Five (1951) User Reviews

Little seen, little remembered, but still a landmark

[dinky-4 · 7/10 · 21 January 2003]

Post-nuclear-war dramas centering on a small group of survivors now constitute an entire genre in science-fiction films. All of them, in some way or another, can be traced back to this seminal film from 1951 in which five people deal with the possibility they are the only human beings left alive on the planet.

While most of the later movies exploited this possibility for B-movie thrills, "Five" adopts a quiet, contemplative tone which some may find dull but which thoughtful viewers are more likely to find, for want of a better word, haunting. There is something about this movie which gets under the skin and which lurks in the corners of the mind long after it's over.

Especially memorable is the trip to the city made by two of the survivors. The images of skeletons sitting in cars and buses still have an impact with their silent, disturbing, even horrifying beauty.

Some of the musical score now seems obtrusive and the dialog tends, at times, toward the pretentious -- perhaps a lingering effect from Arch Oboler's radio background -- but this low-budget, no-name, black-and-white production remains a landmark film which richly deserves to be rediscovered and honored.

Bleak end of mankind flick seems oddly like Bergman

[ddrucker-2 · 6/10 · 12 April 2002]

I 'd never heard of this movie, so I was surprised at how good it was, shoestring budget or not. The acting isn't that bad, although James Anderson (Eric) has one of the strangest accents I've ever heard (It's somewhere between London, Bombay and Berlin). One fascinating 6th surivivor in the movie is the house itself that most of the scenes take place in. It is a cliff house designed by the great American Architect , Frank Lloyd Wright. Somehow the house and scenery add an extra sense of elegance to the movie that would have been lost if it was set in another setting. The characters are frequently filmed against the spectacular views from the house's large glass windows, emphasizing their loneliness in a world now so large and unpopulated. The pacing is glacial and seems to dwell on the (frequently depressed) moods of the characters, bringing to mind Bergman films like Persona (although Arch Oboler is no Igmar Bergman). The most likeable character is Charles, played by Charles Lampkin, who would go on to appear in films as varied as 'The Man', 'Islands in the Stream' and 'Coccoon' as well as a semi-regular character 'Ralph' on Mayberry RFD. He has a sweetness and naturalness that makes his paraphrasing of the beginning of Genesis one of the high points of the movie. It's a pity that he wasn't born later, or we would have seen more of him than the string of uncredited appearances in movies throughout the 60s and 70s.

More a film noir than an S-F film.

[innocuous · 6/10 · 1 December 2010]

A bit overwrought and florid, but very enjoyable. Several reviewers pick on it because they seem to think that the characters are walking around in a totally depressed state throughout the movie. I don't see this at all. In fact, I perceive them as incredibly upbeat and positive about their situation, all things considered. One of the aspects of this film that I enjoy the most is the pure villainy of the bad guy. It's rare nowadays to see such an uncompromising and ungrateful jerk written into a script. He's human and believable, but he has no redeeming qualities at all. Also, he accomplishes this without the aid of technology, secret weapons, or even any sort of clever scheming or evil plans.

The cinematography is pretty good, with some startling shots and quite a bit of hand-held camera.

Finally, and I simply can't pass on this, the title is numerically correct for the majority of the movie. A couple other reviewers have stated that it is incorrect and I'm not sure if they're numerically challenged or what.

My feelings about this movie are genuine.

[Feasible · 2 February 1999]

My first and only viewing of this film was over 25 years ago on New York's old Million Dollar Movie channel 9. Its theme of how the human race almost put an end to itself was presented in a very simple, bleak and thought provoking manner by its director Arch Obelor. I often remember that movie as my first and most impressionable "end of mankind" movies. It was made on a shoestring budget, with unknown actors and yet I consider it the most powerful film of that genre. I have not seen it on television since and cannot find it on video. I still can envision that night as a young teen, after having viewed that movie, thinking of our world, our future and what humankind is capable of. Wherever a print of that film is, I wish our present generation could view it as food for thought. Thank-you for allowing me to express my opinions on a forgotten "little" film.

An Interesting Movie--The Small Budget May Have Helped

[bob-790-196018 · 6/10 · 6 February 2013]

In authoritative books about science fiction in the movies, Five is generally dismissed as crude and simplistic. There is justification for this, but somehow I found the picture interesting anyway. The fact that it was shot on a shoestring may even have helped. Being forced to use only five actors and a single ready-made set--his own Frank Llloyd Wright house in the California hills--director Arch Oboler created an intimate self-contained world.

This narrow focus increases the intensity of the drama, which, as an end-of-the-world story, has its own inherent interest.

