Five Dedicated to Ozu

No-one so far has tackled the awkward question: what has this to do with Ozu? By using the great man's name in his title, this director has invoked certain expectations which he comes nowhere near to fulfilling. Where is Ozu's social commentary, his humour? Ozu was strongly motivated by telling stories: about post-war Japan; about troubled youth; about generational change. Kiarostami in his own words has said that he doesn't believe in narrative cinema. Let's move on. How can leaving scene composition to luck compare to the strictly composited (one might even say 'Japanese') cinematography of Ozu? Experimental, yes, creative in any true sense, no.

Ozu used fixed camera positions and arranged his actors deliberately and aesthetically, also he invented a tatami-level eye view, intensely personal. Kiarostami has employed static cameras for his audio/visual experiments (without being overly inventive). There the similarity ends. Hardly worthy to be called a tribute, a bit of coattail riding perhaps?

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!

"Five" suggests that we pause and embrace life's simplicity. In a world that often rushes us from one moment to the next, this film gently urges us to slow down and appreciate the unhurried beauty of existence.

Through its deliberate pacing and long sequences, "Five" invites us to reflect on the mysteries of life that often go unnoticed. It's a reminder that there's value in stillness and a deeper understanding to be found in the quiet moments.

This cinematic journey encourages us to break free from the frantic pace of modern life, even if only for a while, and to discover the profound in the ordinary. It serves as a meditative retreat, offering a different way of experiencing the world through the lens of art.

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.

I found it charming! Nobody else but Kiarostami can do so little and, yet, get so much. You might think I'm weird, but I was so charmed that I couldn't speak during the movie. While during other movies I comment a lot. The short movie made by him for Lumiere et Companie, the one with the eggs, that one is unbeatable in my heart, but this is wonderful, too. I liked it better than Ten. Kiarostami is, maybe, the best director in my opinion, because he can see things! He doesn't need to use a lot of stuff "brought from home" to illustrate his images, he simply grabs a camera. Not many can do that.. Maybe I don't know to much about movies but I don't care about complicate stuff, all someone has to do is touch my soul. Kiarostami does.