Mother Pudovkin\'s Mother (1926) Versus

Mother

Pudovkin's "Mother" (1926) versus "Erin Brockovich" (2000) and "Good Night and Good Luck" -- Political awakenings in cinema, then and now In theory, the 1926 Soviet silent film directed by Vsevolod Pudovkin, simply entitled "Mother" should be totally inaccessible, on an artistic level, to modern viewers. It was created during a different political era, to support what is now considered an outmoded ideal of communism. Yet it cannot be denied that the simple, powerful acting of the title character of "Mother" by Vera Baranovskaya moves even the contemporary viewer. When she is playing the mother of the title and takes up a flag to stage a brave political protest, standing resolute before a charging army of men who are all bent upon destroying her, she does not flinch. The actress stands proud and calm. She is not beautiful, and her eyes are hollowed out beneath her with grief and sorrow. She does not speak of course, because this film is from an era before sound. And still, her action stirs something within the viewer because of her quiet fortitude. Within the context of the drama, her actions seem sympathetic and understandable.

The character of "Mother" is a poor woman torn between her husband, who supports the forces of czarist tyranny, and her son, who supports the forces of liberation. Eventually, the Mother decides to stand with her son. Her love is evident in her bearing and her manner, and there does not need to be any impassioned dialogue to explain her feelings. "Mother" demonstrates a powerful truth about filmmaking that still is valid today -- film is a visual and emotional art, not a verbal and intellectual art, even when dealing with political drama. Film is emotional rather than intellectual in its power to influence the view -- rather than making an argument, what the viewer can see and feel is more important than what is said in the script.

Even though "Mother" is a silent film, because it is skillfully acted and directed, "Mother" still has the ability to move the viewer and to seem artistically valid as a piece of cinema. Also, strangely enough, the film 'feels' truthful on some level even if the viewer does not agree with the ideology the film purports to support. Because the viewer emotionally identifies with the mother of the title, it is hard not to sympathize with her decision to support her son, and to feel angry with her husband. The film is simplistic in its depiction of its characters, and they are not fully rounded in the sense that they seem complex and unique. Although they struggle with difficult moral dilemmas, "Mother" is a nameless every woman, and in a contemporary character list and script, it is unlikely that a film about a "Mother" and a "Son" would be made. The "Mother" and other individuals in the film are not articulate people, partly as a result of the silence of the film but also because of the ideological viewpoint of the film -- the director and writer merely wishes to stress that these are simple, good, working people.

But they seem realistic because of the conviction the actors bring to the poverty and sincerity of the central figures, so the viewer believes in these individual's reality.

Mother" contains a powerful lesson for all film actors today in the sense that it demonstrates that acting is not merely about having the best lines, or even having the most sympathetic character that intellectually resonates with the viewer. It is about conveying a reality that feels true, even if only the reality of the desperation of the characters. The characters are not unique or glamorous; they command the viewer's attention because of the actor's and filmmaker's belief in their worth. The filmmaker's willingness to make their lives seem valid of the camera's interest makes even the ordinary and nameless dramatic personages seem important. Without makeup and markedly aged, the mother's face looks beautiful during the woman's moment of triumph in front of the czarist army because the camera gives dignity to the actress' expression of torment, pathos, and peace.

Mother" also reminds contemporary viewers of the importance of what might be called archetypal acting. Even if characters are not complex, they can be interesting if they represent something greater than themselves. "Mother" represents the coming into awareness of all Russian mothers that their lives are limited by political oppression, and they must support the younger generation in its struggle against tyranny. The mother strives for truth, and acts upon her convictions. Her behavior in fulfilling these actions on film makes the viewer see their own mothers her quiet, proud bearing. Even mothers who have not suffered the tormented decisions the mother has suffered, or lived as harsh a life that she has lived, see something they can identify with, in her willingness to sacrifice for her family and for her homeland. Perhaps because the film transcends speech, it seems more mythic and because of the absence of 'big speeches' in its silence it seems more realistic. Still, the physical conviction of the acting is a living lesson even for contemporary actors.