The plot doesn't bear much looking into. The way these five people--out of the entire world population--came to be together amounts to wild coincidence. There is a certain amount of sermonizing of the why-can't-we-all-get-along variety. And so on--it's hardly a great movie.

But it's interesting nonetheless and worth looking into.

S10 Reviews: Five (1951)

[suspiria10 · 7/10 · 3 January 2006]

A friend sported me a copy of 'Five'. Frankly I must admit that I'd never heard of this little gem before. 'Five' tells the tale of five survivors of a nuclear holocaust trying to pick up the pieces of their lives and move forward. The film is wonderfully acted and nicely photographed in a way that reminded me of Romero's 'Night of the Living Dead'. Strict minimalism is on display as the actors convey 99% of all story and action told mostly at a cottage. 'Five' is pretty impressive stuff for it's time. The only real downside to the script is the fact that it hasn't aged well from a 'scientific' standpoint. Other than that anyone with a knack for classic SciFi would love to check out this lost gem.

Acting: * * * * (Excellent) Writing / Direction: * * * (Very Good) Technical Design * * * (Very Good) Music: * * * (Very Good) Overall: * * * (Very Good)

1951 Classic

[whpratt1 · 7/10 · 6 June 2008]

Enjoyed viewing this black and white film from 1951 dealing with a few people who were able to survive a nuclear war which killed millions of Americans. William Phipps, (Michael) lived in New York City and witnessed the entire city's population killed and he traveled to the West and was able to find a town where he could obtain food and shelter. As the film develops he meets up with a young woman named Roseanne Rogers, (Susan Douglas Rubes) who is pregnant and Michael takes her under his wing and tries to comfort her and he begins to fall in love with her. However, Roseanne wants to find her husband in the city and keeps her distance. There is three men and one woman who remain alive in this film and all these people begin to get on each other's nerves and this story takes on some very mysterious twists and turns.

Four men, one woman, and no zombies in sight.

[mark.waltz · 5/10 · 23 August 2013]

A decade before The Last Man on Earth and its updated remakes, The Omega Man and I am Survivor, this apocalyptic film came along to describe the day after tomorrow. Missing special effects, silly soap opera and stars, it focuses on how people try to change old habits and temptations, dealing with the deadly consequences of a nuclear attack. The one key sequence in this that helps it rise into something unique is when two antagonistic survivors make a tentative truce, citing the realization that this is important for continuing peace. A disturbing scene has the pregnant heroine venturing into a city which was obviously a target. More profound than the silly science fiction films with radio-active monsters, it suffers as a result of too much silence which makes these five face a fate worse than annihilation: isolation.

We own and watch it a lot My Husband was the Baby in movie

[cowgills-47097 · 10/10 · 29 May 2017]

I find it sad, my husband got no credits for this movie, He was not the new born baby. He was the baby she carried around with her to the city looking threw the hospital and they showing him dead along the creek...Now if you really watch it when he is dead his foot moves..HAHAHA we always get a laugh, they placed him next to Charles.. He was 3 or 4 months old. while his family was at the beach for the day, Arch Obler pulled over in his car and asked if he would could play in his movie, family said yes. his mom drove him out to the set everyday...James Kenneth Cowgill Jr..He was paid 395.00 for his part and family bought a new car...We love seeing old calif ..

Rich in Drama and Tragedy

[Uriah43 · 6/10 · 11 April 2013]

This movie starts off with a mushroom cloud and pictures of what were the greatest cities on earth. It then shows a young woman named "Roseanne Rogers" (Susan Douglas) in a disheveled condition walking down a lonely road in a state of shock and disbelief. She happens to see a cabin perched upon a mountain top and decides to take shelter there. Once inside she meets a man named "Michael Rogan" (William Phipps) who is as startled to see her as she is to see him. They think they are the last two people on earth. Until two more men show up and then a third. One of these men, "Eric" (James Anderson), believes that they have developed an immunity to the radiation and that they should drive to a city a few days away to look for more survivors. Michael believes that the city is dangerous due to high levels of radiation and unsafe. Now, rather than give the entire plot away I will just say that this is a surprisingly good movie for its time and it is rich in drama and tragedy. Definitely worth a watch for those who enjoy dystopian films of this nature.

Disappointing sci-fi drama

[IlyaMauter · 5/10 · 29 April 2003]

When I went to see this film, I didn't expect much of it but what I've got was even less. The film was written and directed by cult director-writer Arch Oboler, who had been known in US mostly for his work on radio where during the 1930s he made radio programs written by himself where the science fiction was the main theme, something similar to Orson Welles's "War of the Worlds" though they enjoyed much less popularity. "Five" is a story of five people that managed to survive after all life on earth was destroyed as a result of a nuclear war. Little about the story and acting in the film is particularly interesting, in fact I found it awfully boring and uninteresting. 5/10

Low-budget apocalypse.

