Five Dedicated to Ozu

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!

Coming from Kiarostami, this art-house visual and sound exposition is a surprise. For a director known for his narratives and keen observation of humans, especially children, this excursion into minimalist cinematography begs for questions: Why did he do it? Was it to keep him busy during a vacation at the shore?

"Five, 5 Long Takes" consists of, you guessed it, five long takes. They are (the title names are my own and the times approximate):

"Driftwood and waves". The camera stands nearly still looking at a small piece of driftwood as it gets moved around by small waves splashing on a beach. Ten minutes.

"Watching people on the boardwalk". The camera stands still looking at the ocean horizon and a boardwalk. People walk across the camera frame, their faces too far and blurry to make them interesting. Eleven minutes.

"Six dogs at the water's edge". The camera stands still looking at the ocean horizon with a sandy stretch of beach nearby. Far away at the water's edge, six dogs not doing much, just relaxing. Sixteen minutes.

"Ducks in line, gaggle of ducks". The camera stands still looking at the ocean horizon near the water's edge. Dozen and dozen of ducks stream in single file from left to right. I assume that Kiarostami released them gradually. The last two ducks stop dead on their track and suddenly a gaggle of ducks rolls quietly from right to left. I assume Kiarostami collected the ducks and re-released all at the same time. It is not the first time that he deals with the contrast between organized and disorganized behavior. Eight minutes.

"Frog symphony, oops, I mean cacophony, for a stormy night". The camera stands over a pond at night. It's pitch black except for what appears to be the reflection of the moon on the undulating water. It is a stormy night and clouds race to cover the moon. The screen goes dark. What remains for us is the cacophony of frogs, howling dogs and, eventually, morning roosters. Hit me on the head if this was done in a single take. I saw this segment as a sound composition put together in the editing room and accompanied by a simple visualization. Twenty seven minutes!

Except for the mildly amusing ducks, this exercise in minimalism left me cold. A nonessential film for Kiarostami admirers.

I thought I would rate "Five" a five, but four is what it deserves.

The film is dedicated to Yasujiru Ozu.

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)

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.

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?