The Wizard’s Web: Fact and Fiction Blur in Putin’s Rise to Power

The latest film adaptation of Giuliano da Empoli’s novel, The Wizard of the Kremlin, raises more questions than it answers about Vladislav Surkov’s role in shaping Vladimir Putin’s authoritarian regime. Director Olivier Assayas has admitted that the line between reality and invention is blurred in this “factional” tale, where characters are composites or outright fabrications. This blurring of lines creates a challenge for understanding the inner workings of Russia’s power structures.

The film portrays Vadim Baranov, based on Surkov, as a Machiavellian media manipulator. However, it is worth questioning whether this portrayal is an accurate representation of the real Surkov. According to legend, the young Vladislav was expelled from drama school for fighting and never pursued a career in theater. Nevertheless, his interest in the arts remained strong, and he even published a dystopian novel, About Zero, in 2009. This work is notable not only for its bleak vision of a corrupt politician using fake news to maintain power but also for its author’s clear fascination with the intersection of art and politics.

Surkov’s experience in theater would indeed inform his later work as Putin’s spin doctor, but it’s worth questioning whether this was as direct a connection as the film suggests. As one Kremlin adviser recalled, “He was thinking about himself as the guy who is running the show, trying to find the place of every actor in his play and performance.” This description might be an apt assessment of Surkov’s skills as a media operator, but it also raises questions about the role of power brokers like Putin in shaping the narrative.

The film’s depiction of Vadim taking a job producing a reality TV show for Channel One is also noteworthy. In reality, Surkov started working as a bodyguard for Mikhail Khodorkovsky, whom he knew from his student days, and later rose through the ranks to head PR at various Khodorkovsky companies. His appointment by Berezovsky at Channel One in 1998 was more of a senior PR executive role than a hands-on program maker position.

The film’s subject matter raises significant questions about the relationship between art and politics. Da Empoli’s novel, on which the film is based, takes some liberties with historical events while striving to stay true to the spirit of those times. This blurred line between reality and invention suits the subject matter perfectly – after all, Surkov’s view was that “nothing is true; there is no truth; there are alternative truths.” As we grapple with the consequences of this philosophy, it’s worth examining how art and politics intersect in the context of authoritarian regimes.

The film serves as a microcosm for the larger patterns at play in modern Russia. We see echoes of Surkov’s tactics in the way Putin’s regime has used propaganda to maintain its grip on power. As we try to separate fact from fiction, it’s essential to consider what this means for our understanding of the inner workings of Russia’s power structures.

The success of The Wizard of the Kremlin also highlights the importance of media literacy in navigating these complex narratives. By questioning what is fact and what is fiction, we can begin to unravel the web of propaganda that surrounds us. The line between reality and invention has never been more blurred – or more deadly. This is particularly relevant given the global spread of Surkov’s innovations in propaganda.

In examining the facts and fiction surrounding Vladislav Surkov’s rise to prominence, we can gain a deeper understanding of the larger patterns at play in modern Russia – and the consequences for our own democracy.