[F Gwynplaine MacIntyre · 8/10 · 7 March 2006]

'Five' is the sort of science fiction I enjoy: long on ideas, short on rayguns and F/X. That's very likely why the movie flopped: most filmgoers seem to think that science fiction should have a big special-effects budget and no ideas at all.

This Cold War film depicts the fate of five desperate survivors in California after a nuclear war has wiped out nearly all human life. The film's atmosphere greatly benefits from the fact that its five cast members are all obscure actors, not recognisable from work elsewhere. Interestingly, the most familiar face in this cast is also the movie's only African-American: Charles Lampkin, who later portrayed the only black man in Mayberry. Lampkin also gives the best performance in 'Five', at one point reciting James Weldon Johnson's lyrical poem 'The Creation'.

'Five' is very much the personal vision of Arch Oboler, a writer now unjustly forgotten. Like Rod Serling (whom Oboler influenced), Oboler wrote in several genres but found that he could best put his ideas forward in the anthology format, and in the genres of science fiction and dark fantasy. Also like Serling, Oboler wrote scripts in several media but only had real success in one medium: television for Serling, radio for Oboler. Arch Oboler's science-fiction and horror radio series were the direct forebears of 'The Twilight Zone' and 'Night Gallery'.

The film's title -- 'Five' -- is somewhat of a misnomer, as one of the survivors (Mr Barnstaple) dies just before the arrival of another (Eric), so we never have interplay between more than four people. The film's ultra-low budget is cleverly used, especially in the sequences when Roseanne (pregnant with the child of her deceased husband) visits the dead metropolis, now a shattered necropolis. 'Five' also benefits from Oboler's choice of locations: he shot most of this film inside the rooms and on the grounds of his mountainside house, designed and landscaped by Frank Lloyd Wright. As with many of Wright's designs, there's a slightly askew quality to this house that brings an other-worldly undertone to this very still, very moody drama.

Some reviewers of 'Five' seem to regard the five protagonists as archetypes: for instance, the banker Mr Barnstaple, now senile and useless -- he doesn't even realise that the war has taken place -- allegedly represents Capital, now obsolete in a world where money is useless. I disagree. Barnstaple worked in a bank, but he wasn't an executive: he was an elderly clerk who happened to be in the underground vault when the bomb went off. If we're going to label these characters, then Barnstaple is white-collar labour, while Charles (the black man) is blue-collar labour. Michael, I guess, represents humanity's artistic side.

James Anderson, giving a James Mason-like performance, is excellent as the human snake in this post-apocalypse Eden. He portrays the elitist (not elite) intellectual, who clearly deems himself superior to Charles but avoids saying so until late in the proceedings, when he finally reveals his racial attitude. 'So ... now it comes out,' says Charles, who has clearly encountered racism before.

Lampkin's performance is excellent, but I felt that he and Oboler tried a bit too hard to establish his character as a virtuous black man. When Roseanne, the only female survivor, accepts Michael as her lover, Charles basically moves out of the house and sleeps rough in the back garden so that this Adam and Eve can have the place to themselves. I thought it would have been more realistic to depict all four survivors sharing the house, with Roseanne and Michael established as sharing one room, and the other two men sleeping elsewhere under the same roof.

Oboler gave himself a tough assignment with this project. It's not surprising that this film went belly-up at the box-office, and that Oboler's next projects were mindless entertainment ('Bwana Devil') and silly comedy tricked up as science fiction ('The Twonky'). 'Five' is real SF, and I'll rate this brave effort 8 out of 10.

Low Budget doesn't always mean bad picture

[calgal84 · 7/10 · 22 December 2012]

Surprisingly good apocalyptic film. Done on a very small budget, with no special effects, the story is engrossing and well written. While it is obviously a small budget and done in black and white, it feels much more realistic and the emotions and story line feel honest and true, unlike so many of the 1950s movies on the same subject. I stumbled on this movie by accident when they were playing all the end of world pictures for the 12-21-2012 date (which, of course, didn't happen). The movie is so very effective and terribly sad and yet, in the end, strangely hopeful for mankind. I liked this film so much, I think I'll do a little research on Arch Oboler, who produced, wrote and directed this film. Just proves you do not need a big budget to make a good and interesting - good writing, directing and acting.

One of a bazillion films like it...

