The Wizard of the Kremlin — Olivier Assayas’s new film, adapted from Giuliano da Empoli’s novel and starring Jude Law in a character inspired by Vladimir Putin — has set off a lively and often uneasy conversation across Europe. Shot in Riga on a reported budget of about €23 million, the co‑production between French and Latvian teams has become more than a movie: it’s a flashpoint where art, politics and money collide.
Why the fuss
The film’s subject matter — a dramatized, fictional insider story woven from archival material and reported episodes — invites the usual debates around historical drama: how much is invented for narrative effect, and how much responsibility do filmmakers have when dealing with recent, sensitive politics? Supporters argue the film is a work of fiction that uses compression and invention to explore mechanisms of power. Critics counter that certain creative choices risk echoing Kremlin talking points, softening the geopolitical realities the story touches on.
Those artistic disagreements are amplified by practical concerns about financing, local involvement and reputational exposure. International cultural projects don’t exist in a vacuum: who funds them, who profits from them, and which local companies are engaged all shape how audiences and officials respond.
Festival reaction and critical split
At festivals the response has been split. Many reviewers praised the production values — the meticulous staging, the controlled mise‑en‑scène and the lead performances, which critics called subtle and restrained. Others objected to the film’s moral ambiguity: where some saw nuanced complexity, others saw a failure to clearly confront the abuses and consequences tied to the story’s real‑world referents.
This split reflects a broader tension in cultural industries: protecting creative freedom while recognizing that politically charged works may create reputational and operational risks for funders, distributors and venues. Programmers and journalists have begun asking whether stronger due diligence and contextual framing should be standard practice for such titles — measures intended not to censor but to avoid inadvertent harm or misleading interpretations.
Latvia’s reaction and the local partner controversy
The most intense backlash has come from Latvia. Cultural commentators, municipal officials and some state agencies raised alarms about the film’s tone and about the involvement of a Riga‑based production partner, Forma Pro Films. Questions surfaced about the company’s leadership, past business ties in the region, and whether working with certain local firms could open the project to political influence or exploitation.
As a result, some Latvian institutions withheld financial or logistical support, citing reputational and security concerns. French press reporting — including coverage in Le Monde — intensified scrutiny; Forma Pro has defended itself, saying it now primarily works internationally and denying any intent to sway the film’s message. The company also signalled it would pursue legal action against what it called misleading allegations.
What industry practices are being discussed
Beyond the headlines, producers, funders and policy makers are debating practical steps to reduce future friction without smothering artistic expression. Possibilities on the table include:
- – More rigorous due diligence on production partners and financiers. – Clearer disclosure of ownership and funding sources for co‑productions. – Contextual material for local marketing and screenings (program notes, expert panels). – Advisory panels that include regional historians or civil‑society voices. – Contract clauses that address reputational risk without dictating creative content.
The argument from many corners is pragmatic: transparency and good governance protect reputations and help maintain access to markets and festivals, while better contextualisation can preserve a filmmaker’s ability to probe difficult subjects.
What to watch next
Decisions now rest with producers, distributors and financiers. How they respond — whether by tightening clearance procedures, adapting marketing strategies, or convening advisory panels — will set a tone for how similar projects are greenlit and rolled out in geopolitically sensitive contexts.
Why the fuss
The film’s subject matter — a dramatized, fictional insider story woven from archival material and reported episodes — invites the usual debates around historical drama: how much is invented for narrative effect, and how much responsibility do filmmakers have when dealing with recent, sensitive politics? Supporters argue the film is a work of fiction that uses compression and invention to explore mechanisms of power. Critics counter that certain creative choices risk echoing Kremlin talking points, softening the geopolitical realities the story touches on.0