🔗 Share this article

Last year, actor Jude Law stated he had no concerns about backlash for playing the Russian leader in a cinematic adaptation. The movie, however, could coincide so closely with the mythologized version promoted by Russian state media that, within Russia, it functions as a endorsement rather than a critique.

The Manufactured Strongman

Over a long period, the Kremlin and its entertainment industry have collaborated to forge a tailor-made version of Putin. This figure is an infallible strategist devoid of flaws, an ex-intelligence officer reframed as a Russian James Bond who consistently understands more than he reveals.

“In Russia, the manufactured Putin has long eclipsed the actual person.”

Cinematic Reinforcement

A notable instance is a television show released last fall, helmed by a pro-government filmmaker. Its main character is a invented blue-eyed lieutenant colonel inexplicably chosen to “rescue” the nation from disorder. While he is called Mikhail, the implication is clear: the hero must be a known figure from the secret services.

International depictions often end up buttressing this identical story rather than undercutting it. A new film inspired by a popular book sets out to undermine the Putin cult by presenting him not as a cause but as a consequence, shifting the narrative weight to the spin doctors surrounding him.

The Myth of the Reluctant Leader

On screen, the president is shown as having been picked by powerful oligarchs to steady the country because he is “a fit former intelligence agent”. They visit him and practically plead him to take the top job. His response is that he would rather govern from the shadows, seeking permanent power.

This narrative is a key piece of state propaganda: the cool, reluctant strategist shaped by destiny. Historically, these events took place.

The Reality of the Casting Call

Nobody actually pleaded with him to accept the role. The position was in essence a selection process with no shortage of contenders. At the centre to the selection stood a powerful businessman from the previous administration who planned to control the country de facto.

• His list included several politicians, including a reformer subsequently assassinated and a security service director.
• According to a journalist who studied his rise, the chosen candidate simply fitted the required parameters: loyal, from the intelligence world, and not a communist or a liberal.
• A businessman close to the process stated the primary requirement was controllability and faithfulness, not leadership.

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

Constructing the Spy Legend

Analysts concur that the notion of Putin as a master operative was constructed retrospectively. Stories about his clandestine activities in East Germany do not stand up to scrutiny. Fundamentally, he was an administrator and technical tasks, a low-level clerk not involved with field operations.

Interestingly, the shift to depicting him as a “spy” could partly have been inspired by Daniel Craig’s arrival as James Bond. The grittier interpretation led local outlets and online audiences to make comparisons with Putin. Mashup posters replacing Craig’s face with Putin’s appeared on Moscow streets, feeding the increasing trend to see him as a local secret agent.

A Propaganda Win?

Given the casting, an actor popular with viewers there, the authorities will not miss the chance to portray this choice as a minor diplomatic triumph. Its exclusion of mass protests, the opposition, or key figures from its narrative, even though it includes recent years, is a welcome aspect for state propaganda.

In Russian cinema, Putin is often an omnipotent figure who remains unseen on screen. He is signaled through photographs or orders from on high. In this new film, he at last gets a famous actor's visage—one that could unintentionally echo the very myths it perhaps aims to question.