[planktonrules · 4/10 · 14 September 2011]

The plot to "Five" is very, very, very familiar. Due to the nuclear age and natural fears of annihilation, Hollywood made a ton of apocalyptic films where a very, very small group of survivors somehow survived. Just off the top of my head, I can think of many films like "The World, The Flesh and The Devil", "The Last Woman on Earth", "The Last Man on Earth", "Robot Monster" and "Omega Man"--and I know there are many more. So, seeing "Five" sure gives me a big sense of déjà vu---so it's certainly not original--though I'll admit that it did come relatively early among these films.

So, if there are so many films like this one, and I assume you DON'T want to see them all, is "Five" one you should bother with or should you see some of the others instead? Well, my vote would be on the latter for one HUGE reason. "Five" is among the talkiest of all these movies. So often, nothing really happens and the people just talk and talk and talk. And so it never is exciting or weird like "Omega Man" or as profound as "The World The Flesh and The Devil" because, although there could be a good biracial sexual aspect to the film, it never occurs. The black man in "Five" is so nice that any sexual tension between him and the only woman (who is white) doesn't exist--though there is a one-dimensional racist among them. In fact, this guy is SO one-dimensional that he really seemed more like a plot device than anything else. "Five" is not a terrible film but it's just not all that good. My advice is watch it if you have nothing better to do or just hold out and find another similar film that is a bit better--such as "Omega Man" and "The World The Flesh and The Devil". But do NOT watch "Robot Monster" unless you are a serious glutton for punishment or are a confirmed masochist!

Always the one to look for mistakes, I noticed that some of the skeletons of dead people used in the film were clearly lab specimens--complete with springs holding the bones in the hand together! This is not an uncommon mistake and I've seen much worse examples in other films.

It's not perfect, it's not great...but I have a soft spot for it.

[adam-stern · 29 April 2004]

This is one of those cases where the flaws of the film in question are undeniable, and yet...there's something about this earnest little effort that gets to me. Perhaps there is something about the 50's look and feel and sound that I find winning; the actors do their best by the overripe but affecting script; and there is also the fact that, however primitively, the movie does attack prejudice and bigotry as the disgusting things they are. The strong background score by Henry Russell is really quite beautiful in spots, terrifying in others -- the slow orchestral buildup in the scene where Roseanne finds her husband gives me the shivers whenever I hear it. Personally, I don't find the film boring; once you ease into its rhythm it plays quite well. And the ending...well, yes, you can see it coming a mile away; but keep a handkerchief ready just in case.

Ahead of its time.

[Hey_Sweden · 7/10 · 23 August 2015]

Writer / producer / director Arch Oboler conceived this landmark, meagerly budgeted post- apocalypse drama, one of the very earliest of its kind. It brings together five strangers: a poet & philosopher named Michael (William Phipps), a young pregnant woman named Roseanne (Susan Douglas Rubes), a black man named Charles (Charles Lampkin), a bank clerk named Mr. Barnstaple (Earl Lee), and a mountain climber named Eric (James Anderson). After the bombs decimate much of American life, these five people find each other, and spend time at an isolated cliff side house (Obolers' real life, Frank Lloyd Wright-designed home). Various personality conflicts form the basis for the plot as these people struggle to survive, debate methodology, and air grievances.

Also utilizing a poem dubbed "Creation" by James Weldon Johnson, Oboler tries his hardest to create something fairly profound. Stark b & w photography by Sid Lubow and Louis Clyde Stoumen is an asset, and the tale is enacted with sensitivity by its well chosen cast of actors who were, at the time, relative unknowns. The biggest sparks fly when Eric is revealed as a racist, and also somebody who will question things and be certain that there have to be other "immune" survivors living out there somewhere. On the other hand, Michael isn't sure that the cities will be safe. Roseanne is understandably distraught not knowing the fate of her husband.

As one can imagine, this is a pretty intimate story, and it attempts to show how human flaws can still manifest themselves under extreme circumstances. It's at its most chilling when showing how truly alone our characters seem to be, with shots of forlorn streets and buildings and skeletons that are the grim reminders of the devastation wrought by the atomic explosions.

"Five" earns points for good intentions and ambitions, and it stands in contrast to more action-oriented giant monster features of the Atomic Age.

Seven out of 10.

Bleak

[BandSAboutMovies · 6/10 · 4 March 2023]

Arch Oboler was a key innovator of radio drama, as well as someone with a big personality and the ego to match. Starting his career with a spec script called The Futuristics and getting into trouble with his first show where he made fun of sponsor American Tobacco, this set the tone for Oboler's writing career. But after three years of working on scripts he probably hated, Oboler's script for Rich Kid was picked up by Rudy Vallee which led to a great job writing scripts for Don Ameche on The Chase and Sanborn Hour.

