of each film due to his editing and the series’ shift in theme. Apted argues his editing style became more neutral over time, especially, after the participants began to choose exercise power of what would be omitted in each film and that the humanizing and outcome of the series was inevitable, “the retreat from class politics, was organic and inexorable, and not the will of some bottom-line.”(366) In addition to explaining the inside story behind the series in order to satisfy critiques with the truth, Apted also clarifies what the series is and is not, why larger social issues were be included or excluded.

Ebert, Roger. "The Up Documentaries (1985)." Rogerebert.com. Sun-Times, 25 Oct. 1985. Web. .

In the article “The Up Documentaries (1985)”, Ebert provides an overview of the the subjects’ changes from 7Up! to 42Up and relates his experiences viewing the series over time.  Throughout his article, Ebert argues that regardless of the erosion in the English class system, the subjects’ had different personalities as children that did not determine who they would be, if they ended up doing what they wanted to do or were living unhappy lives in future years. Also, that as the series develops he got to know the subjects personally, “because I know what they dreamed of at 7, their hopes at 14, the problems they faced in their early 20s, and their marriages, their jobs, their children, even their adulteries.” For Ebert, revisiting the subjects over time led to a self-examination of his life at ages 7, 14, 21, 28, 35 and 42 and why he was in the place he was at his current age.