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.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Mondo bizarro. No offence man, but you’re in way over your head.

The X-Files 8.7: Via Negativa I wasn’t as down on the last couple of seasons of The X-Files as most seemed to be. For me, the mythology arc walked off a cliff somewhere around the first movie, with only the occasional glimmer of something worthwhile after that. So the fact that the show was tripping over itself with super soldiers and Mulder’s abduction/his and Scully’s baby (although we all now know it wasn’t, sheesh ), anything to stretch itself beyond breaking point in the vain hope viewers would carry on dangling, didn’t really make much odds. Of course, it finally snapped with the wretched main arc when the show returned, although the writing was truly on the wall with Season 9 finale The Truth . For the most part, though, I found 8 and 9 more watchable than, say 5 or 7. They came up with their fair share of engaging standalones, one of which I remembered to be Via Negativa .

You know what I sometimes wish? I sometimes wish I were ordinary like you. Ordinary and dead like all the others.

Séance on a Wet Afternoon (1964) (SPOILERS) Bryan Forbes’ adaptation of Mark McShane’s 1961’s novel has been much acclaimed. It boasts a distinctive storyline and effective performances from its leads, accompanied by effective black-and-white cinematography from Gerry Turpin and a suitably atmospheric score from John Barry. I’m not sure Forbes makes the most of the material, however, as he underlines Séance on a Wet Afternoon ’s inherently theatrical qualities at the expense of its filmic potential.

A ship is the finest nursery in the world.

A High Wind in Jamaica (1965) (SPOILERS) An odd one, this, as if Disney were remaking The Swiss Family Robinson for adults. One might perhaps have imagined the Mouse House producing it during their “Dark Disney” phase. But even then, toned down. After all, kids kidnapped by pirates sounds like an evergreen premise for boy’s own adventuring (more girl’s own here). The reality of Alexander Mackendrick’s film is decidedly antithetical to that; there’s a lingering feeling, despite A High Wind in Jamaica ’s pirates largely observing their distance, that things could turn rather nasty (and indeed, if Richard Hughes’ 1929 novel  had been followed to the letter, they would have more explicitly). 

Duffy. That old tangerine hipster.

Duffy (1968) (SPOILERS) It’s appropriate that James Coburn’s title character is repeatedly referred to as an old hipster in Robert Parrish’s movie, as that seemed to be precisely the niche Coburn was carving out for himself in the mid to late 60s, no sooner had Our Man Flint made him a star. He could be found partaking in jaundiced commentary on sexual liberation in Candy, falling headlong into counter culture in The President’s Analyst , and leading it in Duffy . He might have been two decades older than its primary adherents, but he was, to repeat an oft-used phrase here, very groovy. If only Duffy were too.

You have done well to keep so much hair, when so many’s after it.

Jeremiah Johnson (1972) (SPOILERS) Hitherto, I was most familiar with Jeremiah Johnson in the form of a popular animated gif of beardy Robert Redford smiling and nodding in slow zoom close up (a moment that is every bit as cheesy in the film as it is in the gif). For whatever reason, I hadn’t mustered the enthusiasm to check out the 1970s’ The Revenant until now (well, beard-wise, at any rate). It’s easy to distinguish the different personalities at work in the movie. The John Milius one – the (mythic) man against the mythic landscape; the likeably accentuated, semi-poetic dialogue – versus the more naturalistic approach favoured by director Sydney Pollack and star Redford. The fusion of the two makes for a very watchable, if undeniably languorous picture. It was evidently an influence on Dances with Wolves in some respects, although that Best Picture Oscar winner is at greater pains to summon a more sensitive portrayal of Native Americans (and thus, perversely, at times a more patr

You’re a disgrace, sir... Weren’t you at Harrow?

Our Man in Marrakesh aka Bang! Bang! You’re Dead (1966) (SPOILERS) I hadn’t seen this one in more than three decades, and I had in mind that it was a decent spy spoof, well populated with a selection of stalwart British character actors in supporting roles. Well, I had the last bit right. I wasn’t aware this came from the stable of producer Harry Alan Towers, less still of his pedigree, or lack thereof, as a sort of British Roger Corman (he tried his hand at Star Wars with The Shape of Things to Come and Conan the Barbarian with Gor , for example). More legitimately, if you wish to call it that, he was responsible for the Christopher Lee Fu Manchu flicks. Our Man in Marrakesh – riffing overtly on Graham Greene’s Our Man in Havana in title – seems to have in mind the then popular spy genre and its burgeoning spoofs, but it’s unsure which it is; too lightweight to work as a thriller and too light on laughs to elicit a chuckle.

My Doggett would have called that crazy.

The X-Files 9.4: 4-D I get the impression no one much liked Agent Monica Reyes (Annabeth Gish), but I felt, for all the sub-Counsellor Troi, empath twiddling that dogged her characterisation, she was a mostly positive addition to the series’ last two years (of its main run). Undoubtedly, pairing her with Doggett, in anticipation of Gillian Anderson exiting just as David Duchovny had – you rewatch these seasons and you wonder where her head was at in hanging on – made for aggressively facile gender-swapped conflict positions on any given assignment. And generally, I’d have been more interested in seeing how two individuals sympathetic to the cause – her and Mulder – might have got on. Nevertheless, in an episode like 4-D you get her character, and Doggett’s, at probably their best mutual showing.

I tell you, it saw me! The hanged man’s asphyx saw me!

The Asphyx (1972) (SPOILERS) There was such a welter of British horror from the mid 60s to mid 70s, even leaving aside the Hammers and Amicuses, that it’s easy to lose track of them in the shuffle. This one, the sole directorial effort of Peter Newbrook (a cameraman for David Lean, then a cinematographer), has a strong premise and a decent cast, but it stumbles somewhat when it comes to taking that premise any place interesting. On the plus side, it largely eschews the grue. On the minus, directing clearly wasn’t Newbrook’s forte, and even aided by industry stalwart cinematographer Freddie Young (also a go-to for Lean), The Aspyhx is stylistically rather flat.

The best thing in the world for the inside of a man or a woman is the outside of a horse.

Marnie (1964) (SPOILERS) Hitch in a creative ditch. If you’ve read my Vertigo review, you’ll know I admired rather than really liked the picture many fete as his greatest work. Marnie is, in many ways, a redux, in the way De Palma kept repeating himself in the early 80s only significantly less delirious and… well, compelling. While Marnie succeeds in commanding the attention fitfully, it’s usually for the wrong reasons. And Hitch, digging his heels in as he strives to fashion a star against public disinterest – he failed to persuade Grace Kelly out of retirement for Marnie Rutland – comes entirely adrift with his leads.

Just wait. They’ll start listing side effects like the credits at the end of a movie.

Contagion  (2011) (SPOILERS) The plandemic saw Contagion ’s stock soar, which isn’t something that happens too often to a Steven Soderbergh movie. His ostensibly liberal outlook has hitherto found him on the side of the little people (class action suits) and interrogating the drugs trade while scrupulously avoiding institutional connivance (unless it’s Mexican institutional connivance). More recently, The Laundromat ’s Panama Papers puff piece fell fall flat on its face in attempting broad, knowing satire (in some respects, this is curious, as The Informant! is one of Soderbergh’s better-judged films, perhaps because it makes no bones about its maker’s indifference towards its characters). There’s no dilution involved with Contagion , however. It amounts to a bare-faced propaganda piece, serving to emphasise that the indie-minded director is Hollywood establishment through and through. This is a picture that can comfortably sit alongside any given Tinseltown handwringing over the Wa