wegi-605-902

Pudovkin's Mother is a strong film that refused to be bound by the limitations of its time and should remain interesting to contemporary audiences. The plot of the film is simply outstanding. While some would say it was to be expected since the film is based off of a novel by Maxim Gorky, it should be noted that good source material does not guarantee cinematic success. The film follows a mother and her revolutionist son, Pavel, as they navigate a series of difficulties resulting from her son's allegiance.

With no speech, a major challenge for silent films is the creation of multidimensional characters. Pudovkin overcomes this challenge by being able to capture the emotions of the characters. I thought the mother, was exceptionally interesting. Her struggle did not only represent that of a loving mother, but also that of a movement. Pudovkin make great use of the camera, whether it was a side profile emphasizing the pensiveness of the character or a well-timed frontal close-up, he facilitates our ride on this emotional roller-coaster.

For the most part, I really enjoyed the pacing of the film. While the pacing did vary in tempo, it was always well within its own "groove." Even in the extremely exciting conclusion, one did not get to feel the extremely fast-paced tempo of a Battleship Potemkin, which I believe speaks to the differences between the directors. On that note, it was interesting to see how Pudovkin's use of montage differed. His cuts were far more gradual and subtle when compared to Eisenstein's in Battleship which contributed to the stability of the film.

All in all, Mother was a good watch and one of the stronger films that we have seen.

Sometimes I am left to wonder if being a product of our modern age has ruined my ability to appreciate the classics of years past. In the world of Russian cinema Turin's Turksib is considered to be a classic, but I would be lying if I claimed to find the viewing experience any more exciting than watching paint dry.

The film documents the building of the Turkestan-Siberia railway, which is an important moment in Soviet history. The film plays out as a history lesson of sorts, providing the viewer with historical context on the affected regions to start and progressing from there. I did appreciate the constant text cards, which appeared more often than in some other movies from this era that I had watched. Though it could be attributed to the fact that the film did not rely on the facial expressions of actors to tell its story. The film did a good job of capturing the landscape with some excellent shots, but on that note, the camera hardly moved. The static nature of the camera, in combination with a lack of human expression for me to tap into, made it almost impossible for this film to excite my 2013 senses. It was almost laughable when dramatic music would start playing, as if some kind of action was about to take place, only to show a still landscape or a person walking. I don't think that I would view this film as negatively as I do, if I hadn't watched some other films from this time period that show excitement did not need to be so lacking, especially when comparing Man with a Movie Camera, another documentary, to it.

While we live in a ADD world, sometimes it is OK to say some things are better left in the past.