Armando Iannucci’s ‘Death of Stalin’, adapted from a graphic
novel, shows the aftershocks of Josef Stalin’s (Adrian Mcloughlin) death in
1953 through decidedly British and comedic eyes. Indeed the Central Committee
of the Communist Party is portrayed as about as well run as the worst of the
worst of British’s Councils back in the 1970s, only more violent.
The film opens before Stalin’s death with the authorities
having to restage a piano concerto because Stalin has asked for a recording of
it after the fact. So rather than tell Stalin it’s not possible, the producer
(Paddy Considine) forces the orchestra and the audience to stay put while they
do it all over again. This involves bribing the pianist (Olga Kurylenko) and
finding a new conductor, who turns up in his dressing gown.
Then Stalin has the audacity to die which causes chaos. For
a start they can’t summon a competent doctor to confirm his death or to
ascertain the cause of it because Stalin has imprisoned or executed them all.
Meanwhile the jockeying to succeed him has already begun. Georgi
Malenkov (Jeffrey Tambor) temporarily and controversially assumes control but
he will have to battle to hold onto the leadership as Nikita Khrushchev (Steve
Buscemi) and Vyacheslav Molotov (Michael Palin) state their cases. While
Khrushchev is the semi-decent reformer and tries to take a more measured path
to the top job, Molotov would remove anyone who got in his way. His approach is
mild though compared with Lavrentiy Beria (Simon Russell Beale), who is the
head of the secret police, but he doesn’t have many supporters and is messily
executed for treason.
The only people to say anything good about Stalin, perhaps
not surprisingly, are his daughter, Svetlana (Andrea Riseborough) and his
hot-headed son, Vasily (Rupert Friend). Things then liven up further when
Marshal Zhukov (Jason Isaacs) turns up. Nothing portrays this more as a British
spoof that Zhukov who appears to be a Yorkshireman with a very broad accent.
Depending on how good your knowledge of Russian history is
it can be difficult to follow everything as the film is more focussed on it’s comedic
angle than about walking you through the history. Although it is still informative
in this way and appears to be highly accurate. You just might have to hit Wikipedia
to fill in the gaps.
Although very well acted, I’m not sure the film is actually
that funny and, for me, the history of it is easily the most fascinating
aspect. An out and out drama might have been more effective but then would anybody
else have watched it.
Posts
