Skip to main content

How can you run and plot at the same time?

The Death of Stalin
(2017)

(SPOILERS) Armando Iannucci’s previous big screen effort, In the Loop, wasn’t, I felt, quite as effective as the short-sharp-sniggers its tighter TV companion The Thick of It delivered. With The Death of Stalin, the only common ground is that he’s still immersing himself in politics. Which, let’s face is it, is a substantial amount of common ground, as both follow a procession of ineptitude, backstabbing, power grabs and self-preservation. What makes the The Death of Stalin particularly stand out, though, is that it isn’t just very funny, it also works as a thriller.


One can, if one so choses, impress upon the picture stunning topicality, much as attempts have been made with the seemingly innocuous Paddington 2, but Iannucci’s more than willing to admit the Stalin’s genesis and production came both pre-Trump and pre-Brexit, making it “strangely relevant in a way I wasn’t expecting”. Which rather illustrates that this kind of tale, well-told and with a flourish of barbs, can apply itself to any climate; as much as we may wish to see a particular moment – invariably the current one – as the worst ever, they more usually represent slightly rearranged furniture or more overt targets. Likewise, the “fake news” of false narratives, suddenly a talking point because it has been characterised by a catchy phrase, as if it hasn’t been common currency since the first printing press, and before.


Iannucci’s take on the death of the dictator is replete with familiar verbosity, spectacularly colourful insults, broad, familiar character types (often buffoonish or abusive/splenetic, or both) encountering escalating frustrations in their attempts to smooth over troubled waters. But, while obviously a comedy at first glance, he doesn’t attempt to disguise or diminish the subject matter’s more serious, darker (much darker) undercurrents, striking a deftly farcical balance that puts one in mind of more Strangelovian ventures.


The absurdity inherent in the story is, by Armando’s account, unvarnished, with elements sometimes even downplayed as too much (Field Marshal Zhukov actually had more medals than that; the opening, with a masterfully frustrated Paddy Considine  as the head of Radio Moscow desperately trying to re-stage the evening’s concert performance so Stalin can have a recorded copy, is purportedly true – albeit it occurred in 1944 – only compounded when one learns that not only was a second conductor brought in but also a third; the first replacement was drunk).


The time frame has also been compressed; it took Stalin four days to die from stroke, it was more than three months later that Beria was arrested and another six months before he was executed. Beria and his immediate power grab is effectively the focus of the movie, even though Khrushchev (Steve Buscemi) is the lead protagonist (I’d hesitate to say “hero”, but as presented, he’s more moderate and practical than his peers), and Simon Russell Beale, who does relatively little film and TV work (he was George Smiley in Radio 4’s Le Carré adaptations) offers a compellingly duplicitous, venomous and twisted portrait of the man Stalin proudly referred to as the Soviet Union’s Himmler: his chief torturer and compiler of death lists (although, apparently, he actually engaged in fewer purges than his predecessor; these things are relative, of course).


Beria (previously played by Bob Hoskins and David Suchet, while Philip Madoc based the War Lord on Beria in Doctor Who story The War Games,) was in charge of the NKVD, the Soviet secret police, a primary tool for enforcing terror and putting him in an ideal position to assert control. Iannucci was astutely aware of the potential of taking a relatively unknown actor (outside of theatre) and placing him in the role of a relatively unknown but key motivating force. Beria, is funny – of course he is, this is Iannucci – but in a hollow, goading manner, lacking even the ameliorating quality of Malcolm Tucker (where there’s at least discernible reason for his volcanic spleen – all around him are idiots); Beria’s an entirely irredeemable, sadistic bully, a paedophile and rapist, who without even knowledge the grim details, you want to see delivered his comeuppance within the first few minutes of being in his company (even though, or perhaps because, it’s entirely and pointedly without recourse to due legal process, so reflecting his own modus operandi).


Beria’s art is to throw others off balance, taking delight in pushing and pulling them in whichever direction he chooses on a whim, suggesting allegiance or treason depending on the moment. All to Khrushchev’s increasing exasperation. This is a prize Buscemi role; I can’t remember when he last dug into a part this good. Certainly, more than a decade, and he’s ably supported by committee members exhibiting various degrees of incompetence (although, Iannucci stresses that part of what fascinates about the regime is its very competence, of a machine out of control).


Paul Whitehouse and Paul Chahidi make a mirthfully mocking double act as Mikoyan and Bulganin, Dermot Crowley a withering Kaganovich, and Jeffrey Tambor, currently having a seemingly disproportionate amount of attention paid to his behaviour under current pack-dog conditions – he’s certainly attracting far more column inches than Bill Clinton –  draws on his portrayal of Hank in The Larry Sander Show as a blithe idiot inflated by his prospective role as puppet premier (the only iffy element here is that Malenkov’s occasionally invited to display cunning, so introducing an element of inconsistency to the character).


