Name: The Son
Genre: Documentary
Released: 2023-10-02T00:00:00+00:00
Cast: Igor Sadreev, Andrey Plakhov, Nikita Mikhalkov, Sergey Mikhalkov

The opening shot of Igor Sadreev’s documentary “The Son” (2023) lingers on a framed photograph of Nikita Mikhalkov, the legendary Russian filmmaker and actor. The image is simple but striking: Mikhalkov’s gaze meets ours directly, challenging us to consider who he was beyond his public persona. This is not a film that will coddle its subject. Instead, it promises an “unbiased” look at one of Russia’s most famous directors, telling his story through the voices of others—primarily Sadreev himself and Andrey Plakhov, with archival footage of Mikhalkov and his father, Sergey, providing additional context.

“The Son” is structured as a series of interviews, intercut with clips from Mikhalkov’s films and television appearances. The documentary eschews the traditional talking-head format by allowing its subjects to speak at length, often unedited, which gives the film an air of authenticity. Sadreev and Plakhov serve as our guides, their voices steady and measured as they recount Mikhalkov’s life, from his early days in Moscow to his rise as a filmmaker and actor.

The most compelling sections of the film focus on Mikhalkov’s formative years. A particularly gripping moment comes when Sadreev discusses Mikhalkov’s relationship with Mikhail Romm, his mentor at the Gerasimov Institute of Cinematography. The archival footage of young Mikhalkov debating film theory—his passion evident even in grainy black-and-white—is electrifying. These sequences are where “The Son” shines brightest, offering a nuanced portrait of an artist grappling with his craft.

Sadreev’s direction is measured but effective, allowing the interviewees to speak for themselves without excessive intervention. The pacing is deliberate, which works well for the film’s early sections but becomes a liability in its later stretches. There are moments where the documentary feels like it’s meandering, particularly when it delves into Mikhalkov’s political activities and his relationships with other Soviet-era directors. While these topics are undeniably relevant, they lack the narrative drive of the film’s earlier sequences.

One of the documentary’s strengths is its use of archival footage. Clips from Mikhalkov’s films, such as “Burnt by the Sun” (1994) and “The Barber of Siberia” (1998), are interspersed throughout, providing visual counterpoints to the interviews. The film also features rare behind-the-scenes footage, offering glimpses into Mikhalkov’s creative process that are both illuminating and engaging.

However, the documentary falters when it attempts to tackle Mikhalkov’s later career and his controversial public persona. The film leans heavily on archive material here, and while clips from interviews and speeches are interesting, they lack the depth of personal testimony that earlier sections benefit from. There’s a noticeable absence of critical voices—no dissenting opinions or deeper analysis of Mikhalkov’s political stances, which have often been polarizing. The result is a film that feels incomplete, as if it’s tiptoeing around the very conflicts that make its subject fascinating.

Performances are limited to talking heads, but Sadreev and Plakhov bring an earnestness to their roles as narrators. Their enthusiasm for Mikhalkov’s work is palpable, even when they’re critiquing him. The archival footage of Nikita and Sergey Mikhalkov adds a layer of intimacy that’s hard to replicate with modern interviews alone. However, the absence of other key figures from Mikhalkov’s life—such as his collaborators or contemporaries—is a missed opportunity. Their perspectives could have added valuable context and depth to the narrative.

Originality is both the film’s strength and its weakness. By avoiding Mikhalkov’s own voice, Sadreev attempts something different—a biography from the outside in. But this approach also means missing out on the interiority that makes documentaries about artists so compelling. Genre-wise, “The Son” fits comfortably within the tradition of filmmaker biographies, though it lacks the cinematic flair of recent standouts like Tár or The Eternal Daughter.

Where “The Son” truly excels is in its exploration of Mikhalkov’s artistic influences and early career. The film does an excellent job of contextualizing his work within the broader landscape of Russian cinema, highlighting the ways in which he both inherited and rebelled against the traditions of his predecessors. However, it struggles to provide a coherent narrative about Mikhalkov’s later years, leaving viewers with more questions than answers.

The documentary is clearly aimed at cinephiles and students of Russian film, but its narrow focus may limit its appeal to a broader audience. Those unfamiliar with Mikhalkov’s work or the political context of his career may find themselves lost in the film’s dense web of references and allusions.

In comparison to other recent documentaries about filmmakers, “The Son” falls short of the emotional resonance achieved by films like Tár (2022) or The Eternal Daughter (2023). These films use a combination of archival footage, interviews, and dramatic reenactments to create a rich, immersive portrait of their subjects. “The Son,” by contrast, relies heavily on interviews and archival material without adding much in the way of new insight or perspective.

One of the film’s most glaring omissions is its failure to address Mikhalkov’s political activities in any meaningful way. While the documentary briefly touches on his involvement with various political causes, it never delves into the controversies that have surrounded him throughout his career. This is a significant oversight, as Mikhalkov’s political stances have often been a source of both admiration and criticism.

Another missed opportunity is the film’s lack of exploration of Mikhalkov’s personal life. While Sadreev and Plakhov discuss his relationships with other filmmakers and his family, they never delve into the more intimate details of his life—such as his marriages, his children, or his hobbies outside of filmmaking. These aspects of his life could have added a valuable layer of depth to the portrait that “The Son” paints.

In the end, “The Son” is a fascinating but uneven documentary. It excels in its exploration of Mikhalkov’s early career and artistic influences but falters when it comes to grappling with the complexities of his later years. The film’s reliance on interviews and archival material, while effective in some respects, ultimately leaves viewers wanting more.