🔗 Share this article

Last year, actor Jude Law remarked he had no concerns about backlash for portraying the Russian leader in a new film. The movie, however, could coincide too neatly with the carefully constructed image circulated by official channels that, domestically, it reads as a endorsement instead of a critique.

The Manufactured Strongman

Over a long period, the Kremlin and the country's pop-culture machine have worked together to craft a made-to-measure persona of the president. This character is a political superhero devoid of flaws, a former spy reframed as a local 007 who always knows beyond what he shows.

“Domestically, the manufactured Putin has long eclipsed 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 he is called Mikhail, the message is unmistakable: the hero must be a known figure from the secret services.

Western portrayals often end up reinforcing this same narrative rather than undercutting it. A new film based on a popular book sets out to undermine the Putin cult by presenting him as a symptom but as a symptom, moving the narrative weight to the political machinery surrounding him.

The Myth of the Reluctant Leader

On screen, the president is shown as having been chosen by powerful oligarchs to steady the country because he is “a fit former intelligence agent”. The oligarchs approach him and practically plead him to become president. He replies is that he would rather govern from the shadows, desiring enduring influence.

This narrative is the Kremlin’s export myth: the cool, reluctant strategist shaped by destiny. Historically, these events ever happened.

The Reality of the Casting Call

No one actually pleaded with Putin to accept the role. The position was effectively a selection process with many candidates. Central to this process stood an influential oligarch from the previous administration who planned to control the state in practice.

• The shortlist included various figures, including an opposition leader subsequently assassinated and a former spy chief.
• Per an expert who researched his rise, the chosen candidate simply fitted the necessary criteria: loyal, from the intelligence world, and not a communist or a liberal.
• A property developer close to the events said the key criterion was manageability and loyalty, not leadership.

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

Constructing the Spy Legend

Analysts concur that the image of him as a master operative was constructed retrospectively. Claims about his “recruitment work” in East Germany do not stand up to scrutiny. Fundamentally, he was an administrator and routine duties, a mid-level functionary not involved with actual agent work.

Curiously, the shift to framing him as a “spy” may in part have been triggered by the actor's arrival as James Bond. The grittier interpretation led Russian media and online audiences to draw visual parallels with Putin. Edited images swapping Craig’s face with Putin’s surfaced on city centers, feeding the growing tendency to see him as a local secret agent.

A Diplomatic Opportunity?

Given the casting, an actor well-liked by viewers there, the authorities will not miss the opportunity to frame his casting as a small victory. Its exclusion of mass protests, the opposition, or key figures from its narrative, even though it includes recent years, is a pleasant bonus for official messaging.

Domestically, Putin is often an omnipotent figure who remains unseen on screen. His influence is hinted at through photographs or orders from on high. Now, he finally acquires a famous actor's visage—one that may inadvertently echo the exact legends it perhaps aims to question.