Five Dedicated to Ozu

Five is by far Kiarostami's most perfected film. His art has reached a level of maturity that very few directors can ever dream of reaching. This is what minimalism really is : saying nothing yet expressing everything.

In a nutshell, Five is an experience for the sight. There is a strong narrative in every shots. Suspense is created from these Deleuzian pure optical/aural situations, you watch every wave hit the shore and suddenly your mind awakes. All of the elements of narrative films is right there, albeit being in their most absolute minimal form : suspense, tension, relief.

Five, unlike Hollywood films, works only if the viewer submits himself entirely to the experience. It takes cinema back to its very beginning : unipunctual "views", like Lumière films. One might argued that it's a film about cinema in many ways.

Five is actually a very entertaining film, as long as you walk in open minded and keep your brain active. Food for thoughts.

Life lessons from Abbas Kiarostami for a world based on the hurry and the continuous need for change and stimulation.

If you try to see the film when you are in a hurry you will think that this is a joke without any respect for your valuable time.

If you have any expectations from the film for something to happen you will be disappointed.

In any case why to spend 1+ hour for something that the scene change too slow.

It seems that the dogs in the shore enjoying more than us the simple things, leaving the time to pass by. Sitting lazy. We will stop the film and be in hurry to move in the next chapter of our lifes that has to offer something always better than the present moment.. Or perhaps sit and meditate this simple moment for what it is.

(Although personally I don't know the connection with Ozu)

The movie starts with a seascape at dawn where a piece of wood is caught between the shore and the sea until it breaks into two. One part drifts into the sea, and the other stays-perhaps a symbol of solitude and migration. Perhaps because of this seascape, which shows no specific geography, the next landscape reveals the geography of a non-Iranian country. Each sequence is remarkable, but two elements play a crucial role: sound and movement. The waves moving, the ducks gliding-that amazed me-and finally, the symphony of the night, the chorus of frogs and insects. In the fourth sequence, everything happens at night; images are blurred and indistinct, and only the sounds linger. Experiencing nature at night becomes a matter of listening rather than seeing.

Can this "film" be considered as a film? Imagine the situation: somebody puts a handy cam over a tripod and in front of a sea promenade and film people walking or jogging along it. Then, he places the camera in a beach, buys some ducks in a pet shop, open their cages and let them run in front of the camera. Later, he just films the water surface and the sound of birds and insects in an absolute darkness. Is it an experiment or just an insult to the audience intelligence? What would it happen if any unknown director did a film like that? Would we mark his job with 10? I always disappoint directors who believe that can do everything they want once they became famous.

No story-line which is OK, no Plot which is OK, no dialog which is again OK - NO concept! which is NOT auk. Many people have argued that this film has therapeutic and meditative qualities rather than entertaining! Really? would you like to sit in the theater chair with 200 other people around you and try meditate? There are five long shots of Beach, Ducks, Moon, blank screen and each stay for about 10-20 minutes with some background sounds. It's dedicated to Ozu and I think it's similar to Ozu's work as far as LOOK but definitely not similar as far as concept and storyline. I happen to love kiarostami's Taste of cherry, and slowly starting to wonder if he is being maybe alittle pretentious about certain things! Maybe!