Boring, over-political, tech fuzed mess

Simple and well acted, it has tension enough to knot the stomach.

The movie's neither hopeful in contrived ways, nor hopeless in different contrived ways. Somehow it manages to be wonderful

The movie turns out to be a little better than the average. Starting from a romantic formula often seen in the cinema, it ends in the most predictable (and somewhat bland) way.

Pudovkin's "Mother" is a film about the feelings of the working class, speaking to the proletariat as the foundation of the nation. Through all its symbols and plot, the film aligns itself with that category of cinema aimed to refresh the enthusiasm for Communist ideals. It is almost as if it is a duty to keep the memory of the first rebels fighting against the powerful and all-pervasive bourgeoisie. In that sense, the film sensitizes its audience towards fighting along the ideas of the party. However banale and meaningless such a pursuit would be for today's audience, the manner in which Pudovkin realizes in conveying this message is remarkable. Overall, we see extremely good and good cinema.The movie is about a young man, Pavel, who is aligned with the worker's cause and organizes a strike. His mother is always in the background, a perfect symbol of the Russian peasant woman in her simplicity and emotion. The family suffers because the father is a drunkard and very violent man. Pavel's involvement with the strike and the fights that result lead eventually to the murder of his father. The tension builds up to the trial and then continues as the workers try to liberate Pavel from prison, One of the aspects I've liked most about this movie is the fascinating montage. The techniques used in the film make it align itself with other productions from that period (like Eisenstein's or Kuleshov's) which emphasized the capturing of details and using short shots that would convey the plot in a different manner than the overly self-explanatory long shot. Hence, we have the details of physical contact in the altercations, the portrait of the lady who protects the working class seen through a dusty glass, some beautiful close-ups showing the emotion of the characters (especially the mother), caressing hands, eyes, and other shots that put together make this film a fine piece of cinematography.The film's symbolism is also evident and a strong feature of the film.We have the tumultuous flow of water and blocks of ice which stand for the excitement of the revolution and the peasants as a force. The mother itself is a symbol of unity. We see her at first a sensible being, faithful, but naive, and ultimately helpless in the face of the corrupt bureaucrats. In the end, we see her a strong figure, holding the flag with pride. The suspense is built up in an interesting way during the trial scene, with multiple symbols of the superficiality of the old order: the hiccups of Pavel's defender which suggest ridicule, the sleeping man, and the mare, a symbol of aristocracy and superficial ideals. The film ultimately presents the clash of two camps: the peasants who are represented as pure and filled with ideals (with the mother, the beautiful woman, and young people as representatives) versus the camp of bourgeoisie, with corrupt and indifferent characters, sometimes violent, sometimes diabolic, but never invoking any sympathy to the audience.

Structures shaping into motion, motions reshaping into structure, against each other, so that the whole thing is like a snowstorm rolling down a hill; gathering itself to itself. Which is to say the people to the people, in an effort at once to reshape and portray the reshaped world.Look here. The first third ends with a murder, so the entire part is about wild kinetic energy building to it; disenchanted workers plotting a strike – the metaphor for revolution, as so often in these films – factory cronies plotting to break them, pitting rugged father against idealist son. Meanwhile the factory owners, disinterested, arrogant, oversee the bloody drama from their lofty window.The second third ends with injustice, and so the entire second part is about the mockery of justice; a colonel promising the hapless mother her son – the instigator of events - will be okay if she surrenders a hidden stash of guns, then arresting him, followed by a mock trial where each of the judges presiding is a parody of human values.The final part is about revolution, so the entire thing is about the preparations of the final stand. Again the revolutionary metaphor, so poignant in these films; a prison filled entirely with workers, farmers, the oppressed with a dream languishing somewhere. And so, everything becomes imbued with meaning; the prison walls as walls at large, the doors slammed open with conflict, the bridge where passage is presaged by a rite of violence.The strikers scattered by mounted police into a mob, it's the mother who picks up the banner of revolution. Down by the bridge, floating ice is shattered on the concrete pillars; ice dissolves, floating away, but the bridge stands.And so the suffering and sacrifice of the nameless heroes is transformed into structures that will stand the test of time; bridges, factories, where the banner of revolution unfurls at the top, enduring symbols of a thriving industry, a healthy, self-sufficient nation. We may think what we want about the equation in terms of politics, but how it's equated through cinema? It comes with the natural ease that only a filmmaking tradition so deeply centered in its worldview could afford; the individual is transmuted, engulfed into a collective structure - the Soviet god in place of a god - , in a way that reveals the individual struggle to have been redolent with purpose all along. It's a spiritual vision, make no mistake; about communion with the life-destroying, life-renewing source; about harmony of structure from the chaos of forms.

Released right after "Battleship Potemkin", "Mother" shows a woman forced to choose between siding with her labor-organizing son or her corrupt husband. The movie makes double sure that we get to see the living conditions in Russia in 1905, but it also uses ice as a metaphor. There are a few scenes where we see ice breaking up on the ocean; it basically shows that the old order is slowly but surely coming apart. I have to admit that this is the only Vsevolod Pudovkin movie that I've ever seen, but it's certainly a good one, if only as a historical reference. A noticeable difference between Eisenstein and Pudovkin was that Eisenstein was into typage (meaning that he liked to choose any random person who looked right for the role), while Pudovkin was very fixated on whom he wanted.

This is one of the classic Soviet silent films. The story is about a family torn apart by a worker's strike. At first, the mother wants to protect her family from the troublemakers, but eventually she realizes that her son is right and the workers should strike. The plot is similar to other Soviet films of the era but does focus more on the individual than some of Eisenstein's films. The mother and son do represent the collective but they are also strong characters on their own.The best part of the film is the editing. It is always sharp and quick. When there is action, the edits are fast and give the viewer a sense of chaos. The Soviets were masters of montage and this film is a prime example. The acting is also better than in most silent films. It is clear that the actors come from the serious stage and not Vaudeville. The cinematography is somewhat average, though, and the film feels a little flat at times. It is not perfect, but it is worth seeing for all and essential viewing for those interested in Russian film or montage.