 |
 |
|
A
Sight for Sore Eyes
Matthew Plouffe on Mother and Son
“Why is it that the
artist seeks to destroy the stability sought by society?
Settembrini in Thomas Mann’s The Magic Mountain
says, ‘I trust engineer, that you have nothing against
malice? I consider it to be reason’s most brilliant
weapon against darkness and ugliness. Malice, my dear
sir, is the soul of criticism, and criticism—the source
of progress and enlightenment.’ The artist seeks to
destroy the stability by which society lives, for the
sake of drawing closer to the ideal. Society seeks stability,
the artist—infinity. The artist is concerned with absolute
truth, and therefore gazes ahead and sees things sooner
than other people.” Andrei Tarkovsky, Sculpting
in Time
I have taken upon myself a task which I have fairly
begun to regret: to write about a film nonpareil in
its ability to leave me at a loss for words. Alexander
Sokurov’s Mother and Son seemed an obvious choice
months ago when a knowing editor asked well in advance
if I’d like to write about it for a symposium on spirituality
in cinema. I believe my knee-jerk response was, “I’d
give anything to write on that film.” Here I am, the
dunderhead, the deadline not so far on the horizon,
feeling as if I’ve committed not merely to the impossible,
but to blasphemy. Transcendent artwork often impels
one to keep his mouth shut for fear of committing sacrilege
in forced penetration of an inviolate beauty. The Mann
reference made above by Sokurov’s late friend and cinematic
contemporary Andrei Tarkovsky is fitting—I’m reminded
of the illustrious writer Gustav von Aschenbach’s similarly
dubious fascination with the blond epicene Tadzio in
Death in Venice: a master of the intellect, he
stumbles over himself, besotted by a young boy, some
heavenly ideal on two feet, beyond him, within and so
far out of reach. It is, I suppose, not so far from
Alexei Ananishnov’s “clever but heartless” Son grasping
the enormity of his mother’s quiet death in this wondrous
film. How does one begin to approach lucidity in such
a state of overwhelming awe? In some sense, I feel we’re
all in the same boat, and seeing as I’ve already managed
a paragraph about how I could never manage at all, I
may as well proceed.
“Last Night I had a dream,” Sokurov’s strapping protagonist
recalls as he lays on what will soon be the deathbed
of his ailing mother (Gudrun Geyer). “I was walking
along a path and someone was following me…finally, I
turned around and asked him why he was following me.
Guess what he said?” “He asked you to remind him of
several lines,” she picks up, with barely a whisper.
“I am seized by a suffocating nightmare. I awake terror-stricken,
covered in sweat. God, dwelling in my soul, affects
only my consciousness. He never extends beyond me to
the outer world, to the course of things.” Simultaneously,
they repeat those lines once more and the hulking man
lowers his gaze to the tiny woman who birthed him. “That
means we have the same dreams.” “Yes,” she replies,
“We do.”
|
| |
|
The bond between mother
and son has for so long been the subject of intense
artistic and psychological scrutiny, that one has to
wonder at a portrait of that relationship rendered without
trying paeans to King Oedipus, conceived in unfettered
tenderness the likes of which cinema has not known.
With the morning conversation that locates Mother
and Son in its first moments, doors open to the
liminal space in which this ethereal film so gracefully
plays out. A delicately constructed proto-cinematic
canvas Rembrandt might have dreamt up, ineffable bonds
between mother and son emerge resplendent in this unprecedented
portraiture, documenting the last day of a worn woman’s
life. As striking as their conversation, the image from
which it emerges reveals a master of nuance, a painter
at heart; fitting then, that this film seems born of
the brush, not the lens. To achieve the dreamscape aesthetic,
Sokurov and DP Alexei Fyodorov used angled panes of
glass to bend and refract light, to realize each setup
as if—as Cineaste’s Kirill Galetski so beautifully
comments in an interview with Sokurov— “reflected in
the surface of a teardrop.” The bucolic topography is
rendered something otherworldly; it’s less the stroke
of a romantic, than a distorted memory housed deep beneath
the sprawling intellect of an anomalous, plodding artisan
in which a distinctive relationship between a son, a
mother, and the omnipotent one at whose doorstep she
rests, is forged. Sokurov’s eye, unlike Tarkovsky’s
high-angle vision of man considering the dirt under
his feet, stares out at the horizon, up to the sky,
invoking mysteries which lay far beyond this atmosphere.
