🔗 Share this article

In a recent appearance, actor Jude Law remarked he “didn’t fear any repercussions” for playing the Russian leader in a new film. The movie, though, may align so closely with the mythologized version circulated by official channels that, within Russia, it functions as a compliment instead of a critique.

The Manufactured Superhero

Over a long period, the Russian political apparatus and the country's entertainment industry have worked together to forge a made-to-measure persona of Putin. This character is an infallible strategist devoid of flaws, a former spy reimagined as a Russian James Bond who consistently understands more than he reveals.

“Domestically, the constructed Putin has long eclipsed the actual person.”

Cinematic Reinforcement

One recent example is a television show released last October, directed by a pro-government filmmaker. Its main character is a fictional blue-eyed lieutenant colonel selected by fate to “save” Russia from chaos. While the character's name Mikhail, the implication is clear: the savior must be a familiar security officer.

International depictions frequently result in buttressing this same narrative rather than debunking it. An adaptation based on a bestselling satirical novel aims to undermine the Putin cult by framing him as a symptom but as a consequence, moving the narrative weight to the spin doctors around him.

The Myth of the Reluctant Leader

In the film, the president is shown as having been picked by influential figures to stabilise the nation because he is “young, athletic and a spy”. They visit him and all but beg him to take the top job. He replies is that he would prefer to rule from the shadows, desiring enduring influence.

This tale is a key piece of state propaganda: the detached, unwilling mastermind guided by fate. In reality, these events ever happened.

The Reality of the Casting Call

Nobody actually pleaded with Putin to take the job. The presidency was effectively a casting call with many candidates. At the centre to this process stood an influential oligarch from the Yeltsin era who expected to run the country de facto.

• The shortlist featured several politicians, including an opposition leader subsequently assassinated and a former spy chief.
• Per a journalist who researched his rise, the chosen candidate merely met the necessary criteria: loyal, from the intelligence world, and not a communist or a liberal.
• A property developer familiar with the events said the key criterion was controllability and faithfulness, not strength.

“They didn’t need a powerful leader, they needed someone controllable, someone who would follow instructions.”

Building the 007 Persona

Experts agree that the notion of him as a powerful KGB spy was built after the fact. Stories about his clandestine activities in East Germany do not stand up to scrutiny. Fundamentally, he was an administrator and routine duties, a mid-level functionary not engaged in field operations.

Interestingly, the shift to framing him as a “spy” may in part have been inspired by the actor's debut as 007. His harder version prompted Russian media and online audiences to draw visual parallels with their leader. Mashup posters replacing Craig’s face with his appeared on city centers, feeding the increasing trend to frame him as a local secret agent.

A Propaganda Win?

Given the casting, an actor well-liked by Russian audiences, the Kremlin are likely to seize the opportunity to portray this choice as a minor diplomatic triumph. The film's omission of public dissent, the political rivals, or key figures from its narrative, even though it includes the past decade, is a welcome aspect for state propaganda.

In Russian cinema, the president is frequently an omnipotent figure who remains unseen directly. He is signaled through portraits or orders from on high. Now, he finally acquires a famous actor's visage—one that may inadvertently echo the very myths it perhaps aims to question.