After Wyllis Cooper left the show Lights Out to work in Hollywood (he wrote Son of Frankenstein), the show was given to Oboler. Already a series known for its violence, the new writer upset listeners with his very first episode which ended with a young girl being buried alive and not rescued. Playing at midnight with no sponsor, Lights Out was still under the watchful eye of censors, yet Cooper worked in anti-fascist messages and created episodes like "Chicken Heart," in which a chicken heart grows so large it destroys the planet. More controversy would follow when he wrote an Adam and Eve script for Ameche and Mae West where West was an Eve that wanted to lose her virginity and voluntarily leave the Garden of Eden. Between that story airing on The Chase and Sanborn Hour on a Sunday and West later trading suggestive back and forth bon mots with Edgar Bergen's dummy Charlie McCarthy - she said, "Come on home with me, honey. I'll let you play in my wood pile." - West was barred from radio until 1950.

Meanwhile, Ameche, Bergen and Oboler got away with it. In fact, Oboler soon started his own NBC radio show Arch Oboler's Plays. West, who once said "I believe in censorship. I made a fortune out of it," went on to great success on stage, in Vegas and in the movies. She invested her money in real estate so well that she could pretty much do anything she wanted after this. For example, when one of her boyfriends, boxer William Jones, was denied entry to her Ravenswood apartment building because of a ban on African-Americans, West bought the whole building and changed the rules.

But I digress.

Oboler's show went up against Jack Benny, but he was also able to adapt stories like Dalton Trumbo's Johnny Got His Gun. The show ended up being successful and got Proctor and Gamble as a sponsor, coming back as Everyman's Theatre. Oboloer hated that the sponsors had an ad in the middle of his show and was out of radio for a year before coming back for the World War II propaganda show Plays For Americans. He lost that show when he made a speech at the Radio Institute at Ohio State. Oboler believed that his show should instill hatred of the enemy in the listener, which some took as he was just as bad as the enemy.

After bringing back Lights Out and creating several other propaganda radio shows, there was only one place left for Oboler. Like Orson Welles before him, he went to Hollywood. Some of his better films include Strange Holiday and Bewtitched, as well as the 3D films he innovated like Bwana Devil and The Bubble. He also created the TV series Oboler's Comedy Theatre, had plays made of his work, published several books and was still writing radio dramas for Mutual Radio Theater as late as 1980. His writing inspired - obviously - Rod Serling as well as Don Coscarelli, who has spoken of how much the Oboler movie The Twonky frightened him as a kid.

I told you all that to tell you about Five, a movie that stands out on the Mill Creek Thrillers from the Vault set because while everything else is comedic or harmless, Five is absolutely brutal.

The only survivors of a nuclear bomb are the Five: Roseanne Rogers (Susan Douglas Rubes), Michael (William Phipps), Oliver P. Barnstaple (Earl Lee), Charles (Charles Lampkin) and Eric (James Anderson). Roseanne is pregnant, which is the only thing that stops Michael from assaulting her. Oliver is an old man who quickly dies after meeting the group. And Eric is a racist who can't work with Charles, a black man.

Eric is the reason why so much goes wrong: he destroys the crops of the group, murders Charles and sneaks off Roseanne and her newly born son after she wonders if she can ever find her missing husband. By the end of the film, Eric has shown signs of radiation poisoning and runs off to die, while Roseanne makes the long walk back to Michael with her child dying on the way. All they can do is tend to the soil and make it one more day together.

One of the first movies to show what the atomic bomb would do, Five pulls no punches, killing people with no concern of age or race.

Speaking of race, having an African-American lead was a big idea in 1951. Obolor saw Lampkin read the James Weldon Johnson poem "The Creation" on a local Los Angeles TV show and it's the speech that the actor reads in Five. It was possible the first time many in the U. S., Latin America and Europe would have heard African-American poetry.

Even the setting of Five is unique. It was shot in the Frank Lloyd Wright-designed Cliff House on the Eaglefeather ranch that Oboloer owned. It was not without tragedy in real life, as on April 7, 1958, Oboler's six-year-old son Peter drowned in rainwater. During the 2018 Woolsey Fire, the Cliff House burned to the ground.

Made for just $75,000 - Oboler used recent graduates from the University of Southern California film school and unknown actors - this was sold to Columbia for a profit. This would not be the last end of the world movie; in fact, Planet of the Apes ends on the same beach where Eric washes ashore. It is, however, one of the most somber ones.

