In the film The Wizard of the Kremlin, the story revolves around Vadim Baranov, a character portrayed by Paul Dano. He reflects on power and its shifting nature, especially comparing the West’s money-driven status to Russia’s connection to authority. The film, based on Giuliano da Empoli’s acclaimed novel, is directed by Olivier Assayas. It raises intriguing questions about moral connections and the complexities of Putin’s political landscape, but can it do justice to such weighty themes in just two and a half hours?
Baranov’s character seems inspired by the real-life Vladislav Surkov, a former presidential aide who helped shape modern Russian politics. Much of the film unfolds during a conversation between Baranov and Rowland, played by Jeffrey Wright, in a snowy country home. Despite their intellectual exchange, Baranov struggles to link his thoughts on morality to genuine emotion, which is mirrored by Dano’s intentionally flat performance—a choice that fits the satire but may leave some viewers wanting more energy.
The film opens with a spirited connection between Rowland and Baranov over Yevgeny Zamyatin’s works, setting a high literary standard. However, the movie often feels rushed, focusing on many events without fully exploring their significance. For instance, party scenes from early ’90s Moscow miss capturing the vibrant cultural essence of that era. A fur coat alone does not convey the rich styles and influences of the time.
Moreover, the actors’ accents vary dramatically, suggesting a lack of coordination in preparation, despite most of the dialogue being in English. This disconnect, along with the film’s rapid pace, impedes a deeper understanding of characters and events.
While the film features notable performances from Alicia Vikander, who plays Ksenia — a love interest of Baranov, and Will Keen as Boris Berezovsky, it misses the chance to develop a broader range of characters. The pace sacrifices emotional depth for a checklist of events.
Perhaps the most compelling character remains Vladimir Putin, portrayed by Jude Law. Unlike previous interpretations, this Putin is quiet and contemplative, operating behind the scenes. Law captures Putin’s subtle intelligence, suggesting a man who knows how to navigate power dynamics without needing to prove himself overtly. However, this portrayal adds complexity to current events, especially when considering Putin’s aggressive actions, like the invasion of Ukraine.
The film touches on theories presented by Baranov—mainly that Russians favor a concentrated power structure—but these observations lack thorough exploration. The movie often settles into the familiar patterns of Cold War thrillers rather than digging into a more nuanced, realistic narrative.
In some light-hearted moments, Baranov’s theories about manipulating public emotions provide brief comedic relief, such as a scene where Putin humorously questions “What is… Daft Punk?” Yet, the film’s ending feels truncated and somewhat simplistic, overlooking the chance for a richer conclusion.
Overall, The Wizard of the Kremlin engages with pivotal themes but struggles to leave a lasting impact, ultimately adhering more to storytelling conventions than exploring the profound underlying issues.
For more insights on the political landscape in Russia and the complexities of its leadership, you can refer to sources like the Brookings Institution or The Atlantic.