Michael Palin’s presence as Molotov draws attention to the almost Python-esque lunacy of some of the scenarios; on release of his wife Polina (Diana Quick), whom he believed to have been killed (a slight exaggeration, as Molotov was aware she was alive, imprisoned and then exiled, with news occasionally relayed to him by Beria), he is caught between joy at her return and toeing the line of denouncing her. This vacillation and fear of saying what you think and saying what you think you should say, and even not even being sure which is which, continues into a meeting of the Central Committee in which those present show reluctance to vote in a manner that may or may not suggest loyalty to Stalin, guided by an extremely long-winded monologue from Molotov circles back and round as it is continues.


Fine as the Central Committee parts and players are, it’s Jeremy Isaacs who steals the show in barnstorming fashion as Field Marshal Zhukov, entering in explosive slow motion and mouthing off fearlessly and coarsely with blunt Yorkshire tones (it has been much remarked on that Iannucci made no demands of Eastern European accents, and it’s definitely to the benefit of the naturalness of the comedy, albeit Isaacs is putting on an accent). There’s a priceless scene in which Khrushchev goes to Zhukov for support and latter responds that he will have to report him for such plotting, before making it clear it’s a wind up (“Look at your fucking face”).


The casual manner in which change of regime leads to a new list of targets (on Beria’s part), with Stalin’s staff and guard executed (including doubles), extends to the danger posed to his children. Adrian Mcloughlin’s Stalin is a vulgar gang boss with penchant for westerns, while Rupert Friend’s Vasily is contrastingly a spoilt, drunken brat who fails to recognise the precariousness of his now unsupported positon. Andrea Riseborough as Sventlana, in contrast, gradually comes to understand.


If there’s a failing in the character work, it’s that Iannucci’s unable to deal in kind with the female roles; Friend is hilariously unrestrained as Vasily, constantly attempting to shoot someone or disrupt situations, but Svetlana is an altogether more sombre part, and combined with Olga Kurylenko’s Maria Yudina, whose pivotal role derives from the graphic novel La Mort de Staline, upon with Death is based, Iannucci falls into the trap of casting beautiful actresses – I’m guessing he’s a big fan of Oblivion – and having them eclipsed by the grandstanding of their male co-stars.


The screenplay, credited to Iannucci and previous collaborators David Scheider, Ian Martin and Peter Fellows, is as expectedly gag packed as anything he’s done previously, boasting memorable line after memorable line, many of them inherently combative, and the scenarios tend to successively outdo themselves for darkly comic value (attempts to get a doctor to examine Stalin are hampered by his having had all the good ones rounded up and executed; this appears to be based on the Doctors’ Plot episode).


Elsewhere, there’s no making light of what transpires (informed as it is by “the underlying tension and anxiety of twenty years of not knowing if you’d live through the night”), such as in the massacre initiated by the NKVD – Khrushchev reversing Beria’s decision to close off the city, having correctly calculated the bloody consequences – who open fire when mourners break through barricades to see Stalin’s body. And the ceremony by which one of Beria’s young rape victim is returned to her parents (with a bunch of flowers, a Beria ritual, the intended implication being a consensual congress). Elsewhere still, his farcical instincts lead to uproarious results, from a succession of committee members attempting to avoid standing or kneeling in their fallen leader’s piss when inspecting the body, to Khrushchev unsuccessfully attempting to engineer a discussion with Beria while standing in state around Stalin.


The Death of Stalin is already being bestowed best of year awards, and I expect that will only gather pace, and deservedly so. Its writer-director has other plans going forward, however; it will be interesting to see how Iannucci fares divested of the raiment of satire for his much-cherished next project, a film adaptation of David Copperfield.


Agree? Disagree? Mildly or vehemently? Let me know in the comments below.

Popular posts from this blog

The Bible never said anything about amphetamines.

The Color of Money (1986) (SPOILERS) I tend to think it’s evident when Scorsese isn’t truly exercised by material. He can still invest every ounce of the technical acumen at his fingertips, and the results can dazzle on that level, but you don’t really feel the filmmaker in the film. Which, for one of his pictures to truly carry a wallop, you need to do. We’ve seen quite a few in such deficit in recent years, most often teaming with Leo. The Color of Money , however, is the first where it was out-and-out evident the subject matter wasn’t Marty’s bag. He needed it, desperately, to come off, but in the manner a tradesman who wants to keep getting jobs. This sequel to The Hustler doesn’t linger in the mind, however good it may be, moment by moment.

I said I had no family. I didn’t say I had an empty apartment.

The Apartment (1960) (SPOILERS) Billy Wilder’s romcom delivered the genre that rare Best Picture Oscar winner. Albeit, The Apartment amounts to a rather grim (now) PG-rated scenario, one rife with adultery, attempted suicide, prostitution of the soul and subjective thereof of the body. And yet, it’s also, finally, rather sweet, so salving the darker passages and evidencing the director’s expertly judged balancing act. Time Out ’s Tom Milne suggested the ending was a cop out (“ boy forgives girl and all’s well ”). But really, what other ending did the audience or central characters deserve?

Listen to the goddamn qualified scientists!

Don’t Look Up (2021) (SPOILERS) It’s testament to Don’t Look Up ’s “quality” that critics who would normally lap up this kind of liberal-causes messaging couldn’t find it within themselves to grant it a free pass. Adam McKay has attempted to refashion himself as a satirist since jettisoning former collaborator Will Ferrell, but as a Hollywood player and an inevitably socio-politically partisan one, he simply falls in line with the most obvious, fatuous propagandising.