Atomic mishap survivor story, obscure film worth watching...

[marshalskrieg · 6/10 · 20 September 2015]

Probably the first post atomic apocalyptic film, made in 1951. This is a good film, not great, but a solid early science fiction flick- this one is different in the sense that there are no monsters or dangerous marauders- there are just five survivors who must deal with each other, with dramatic results. This is a tale of major interpersonal conflict, a small group trying to cope with the aftermath of some sort of nuclear catastrophe.

The plot is a bit thin, the characters are a bit one dimensional and get involved in maybe too many mundane activities, yet this is a taut story that keeps you guessing what the end will be...against a lovely outdoors backdrop and memorable vistas, the expected sometimes never happens, a testament to the directors talents. Overall, the film 'works' but I wish certain avenues could have been explored that were shunned in this effort- but for a low budget, about $75,000, this one punches above its weight category. 5.9 stars.

A home designed by Frank Loyd Wright is featured, this was owned by the director.

Please bury this movie.

[jny1091 · 3/10 · 12 December 2011]

I just sat through 90min of this movie & have come to the conclusion that eating broken glass with mayonnaise would be more pleasant.

The sluggish, lethargic plot is AWFUL...I wouldn't know where to begin. Lack of realism infests this movie on many levels.

The explanations as to why each character survived the atomic holocaust are paltry as well as unscientific.

Anytime a movie begins & ends with a biblical quote, beware! The only reason I gave this awful movie 3 out of 10 stars is because it was shot very well, and the sound is good but the story is excruciating.

It's a rare movie that needs to stay rare...sorry.

A superb, gripping movie you'll never forget.

[casablanca · 9/10 · 11 March 2000]

This movie proves that, like giving birth, even inexperienced, poorly funded and virtually unknown independent individuals can produce a masterpiece. Once you have seen this movie, you will never forget it. A "Day After" movie that will have you mentally holding your breath hoping these five people will be able to start rebuilding the human race and repopulate the earth. But wait, these are not special hand picked superior examples of humanity. They are common everyday people who bring their own baggage to their situation. Racism, lust, suspicions, envy, pride, you name it. Will humanity survive, and learn, or will they follow the same path that led inexorably to the final conflict that laid waste to the planet. A similar movie, "The World, The Flesh and The Devil" with Harry Belafonte and Inger Stevens while very good, in my view, doesn't achieve the stark realism of "FIVE"

Last one out, turn off the waterfall.

[copper1963 · 7/10 · 27 May 2008]

Arch Oboler's apocalyptic earth-shaker still packs a mighty punch. Searing at times, this thoughtful, loquacious drama follows the struggles of a poet, a pregnant woman, a banker, his bank teller and a mountain climber, as they search for safety, viands, and a new beginning. You have to hear the mountain climber's roundabout explanation on how he survived. It defies logic. They all surface at the director's home, a "Frank Lloyd Wright" creation embedded into the mountainside. Oboler, I believe, intentionally mixes disparate influences into the narrative: European Neo-Realism, art house/independent film fair and 50's-style television/anthology convictions. No fooling around. And it all comes together in the end. The death and destruction of society is handled with little commotion. The special effects are limited but effective. The director simply scatters some skeletons here and there and topples over some vehicles. The metropolis is lifeless and intact. It's coldly effective. I like how the older banker is given more dimensions than usual: his money worthless, he wishes only to see the ocean one last time. Wistful. He is an empathetic character. The black man is the saint here. He is hardworking, quick-minded and a decent man who doesn't deserve his fate. The foreigner is a lost cause, a traveler who doesn't wish to plant any roots. Not in this limited colony, anyway. He is smart--but evil. At all costs, stay far away from him. The poet is the avid reader and philosopher. He sees himself as the best choice for leader. He clashes (often) with the adventurer. The pregnant woman is mankind's final hope; the "Eve" to the poet's "Adam." The child she is carrying is you-know-who. It all ties together in one smooth swath of cloth. Or does it?

An excellent example of post-apocalyptic genre, maybe the first!

[inews-2 · 8/10 · 18 September 2007]

You can read the IMDb.com listings for the details, so I won't rehash those here. As far as I can tell, "Five" is the first film with survivors of a global nuclear holocaust. "Things to Come" (1936) did deal with a post-global war devastation of civilization, but it wasn't nuclear. There were lots of survivors in Things to Come, but true to HG Wells' inclinations, they split into barbarians and technologists. (pre-Morlocks/Eloi)

"Five" presumes only five people survived. With so few characters, they do tend to fit into archetypes, each embodying something about humanity. For my two cents, Rosanne (whom the story really centers upon) embodies the Hope of mankind, and as such, is always looking back. She's always hopeful (even in a dower way) that her husband survived, that people can get along, that some others might have survived too. Michael embodies Pragmatism. He works hard, fixes the shelter, tries to plant a crop of corn, etc. He's always focused forward, defiantly refusing to look back (e.g. go down into the cities). There's a natural tension between the two.

