🔗 Share this article

In a recent appearance, star Jude Law stated he “didn’t fear any repercussions” for portraying Vladimir Putin in a new film. The movie, however, could coincide so closely with the mythologized image promoted by official channels that, domestically, it functions as a endorsement rather than a challenge.

The Manufactured Superhero

For years, the Kremlin and its pop-culture machine have collaborated to forge a tailor-made version of Putin. This figure 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 overshadowed the real one.”

Cinematic Reinforcement

One recent example is a television show launched last fall, helmed by a Kremlin supporter. The protagonist is a fictional blue-eyed lieutenant colonel selected by fate to “save” the nation from disorder. While the character's name Mikhail, the message is unmistakable: the hero must be a known figure from the secret services.

International depictions frequently result in buttressing this same narrative instead of debunking it. A new film based on a popular book sets out to undermine the leader's mythology by presenting him not as a cause but as a consequence, moving the focus to the political machinery surrounding him.

The Fable of the Hesitant President

In the film, Putin is presented as having been picked by influential figures to stabilise the country because he is “a fit former intelligence agent”. The oligarchs approach him and all but beg him to take the top job. He replies is that he would rather govern from the background, seeking permanent power.

This tale is the Kremlin’s export myth: the detached, unwilling mastermind shaped by destiny. Historically, none of this ever happened.

The Truth Behind the Selection

Nobody actually pleaded with Putin to accept the role. The presidency was effectively a selection process with no shortage of candidates. At the centre to the selection stood an influential oligarch from the Yeltsin era who planned to control the state in practice.

• His list featured several politicians, among them a reformer subsequently assassinated and a former spy chief.
• Per a journalist who studied his rise, the chosen candidate merely met the required parameters: obedient, from the intelligence world, and politically neutral.
• A businessman familiar with the events stated the key criterion was manageability and faithfulness, not strength.

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

Building the 007 Persona

Analysts concur that the notion of him as a master operative was built after the fact. Stories about his clandestine activities in Dresden fall apart under examination. Fundamentally, he handled paperwork and routine duties, a mid-level functionary not engaged in field operations.

Curiously, the move to depicting him as a “spy” could partly have been inspired by the actor's debut as 007. His harder version prompted Russian media and social media to draw visual parallels with Putin. Edited images replacing the actor's likeness with his appeared on city centers, fueling the growing tendency to see him as a Russian 007.

A Diplomatic Opportunity?

Given the casting, an actor popular with Russian audiences, the authorities will not miss the opportunity to portray this choice as a minor diplomatic triumph. The film's exclusion of public dissent, the opposition, or prominent activists from its narrative, even though it includes the past decade, is a pleasant bonus for state propaganda.

In Russian cinema, Putin is often an omnipotent figure who never appears directly. His influence is signaled through photographs 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.