“Get me out,” Geyer gasps, caught in a torrent of pain.
“Yourself, yourself,” her son winces, straining to support
her arched back. “Who is that up in the sky?” she asks.
A moment and he looks up, almost faithfully. “No one,”
he concedes, though his efforts to meet divine eyes
are not unjustified. God is here in nature’s possessed,
taunting spirit. Cradling his mother like the child
she once cradled, they walk along dirt roads, battling
relentless winds that seek to rip the old woman from
her son’s formidable grasp. He kneels to rest, to protect
her from bellowing gusts, God’s paw ready to carry the
elder far away from this barely corporeal countryside.
While a mother’s heavenly interlocutor pulls her gaze
upward, a mighty son struggles in vain to foil His efforts,
to plant her feet on the ground. “What do I do with
you?” he asks her, as she settles into the darkness.
“You don’t want to sleep. You don’t want to eat.” “I
feel so sorry for you,” she offers. “You will have to
go through all of what I have suffered. It’s so unfair.”
How can one prepare to greet death, knocking at the
worn wooden door, and what is to become of those left
behind? The reality of the situation inspires only the
mundane, a mere whimper. “You used to give me the mark
‘satisfactory,’” he says, recalling the days his mother
was a busy schoolteacher. “If you were still working
today, you’d also give me a ‘satisfactory’, right?”
|
| |
|
The filmmaker seems
in interviews like the “head person” Ananishnov’s Son
describes himself to be here, yet as with many of the
finest works of visual art, intellectual unpacking of
Mother and Son is strictly optional; suffice
it to say that inside the mummifying hut, each image
reeks of an atrophy that can nearly be tasted. In long
takes that require digestion beyond attention, Sokurov
offers death’s hushed venom pumping assiduously through
the fragile, deteriorating female body. It’s enough
to finally crumble a stone-faced intellectual. In the
aforementioned interview, the filmmaker comments that
“the art of cinema has not yet come into being,” but
it’s tough to contest the artistic merit of a film that
manages to measure the weight of death by calculating
the displacement that results from the inestimable mass
of absence, finally realized when the son wanders alone
out to the forest and sobs amidst pillars of strength.
Glorious, fertile tree trunks taunt this hulking man,
reduced to plain, unmitigated emotion.
A taut 73 minutes, Mother and Son marks an artistic
and cinematic highpoint in Sokurov’s vast and spotted
oeuvre. Not an image is wasted, not a thought superfluous.
Its construction seems as eternal as the themes with
which it is engaged and in this age of wholly dispensible
output, it appears something altogether extraterrestrial.
Linking tableau to tableau using barely-connected shots
of the countryside reminiscent of Yasujiro Ozu’s famed
“coda” interpolations, Sokurov’s strange ellipses-as-driving-narrative-force,
conceive an unlikely and acute attention to the moment,
to the immediacy of each careful movement which may
just be the last. One wonders whether this is what life
feels like for someone on their way out: distorted waves
of consciousness marked by precious gems of sunlight
and lucidity.
It may be then, that Sokurov, as Tarkovsky suggests
of the artist, has seen something sooner than the rest
of us. Incredibly, he’s found a way to put it on film.
It’s a vision as personal as it is timeless, and ultimately
devastating enough to destroy that stability we all
seek as individuals, as a society. It may be, in the
medium’s short life, a work on celluloid which approaches
the realm of great art, standing monolithic next to
so many paltry measurements of twenty-one grams. The
final images of a weary son walking alone, along the
same paths on which he carried his mother only hours
before, have never failed to reduce me to tears. God
reigns in those ominous clouds and that ubiquitous crack
of distant thunder, neither tender, nor calloused, just
infinite. The image of solitude, Sokurov’s Son speaks
for all of us “head” people, when he finally succumbs
to the emotions his intellect so fervently denies. In
the end, it is there that he finds the strength to move
beyond reason and finally take his mother’s withered
hand. “We will meet where we agreed,” he whispers to
her, upon returning to her bedside where she lays, lifeless.
“There, ok? Wait for me. Be patient, dear mother. Wait
for me.” |
|