Later arrivals, Charles and Mr. Barnstaple, add to the mix. Mr. Barnstaple, a doddering old bank clerk, seems to represent mankind's old ways of thinking -- jobs, capital, investments, etc. All that was blown away with the bombs, but Mr. Barnstaple (now suffering from radiation-induced dementia) keeps talking about being on vacation. Writer/Director Oboler seems to give the Old World a kind-hearted burial by letting Mr. Barnstaple go and see the ocean (which he loved) before he passes away quietly, on the beach. Goodbye old world.

Charles is a lot like Rosanne, full of hope, but not about finding parts of the old world survive. He's like Michael in focusing on the future. As an oppressed black man in late 40s America, his hope is tinged with freedom from the old world. Charles, too, is a hard worker. The scenes of white Michael and black Charles, working side by side with shirts off (fixing the roof, planting the corn) was a pretty bold racial-equality statement for 1951.

Eric, as another reviewer said, is the serpent in the garden of Eden. He represents the dark side of humanity. He's egotistical, lazy, lustful, greedy and willing to kill. As Eric is trying to whisk Rosanne away to the city in the wee hours, Charles discovers them. Eric kills Charles in a sort of Cain killing Abel parallel. In keeping with the serpent motif, Eric tricks Rosanne into coming with him to the city with the pretense that they were just checking for survivors. "Down in the city is everything we've ever wanted." Once there, Rosanne finds the skeleton of her husband. No hope in the city anymore. Eric scoffs at Rosanne's request to go back. "You think I brought you here to take you back? You're mine as long as I want you." In the ensuing scuffle, Eric's shirt is torn, revealing the welts of radiation sickness. He doesn't handle it as nobly as Mr. Barnstaple. Eric runs away crying.

Rosanne eventually makes her way back to the cliff-top house and Michael. Along the way, her baby dies. This struck me as odd at first, since the baby seemed to represent the new-beginning motif. But on second thought, the baby represented the last vestige of the old world. Rosanne's baby from her dead husband Steven. Once that last vestige of the old was gone, Rosanne was ready to stop looking back at the old, and face the new. The movie ends with her walking up to Michael who is re-tilling the corn field. She carries a shovel too, and says, "I'm ready to help you now." (helicopter lift pan out)

Like many of the post-apocalypse genre, there is a hope of mankind rising phoenix-like from the ashes. Civilization was destroyed, but not man himself. "On the Beach" (1959) was a bold departure from this formula. There, everyone died and stayed dead. In "Five," mankind's pragmatic nature triumphs, but only after letting go of hope for saving the old world, and shedding the sinful old man (as typified by Eric).

Like several other 50s sci-fi films, there is a strong dose of religious point of view. The film opens with nuclear blasts, clouded skies and quote from Psalm 103:16. "The deadly wind passeth over it, And it is gone: And the place thereof Shall know it no more..." (note: the word "deadly" was added. It's not in the Bible). The Charles character quotes from a black poet who wrote a paraphrase of the creation account in Genesis, but it's the poet's words, not biblical quotes. The end quotes from the Book of Revelation (ch.21) about the coming of the New Heaven and New Earth. Amid all the human struggle in Five was a spiritual undercurrent.

While any mention of God seems to really wrankle some sci-fi fans, the Christian cosmology makes an interesting background to the action in "Five." Man's self-destruction isn't seen as a great Oops, but as expected. The modern world didn't make a wrong turn, so much as it knowingly drove off a cliff. The survival of a remnant is also, then, seen as prophesied. The remnant of mankind didn't WILL itself to survive, but was ALLOWED to live. The more religiously minded 50s audiences would have gotten this. The more godless minded of today miss this completely.

Finding a copy of Five was a major challenge. It's little known, but there are some sites out there which have copies. I think Five was worth the effort. It's a great addition to a post- apocalyptic movie collection.

"And the living shall envy the dead..."

[BrentCarleton · 7/10 · 10 May 2008]

Seeing this as a six year old on a local television channel in 1963 proved a traumatizing experience! One that generated nightmares for years.

Why you ask?--the sight of a forlorn, bedraggled, and very wretched young woman (Susan Douglas) wondering in absolute exhaustion, back bent, arms dangling forward through a skeleton infested ghost town. Only the wind and a few birds accompany her solitary odyssey.