Your desecration of reality will not go unpunished.

2021-22 Best-of, Worst-of and Everything Else Besides The movies might be the most visible example of attempts to cling onto cultural remnants as the previous societal template clatters down the drain. It takes something people really want – unlike a Bond movie where he kicks the can – to suggest the model of yesteryear, one where a billion-dollar grosser was like sneezing. You can argue Spider-Man: No Way Home is replete with agendas of one sort or another, and that’s undoubtedly the case (that’s Hollywood), but crowding out any such extraneous elements (and they often are) is simply a consummate crowd-pleaser that taps into tangible nostalgia through its multiverse take. Of course, nostalgia for a mere seven years ago, for something you didn’t like anyway, is a symptom of how fraught these times have become.

Doctors make the worst patients.

Coma (1978) (SPOILERS) Michael Crichton’s sophomore big-screen feature, and by some distance his best. Perhaps it’s simply that this a milieu known to him, or perhaps it’s that it’s very much aligned to the there-and-now and present, but Coma , despite the occasional lapse in this adaptation of colleague Robin Cook’s novel, is an effective, creepy, resonant thriller and then some. Crichton knows his subject, and it shows – the picture is confident and verisimilitudinous in a way none of his other directorial efforts are – and his low-key – some might say clinical – approach pays dividends. You might also call it prescient, but that would be to suggest its subject matter wasn’t immediately relevant then too.

You ruined every suck-my-silky-ass thing!

The Matrix Resurrections (2021) (SPOILERS) Warner Bros has been here before. Déjà vu? What happens when you let a filmmaker do whatever they want? And I don’t mean in the manner of Netflix. No, in the sequel sense. You get a Gremlins 2: The New Batch (a classic, obviously, but not one that financially furthered a franchise). And conversely, when you simply cash in on a brand, consequences be damned? Exorcist II: The Heretic speaks for itself. So in the case of The Matrix Resurrections – not far from as meta as The New Batch , but much less irreverent – when Thomas “Tom” Anderson, designer of globally successful gaming trilogy The Matrix , is told “ Our beloved company, Warner Bros, has decided to make a sequel to the trilogy ” and it’s going ahead “with or without us”, you can be fairly sure this is the gospel. That Lana, now going it alone, decided it was better to “make the best of it” than let her baby be sullied. Of course, quite what that amounts to in the case of a movie(s) tha

You just threw a donut in the hot zone!

Den of Thieves (2018) (SPOILERS) I'd heard this was a shameless  Heat  rip-off, and the presence of Gerard Butler seemed to confirm it would be passable-at-best B-heist hokum, so maybe it was just middling expectations, even having heard how enthused certain pockets of the Internet were, but  Den of Thieves  is a surprisingly very satisfying entry in the genre. I can't even fault it for attempting to Keyser Soze the whole shebang at the last moment – add a head in a box and you have three 1995 classics in one movie – even if that particular conceit doesn’t quite come together.

Abandon selective targeting. Shoot everything.

28 Weeks Later (2007) (SPOILERS) The first five minutes of 28 Weeks Later are far and away the best part of this sequel, offering in quick succession a devastating moral quandary and a waking nightmare, immortalised on the screen. After that, while significantly more polished, Juan Carlos Fresnadillo reveals his concept to be altogether inferior to Danny Boyle and Alex Garland’s, falling back on the crutches of gore, nihilism, and disengaging and limiting shifts of focus between characters in whom one has little investment in the first place.

It’s always possible to find a good moral reason for killing anybody.

The Assassination Bureau (1969) (SPOILERS) The Assassination Bureau ought to be a great movie. You can see its influence on those who either think it is a great movie, or want to produce something that fulfils its potential. Alan Moore and The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen . The just-released (and just-flopped) The King’s Men . It inhabits a post-Avengers, self-consciously benign rehearsal of, and ambivalence towards, Empire manners and attitudes, something that could previously be seen that decade in Those Magnificent Men in Their Flying Machines (and sequel Monte Carlo or Bust , also 1969), Adam Adamant Lives! , and even earlier with Kind Hearts and Coronets , whilst also feeding into that “Peacock Revolution” of Edwardian/Victorian fashion refurbishment. Unfortunately, though, it lacks the pop-stylistic savvy that made, say, The President’s Analyst so vivacious.

This guy’s armed with a hairdryer.

An Innocent Man (1989) (SPOILERS) Was it a chicken-and-egg thing with Tom Selleck and movies? Did he consistently end up in ropey pictures because other, bigger big-screen stars had first dibs on the good stuff? Or was it because he was a resolutely small-screen guy with limited range and zero good taste? Selleck had about half-a-dozen cinema outings during the 1980s, one of which, the very TV, very Touchstone Three Men and a Baby was a hit, but couldn’t be put wholly down to him. The final one was An Innocent Man , where he attempted to show some grit and mettle, as nice-guy Tom is framed and has to get tough to survive. Unfortunately, it’s another big-screen TV movie.