Olivier Assayas’s new film — with Jude Law playing a fictionalized version of Vladimir Putin — opened after a long wait and immediately stirred controversy. The movie, adapted from Giuliano da Empoli’s novel and focused on a strategist inspired by Vladislav Surkov, was shot mostly in Riga. Latvian officials quickly objected, accusing the production of echoing Kremlin talking points. Defenders push back just as fast: they say this is fiction, artistic license, and a valid exercise of free expression. The clash has reopened bigger debates about cultural diplomacy, media influence and whether artists owe extra responsibility when they dramatize living political figures.
What the film does
– Assayas leans into intimate character work and moody atmospheres. Rather than doing a documentary-style portrait, the film favors performance, subtext and slow-burn tension.
– Production design turned Latvian locations into believable Kremlin-adjacent spaces — a deliberate choice to evoke rather than replicate Russia.
– The screenplay stitches together political manoeuvring and private scenes; casting Jude Law nudges viewers toward seeing the story as interpretation over literal truth.
Why people are divided
– Supporters: It’s fiction. The film probes power, manipulation and the human side of leadership without claiming to be a historical record. Theater and film are tools for questioning, not for issuing verdicts.
– Critics: Even fictional portrayals can normalize or soften real-world abuses, especially when released in countries sensitive to Russian influence. In Latvia — which still carries memory of Soviet rule — that worry has extra weight.
– Administratively, the row highlights a classic tension: artistic freedom vs. potential geopolitical impact. Practically, the choice of subject and shooting location has made the film an easy target for political scrutiny.
How objections typically play out
– Festivals and cultural bodies often receive formal complaints, and organizers may reconsider permits or programming.
– Legal frameworks involved include libel, public-order rules, and permit conditions; sometimes disputes move from festival offices to courts or ministries.
– Common festival responses include content advisories, Q&As, or panels to provide context rather than outright bans.
Practical consequences for industry players
– Festival programmers and distributors must balance artistic merit against reputational or legal risk.
– Producers should plan for contingencies: legal checks, transparent funding disclosures, clearer fictional disclaimers, and thoughtful location permitting.
– For curators, pairing screenings with expert panels or contextual materials helps audiences separate dramatization from factual claims.
How soft power works here
– Cultural products travel ideas. Repeated sympathetic or neutral depictions can subtly affect public perceptions over time.
– Distribution channels — festivals, streaming platforms, broadcasters — decide reach and framing. A single festival buzz or algorithm boost can push a film into new conversations quickly.
– When narrative framing, production choices (casting, location) and distribution all point in one direction, the chance of implied legitimation rises — whether intentional or not.
Pros and cons, boiled down
– Pros: Fiction can humanize complex issues, spark public debate, and expose patterns power uses. Artistic nuance can challenge viewers more effectively than blunt polemics.
– Cons: In polarized or historically sensitive regions, dramatized portrayals may be read as endorsement, feeding misinformation or soft-power operations.
– The central trade-off is clear: preserve creative freedom while finding ways to limit unintended geopolitical effects.
What institutions can do
– Screenings with historians, journalists or policy experts help contextualize content.
– Clear metadata, content advisories, and disclosure of funding sources reduce confusion.
– Platforms might prioritize contextual material alongside the film — summaries, expert essays, or curated discussions — to guide interpretation.
Market and funding implications
– Politically charged films draw attention and can perform well commercially, but they also attract institutional pushback.
– Distributors will weigh box-office potential against backlash in sensitive markets. Streaming services offer scale but less contextual control.
– Co-production rules, insurance and funder policies influence which projects get made; controversies like this can chill investment in riskier topics.
Regional politics matter
– In the Baltic states, memories of Soviet occupation intensify sensitivities around portrayals of Russian leaders.
– Latvian officials framed their objections as vigilance against propaganda, not a blanket attack on artistic expression. That distinction matters but doesn’t make the debate any simpler.
What the film does
– Assayas leans into intimate character work and moody atmospheres. Rather than doing a documentary-style portrait, the film favors performance, subtext and slow-burn tension.
– Production design turned Latvian locations into believable Kremlin-adjacent spaces — a deliberate choice to evoke rather than replicate Russia.
– The screenplay stitches together political manoeuvring and private scenes; casting Jude Law nudges viewers toward seeing the story as interpretation over literal truth.0
What the film does
– Assayas leans into intimate character work and moody atmospheres. Rather than doing a documentary-style portrait, the film favors performance, subtext and slow-burn tension.
– Production design turned Latvian locations into believable Kremlin-adjacent spaces — a deliberate choice to evoke rather than replicate Russia.
– The screenplay stitches together political manoeuvring and private scenes; casting Jude Law nudges viewers toward seeing the story as interpretation over literal truth.1
What the film does
– Assayas leans into intimate character work and moody atmospheres. Rather than doing a documentary-style portrait, the film favors performance, subtext and slow-burn tension.
– Production design turned Latvian locations into believable Kremlin-adjacent spaces — a deliberate choice to evoke rather than replicate Russia.
– The screenplay stitches together political manoeuvring and private scenes; casting Jude Law nudges viewers toward seeing the story as interpretation over literal truth.2