FIVE


Hey everyone,

Its amazing that anyone remembers this movie. I think it is still relevent to the threats we face today and I intend to write about it. I also have a special connection to the movie: The late Charles Lampkin is my grandfather.
If anyone has or wants to create a review of the movie, please send it to me. Regards, Daniel Bruno Sanz [email protected]

reply

hi bruno,

just saw 'five' in lisbon, portugal, europe. apparently it was the first film depicting a post-apocalyptic situation.

i thought there were a lot of layers in the film. from social critique to moralism, from allegory to fairy tale.

i also thought your grandfather was very good actor. i was very surprised to see a black character in a white film, given that segregation was in full bloom stil in the usa at the time.

i hope you had much opportunity to spend with your grandfather, as he may have been able to tell you incredible stories.

good luck with collecting people's thoughts on this film,

ciao!
cherifa

now was once the future

reply

Thank you Cherifa. Did you see FIVE in a movie theatre? On Television? Were there Portuguese subtitles? Here is an essay I wrote about the movie:

www.huffingtonpost.com/.../bad-dreams-from-my-grandf_b_250751.html -

reply

Excellent essay! Your grandfather was indeed ahead of his time, and a fine actor. I was impressed with his performance in _Five,_ and was also impressed by the filmmakers, who, until the character of Eric shows himself to be a racist, treat Charles as just another survivor with nary a mention of his race. Who would have thought that such a low-budget film could be so forward-thinking?

Now if they could only have dispensed with those silly skeletons... :-D

reply

i was very surprised to see a black character in a white film, given that segregation was in full bloom stil in the usa at the time.


Cherifa, there was a minor surge of films dealing with race issues at about the time "Five" came out. Try catching "No Way Out", "Intruder in the Dust", or "Pinky", all from about that same time. Or Google "social problem films", as they were commonly called back then.

Sadly, as the early 50's progressed, the McCarthy types gained the upper hand. They didn't take kindly to Hollywood airing the country's dirty laundry in public, and started questioning the patriotism of the producers, writers and studios that made these films. Understandably, that sent a chill through the industry, and the surge of problem films was attenuated for most of the rest of the decade.

reply

Watching it. Scared hell out of me as a little kid. Expected the usual rubber monsters that we had told adults was the reason to allow us to see it. No giant ants or sea monsters. We just sat there trying to come to grips with it.
Opening part has woman going along the street and there is this partially blocked sign behind her. I half missed it first view but then then showed it again over her shoulder.
OAK RIDG w/o the E. Adult audiences caught that atomic meaning. Quick cut to fading newspaper headlines about the coming threat.
Film has some elements of the dark creep that informs Night of the Living Dead that came later. Severe shadows, busted up people, gloom & doom, common folk caught in dead end world. Not in suburbs at all.
Fifties not all Disney candy colors. Guy with a scope rifle would play a role in US politics in another 10 years but here he is key to surviving.
Certainly worthy film that will keep its place in the genre of films like M, Carnival of Souls, those kind.
Does make me grateful for the fake monsters, wire guide lines and goofs letting us know this was 'just a movie'. FIVE a whole lot closer to the bone. Even now.



reply

I remember seeing this movie on TV in the early 60's. My family and I sat in the living room and at a young age was really interested in seeing the movie. I remember every time during the movie they would go to commercial and come back to the movie they would show a picture of what looked like a hurricane and you heard loud noises like high winds during a hurricane. I would like to find a copy of it but it does not seem to exist. Ed Love

reply

Great movie, but what makes no sense at all is that you wouldn't have all these dead people in a city without any destruction...the trees are fine, the buildings and streets show no signs of burning. It's more like there was a plague than an atomic bomb.

reply

A Neutron Bomb destroys flesh not objects. If a bomb is exploded high in the sky, there is less destruction of property because the radiation kills. Ground burst throws dirt and whatever up in the air, goes into the jet stream and becomes fallout.

reply

In the movie, they talk only of the Atomic Bomb, so that is why it made no sense.
You can't talk about a Neutron Bomb in 1951 because there was no such thing at that time, not even conceptually to the general public. That is why that part of the movie made no sense.

reply

READ Air Burst then!

reply