Very Cool!!!

Brilliant and touching

This is a small, humorous movie in some ways, but it has a huge heart. What a nice experience.

A terrific literary drama and character piece that shows how the process of creating art can be seen differently by those doing it and those looking at it from the outside.

Максим Горький (Maxim Gorky), the novel author, has a direct link with the origin of cinema, as he was one of the first to write about it; on the 22th of June in 1896 Gorky witnessed one of the earliest film productions of the Lumière brothers, an experience that would be the basis for 'in the realm of shadows'.Gorky was impressed by film's potential to be an universal language, the ability which Мать (Mother) illustrates by adapting his written work to the screen so even the illiterate Russian people could understand his story.Всеволод Пудовкин (Vsevolod Pudovkin)'s style is more akin to the social realism (although this is influenced by the fact that the novel can be categorised as social realism) that Stalin would prefer, in contrast to the more abstract and jarring montage of Сергей Эйзенштейн (Sergei Eisenstein). A particular form of montage that he used in this film is worth mentioning, namely the fragmentation of action. Pudovkin 'cuts' the action into several different shots that only show a part or fragment of the action, when assembled in a montage the viewer's mind fills in the blanks (cf. Gestalt psychology) to create the illusion of a complete action. The most known example of this technique in Film is probably the shower scene from Psycho. This in itself proves the impact the Russian film school has had on film practices in general.To conclude, Мать (Mother) is historically important and on some parts technologically innovative. However, if it seen on itself and in comparison to other works of the time, for me it does not hold up as well as most film theorists and critics would have you believe.

Mother follows a divided family during a workers strike in the Russian Revolution of 1905. After the father is killed in a skirmish and the son is sentenced to work at a labor camp, the mother revises her ideology and helps to plan a prison escape. The film concludes with troops subduing the revolt and the death of the mother and son at the hands of the soldiers. Vsevstol Pudovkin's (1893-1957) method of montage more closely resembles Kuleshov's "brick laying" method, where the combination of cutting helps to more effectively convey or dramatize an event, in contrast to Eisenstein who advocated a montage of colliding images to generate a meaning that cannot be depicted on film. The film may be silent, but the sounds are transmitted from the image. We feel the silence drop in the bar as the father demands vodka. Mother marks a clear development in the structure and formation of the motion picture, but modern day audiences may be desensitized to the films spell. The film utilizes a cinematic language familiar to the contemporary moviegoer, but we may take the easily followed, continuous action and cutting that develops suspense for granted as we witness everyday movie vocabulary in its conception. While Pudovkin shared different theoretical views from Eisenstein, the film includes abstract sequences as well. After the death of the father, Pudovkin cuts to several images of trees blowing in the wind as a break in the action. He draws a parallel between blocks of ice plummeting down a river and the crowds of people marching, while also establishing simultaneous action for a crucial plot point near the end of the film. Mother also experiments with subjectivity, as we iris to the mother's memory of her son hiding weapons (using an x-ray vision effect to show the storage beneath the floorboards) and as we are given images of water and a child after Pavel reads the getaway plan as if to show his yearning for freedom. While the portrayal and privileging of a hero, the prison escape sequence and the climactic chase renders Mother rather Hollywood, ultimately the film is too tragic to be a Hollywood film.

What is it, where is it, how will it affect me? The following of one woman's struggle against Tsarist rule during the Russian Revolution of 1905. Мать, the pristine and devastating silent early work of the bustling mid-1920s Soviet Propaganda film industry, is a triumph on many levels. The ethos surrounding films like it of that certain age and origin: Eisenstein and his similar other Godly directors, is heavily scholarly, intellectual and time-dedicated, so to analyse Мать inside out really is well and truly beyond the amateur's concern to be a condescending writer. But, to be realistic, it's a naïve disgrace to formality if a list doesn't feature one of them on it. Vsevolod Pudovkin, a less known director of the decade's masterminds yet still heralded as a legend by his cult following for his innovative and often deeply personal practice, directs my personal, instinctive pick. Voted by an international panel of critics at the Brussel's World Fair as the 6th greatest film made up until the fateful judging day in 1958, it often loses limelight to the likes of Eisenstein's courageous, raw, untamed Battleship Potemkin and Dovzhenko's calmer, traditionally beautiful social study Earth. Мать, of course in its silent wisdom, force-feeds a supremely strong and vivid depiction of an individual struggle in a time of social instability. Whereas most works of the 1920s Soviet silent era focus on crowd mentality: whereby the struggle is depicted more of a Bayeux Tapestry of confusion and oppression, Pudovkin's take is lovely to see, and from the first few bold moments of Мать, we are introduced to our refreshingly small circle of main characters: a father, a mother, and a son. Few members of the audience will fail to identify with one person in such a configuration, as the aged camera-work of Мать still, after the prestigious test of time, provides a frame, a view to look in at each of the unique yet interconnected struggles of each family member. Мать evolves as clear as crystal before the eyes of any human of any outlook, a living and breathing piece of powerful, political art into a devastating slow riot for a new zero nation. As the realistic violence and suppression of the down-trodden progresses, a timeless and formulaic asset of the kind of film Мать must somewhat conform to be, there's something that smells a bit different in the air. We're always reminded of the maternal bond, its strength and power to drive a soul to unbearable torment, and how such a regime that these films fabricate propaganda against can directly sever it. This link that Мать explores is so volatile and hard-hitting to the blissful maximum extent that the limited medium of the silent, the black and white and that, again, time- honoured formula of the day can allow it to. Pudovkin's abilities with his 1926 sublime masterpiece generate an overwhelming empathy, giving the audience the completely, totally exclusive opportunity to visualise a fresh revolution through the eyes of those who are the most fragile and at risk emotionally from it.

In wintry 1905 Russia, "Mother" Vera Baranovskaya (as the Mother) toils over housework, while son Nikolai Batalov (as the Son) sleeps. Hard-working husband and father Aleksandr Chistyakov (as the Father) arrives home to drunkenly slap his wife around. In the opening minutes, these three characters are clearly drawn. The younger man represents collective (striking) workers while his father sides with the (oppressive) establishment. "Mother" Russia must balance love and duty. Her final decision should come as no surprise. This film highly regarded but sometimes difficult to follow. Director Vsevolod Pudovkin moves the story effectively, with quick shots. This should help you stick with it for the excellent final thirty minutes.******* Mat (10/11/26) Vsevolod Pudovkin ~ Vera Baranovskaya, Nikolai Batalov, Aleksandr Chistyakov, Ivan Koval-Samborsky