While other recent political dramas have taken on the class oppression of "Mother," quite often they do not have the same archetypal resonance as the earlier film. For example, Julia Roberts in "Erin Brockovich" (2000) was a young, female legal secretary investigating an environmental crime in California. Like "Mother," this film was based upon real, relatively recent events. But unlike "Mother" the film was plot rather than image driven. It sought to change minds intellectually as well as to move hearts. The film was primarily devoted to fact-finding rather than to showing broad, sweeping images that purported to stand for all mothers, throughout all of history. It is true that the film depicts a 'small' or powerless person, a single mother working to feed her family who literally stumbles upon the fact that a California power company is polluting her city's water supply -- a woman much like "Mother." Like "Mother," Erin at first was a relatively apolitical personal, and more concerned with her family's personal survival than how her life related to the struggle of all of humanity. But self-empowerment as well as general, populist political empowerment is the theme of the film. Erin grows more confident of her personal independence and value as a human being as the film evolves. She begins the film sexy, provocative, and comfortable in the way that she asserts her beauty but not necessarily her brilliance in a conventional legal office. But Erin learns to use this same fortitude to take on business and political leaders who are harming her community, and harming her environment, the environment where she is trying to bring up her child.

Unlike "Mother," rather than sacrificing herself, Erin is determined to make the time and effort she puts into proving what is going wrong make a real, concrete difference, because she believes in the ability of the American political system to dispense justice, even though it has temporarily betrayed her. The legal system is a verbal means of proving one's self 'correct,' unlike the physical actions of a protest in "Mother." Erin's story could not be told, at least not as effectively, in silence. But Erin's actions, despite her lower-class manners and clothes, are more persuasive then the efforts of professional lawyers. She gathers enough evidence to bring about a lawsuit on behalf of her firm and the injured residents against the power company. Erin realizes that one mother can make a difference. The story is of Erin's personal triumph, though, more than the citizens of California, who are only vaguely represented in the film.

Good Night and Good Luck" (2005) is another recent American film that takes on the corruption of the political system, as seen through the eyes of one person. In this case, it is a person, the newsman Edward R. Murrow, who thinks that he is powerful in his ability to change minds. But Murrow is far less powerful than he realized, when he is confronted with the evils of McCarthyism. Edward R. Murrow was a radio, then a television journalist who was one of the most trusted voices in America, because of his brave broadcasts from war-torn London. In the film, while working for CBS on television, Murrow refuses to defend the McCarthy hearings, and even makes editorial commentary against McCarthy, supposedly violating his sacred journalistic objectivity.

Murrow points out that he never felt a need to be objective about Hitler, and when CBS supports his stance, eventually McCarthy lashes out against Murrow because of his courageous expression of his opinion. Over the course of the film, although Murrow was always politically active, he learns how the United States, even within its own borders, can forget the cause and values of freedom that it fought for over the course of the Second World War. However, the film also pays tribute to the fact that the entire nation and all of its journalists did not cower in fear of McCarthy, and even during the time of the hearings, men like Murrow did speak out in defense of freedom.

The pictorial values, and the acting of both "Erin Brockovich" and "Good Night and Good Luck" are profoundly different than "Mother," although both show political awakenings. The more recent American films focus on extraordinary individuals, persons of physical beauty and glamour, or persons of great fame and influence, and the acting is differential, unique, and what the characters say is equally as important as what they do, unlike "Mother." It is true that Erin Brockovich is an every woman type of character to some extent because of her lower class, her status as a single mother, and her lack of education and political voice. Even Murrow is an everyman to some degree because of his status as every American in the eyes of the nation during his London broadcasts, his reputation, and his willingness to voice what many Americans thought during the McCarthy hearings but feared to say aloud.

Both film's focuses are psychological in terms of how the acting renders the main character, unlike "Mother." Although it was also based upon a past historical event, "Mother" does not try to tell the mother's internal and unique story in relation to these events, it uses one mother's image to uphold its own political values. The mother comes to realize that she must bend to the forces of history, and support revolution, rather than change history. Her actions, like holding a flag in protest, are symbolic rather than personally gratifying. The acting, rather than personalized in both American films, is general, and depicted in broad, sweeping gestures rather than subtle shifts of dialogue, or changes in hairstyle or expression to indicate the character's growing political awareness.