Even in her exhaustion, she screams out "Somebody help me!" to no avail, her shouts in counterpoint to a tolling church bell the wind has activated, a bell and church no longer destined to call forth any living congregants.

Susan Douglas's predicament: a world in which she is seemingly the sole survivor--her emotional response: benumbed stupor--proved far more unsettling to this six year old than the exploits of Frankenstein.

Seen in 2008, those haunting images still retain their unsettling power. Miss Douglas, by the way, later became a regular cast member of the daytime serial, "The Guiding Light."

an overlooked masterpiece

[panaboydean · 22 March 2002]

i first saw five on the late show when i was in highschool in the mid-60's and i never forgot it, images from it stayed with me--i saw it again in the late 70's or so and then, the last time, in the early 90's on tnt (and taped it and loaned it to someone and never saw it again)--the last time i watched it i was astonished at how visually perfect it is, in many ways too perfectly staged--often the light is coming directly from the horizon like a maxfield parrish painting and i've often wondered if the actors and crew had day jobs and the whole thing was done early in the morning or late in the evening--leonard maltin likes it and comments negatively on its "purple prose", which is true, but i'm a noir fan and it's fun--i can't believe this isn't available on tape or dvd--obler's frank lloyd wright house is a treat too.

Likable, neat classic of the post—apocalyptic fare

[Cristi_Ciopron · 6/10 · 9 August 2010]

Dismissable as post—apocalyptic goofiness from the 'duck and cover' age, when the Hiroshima memories and the Cold War with the soviets made people think about the nuclear threat and dream about possibilities of survival in a post—nuclear wasteland, FIVE, by Arch Oboler, has chosen the resources of a dramatic poem, resounding with over—the—top rhetoric in the beginning (but quickly reaching a genuinely lyrical level at times, and a dramatic note), over those of the paranoiac thriller, and is, in many ways, a very rewarding melodrama; I think it's a charming and interesting Sci Fi, neat, humane in its fairness, thickly sentimental, unusual and surely better written than the lowbrow post—apocalyptic exploitation, rewarding for the connoisseurs of old genre flicks, I liked the actress (Susan Douglas) and the cinematography, the exciting if conventional diversity of the assembled characters, the attempt at dealing with the harshness, but also a certain mildness at times. FIVE is enjoyable as an attempt to reformulate, in the genre movies' syntax, the sadness, the lyricism, the shock of suddenly finding oneself in a deserted world, it does a bit of psychology, and is an auteur work (I do not know who this Arch Oboler was, but I like his ambition of giving a respectable face to a genre); which doesn't make it less goofy and more Tarkovsky, but nonetheless gives it a peculiar place.

Regarding the style, FIVE illustrates the expressionism of the 'duck and cover' ads and of the pacifist propaganda. It is loud, dramatic, sharp, fast, overstated.

Anyway, Roseanne's idea of taking the baby with her in her quest and exposing him to the high levels of radiation in the city seems less happy; it also seems strange to me that none of these scriptwriters realizes that with all the engines and generators and machines that will not slow down by themselves and none's around to turn them off, the cities would soon explode, blow, etc.. All the engines and machines that work would need someone to turn them off; otherwise, all kinds of accidents would occur. In the same way, the food will not simply be stored; because this storage would be disturbed to.

So, the nuclear blasts would not simply freeze the world, as in a crystal ball. The engines would go on working till they break and produce accidents; the cities would quickly become uninhabitable, and sources of a second wave of catastrophes. In these post—apocalyptic stories, the world seems to freeze, to hibernate, to get into some kind of cryogenic existence, preserved from all further destruction and deterioration. But why? The chaos of the engines would soon follow; all the engines working at the moment of the nuclear blast would continue to work—till random breakdowns and accidents would produce a string of urban destructions. The trains that none would stop, the cars, the power generators, etc..

A world suddenly, instantly deserted by all its inhabitants would be like a motor speeding with no driver; who says that motor would quickly slow down and all motion fade? On the contrary —a disaster would soon follow.

In these movies, the scriptwriters believe that all engines and motors and machines would simply stop, causing no harm.

And if you, fair reader, will ever write a post—apocalyptic story, either for print or screen, take my word of advice, think about all the harm the unstopped engines would produce—and also credit that Romanian Sci Fi fan for having given you the idea.

And why not think also about Crusoe, the primeval couple (in fact, 'Charles' says the story of the Genesis), the Flood and, since we live in the age of the TV series, when most of the people feel compelled to watch as many TV rubbish as possible, about LOST?