{"id":940,"date":"2026-04-24T01:11:27","date_gmt":"2026-04-24T05:11:27","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/jakony.com\/frontpage\/?p=940"},"modified":"2026-04-24T01:11:27","modified_gmt":"2026-04-24T05:11:27","slug":"thriller-or-propaganda-we-review-putin-biopic-the-wizard-of-the-kremlin","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/jakony.com\/frontpage\/video\/thriller-or-propaganda-we-review-putin-biopic-the-wizard-of-the-kremlin\/","title":{"rendered":"Thriller or propaganda? We review Putin biopic \u2018The Wizard of the Kremlin’"},"content":{"rendered":"

A new Western film, The Wizard of the Kremlin<\/em>, has sparked debate over whether it functions as a political thriller or as propaganda that echoes Kremlin narratives. The film, which premiered in the UK last Friday, explores the rise of the Russian dictator Vladimir Putin through a pre-war fictional lens and raises questions about accuracy and the framing of Russia’s recent history.<\/p>\n

The discussion formed part of the latest episode of the podcast Ukraine, the Latest<\/em>, hosted by Aditi Phang and co-host Francis Durnley, joined by Telegraph<\/em> film critic Robbie Collin and French political scientist Anna Konovalova. The episode aired on Tuesday 21 April, four years and 56 days after Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine began.<\/p>\n

\n

The podcast then turned to The Wizard of the Kremlin<\/em>, adapted from Giuliano da Empoli’s French novel. Robbie Collin described it as a fictionalised primer on how Russia reached its current state, centred on a character inspired by political strategist Vladislav Surkov. The film transposes events onto Vadim Baranov (played by Paul Dano), who moves from revolutionary theatre in post-communist Moscow chaos to television, grasping media’s power to shape narratives. This path leads to the Putin regime.<\/p>\n

Jude Law portrays Putin, with his appearance delayed for about half an hour. Jeffrey Wright plays an American academic who visits Baranov and hears his life story. The framing narrative was tightened in the final cut, which lost about 20 minutes from its Venice premiere.<\/p>\n

Francis Durnley noted the unreliable narrator perspective of a Russian insider who presents himself as Western-influenced, having read Machiavelli and other thinkers despite his Soviet background. He questioned whether this sympathetic Western prism accurately reflects how Putin officials perceive themselves, suggesting many genuinely believe their narratives rather than knowingly manipulate them.<\/p>\n

Anna Konovalova called the film dangerous. The author and filmmakers lack deep specialist knowledge of Russia. Released in a context of public disarray seeking explanations for the invasion, the fiction was treated by some as an insider truth. It promotes a Kremlin-aligned image of strength, total control over society and a purposeful leader, while omitting population dynamics, internal conflicts, greed, loyalty issues and repression.<\/p>\n

The film blurs fiction and reality by using real names for most characters (except Baranov, standing in for Surkov, and one oligarch), physically similar portrayals and fake archival footage that appears authentic. Ukraine receives minimal mention, despite its central role in Russian politics and disinformation since 2014. The book was completed before the full-scale invasion.<\/p>\n

Konovalova highlighted the orientalist portrayal of Russia as an exotic, passionate, irrational “wild country” rather than one driven by reason. In an information war with scarce independent reporting from Russia, such works risk instrumentalisation.<\/p>\n

Robbie Collin defended the artistic freedom but acknowledged questions about audience takeaway without context, especially as one of the first major all-star Western films about Russia since the invasion. He noted clever casting: Law brings a stony charisma that may explain Putin’s appeal to Russians, while Dano’s enigmatic style suits a behind-the-scenes operator.<\/p>\n

The discussion touched on the 1999 apartment bombings, widely attributed to Chechen separatists at the time but with strong evidence pointing to FSB staging to boost Putin’s popularity. The film mentions the theory only briefly and dismisses it, potentially leaving uninformed viewers unclear or doubting the FSB link.<\/p>\n

Broader themes include the influence of reality television and internet culture on politics, with references to the Internet Research Agency’s use of influencers and trivial commentary to spread messages. Parallels were drawn to Western information consumption via social media.<\/p>\n

The panel questioned whether the film romanticises Russian tropes of exoticism and unknowability, and whether historical fiction should adopt a clearer posture when dealing with recent, contested events.<\/p>\n