Oppenheimer
, the story of the invention of the atomic bomb, won the Oscar for best picture last Sunday.
'Twenty Days in Mariupol', winner of the Oscar for best documentary, deals with the military assault on a Ukrainian city whose theater, a refuge for thousands, was bombed by the Russians on March 16, 2002, taking 600 lives.
Just the context for three days after the ceremony in Hollywood, Vladimir Putin, the Russian president, to declare that he is “prepared” to launch into nuclear war and accuse the leaders of the West of being “vampires” hungry “for human flesh.” ”.
Just as well, the message of optimism, generosity and peace that one expects from a leader about to run for election.
Well, not fair everywhere, perhaps, but in the Russian parallel world.
This weekend presidential elections are being held in Russia.
OKAY.
Maybe “celebrating” is not the most appropriate verb.
“Imitating” would be better.
Or “parodying”.
In any case, since this is a joke, since everyone knows that Putin took the precaution of watering the electoral field with blood to ensure a brutal victory, a question arises:
what are Russian elections for?
The obvious thing would be to say that this is an epic exercise in hypocrisy, a condition once well defined as “the homage that vice pays to virtue.”
There is something of that.
The elections would be an attempt to cover up how trash he is as a person and the irremediable ugliness of the system he presides over.
But the issue is more complex.
Putin is more complex
.
Since we're talking about the Oscars, and so that the world he threatens to destroy has a better idea of who he really is, one idea would be to make a movie about him.
Titled “Putinheimer,” perhaps, or “Putinstein,” it would examine the personality of the Russian dictator in the context of his curious need to stage his electoral farces.
It would not be an easy task.
We would be talking about a new genre,
a hybrid of black comedy and horror film
, to which we would have to add a strong dose of David Lynch-style surrealism.
But to be a candidate for the Oscars next year the key would be the verisimilitude of the central character.
The actor who took on the role would have an immense challenge.
I would be willing to help you.
I imagine a dialogue, or a kind of tutorial, with one of three or four possible suitors for the role: Cillian Murphy ('Peaky Blinders' version), perhaps, or Jack Nicholson (a mix of his roles in 'The Shining' and 'Better impossible'), Joaquin Phoenix ('Napoleon') or Javier Bardem (replicating his cold and monstrous killer in 'No Country for Old Men').
“You say that Putin is a rubbish human being…” the chosen actor would tell me.
“Yes,” I would reply.
“But I fall short.”
“Ah.”
"Yeah.
Limiting ourselves only to the most obvious qualities of him, Putin is… here it goes,
an envious, resentful, greedy, self-conscious, paranoid, psychopathic, arrogant, insecure and mediocre guy.”
"Mediocre?
But she has come very far…”
“Hitler also went far.
Look, a few days ago I was at a meal with a dozen friends and I reflected that if Putin were here - Putin in his human nakedness, I mean, stripped of power - he would be by far the
least graceful, most banal person at the table.
And we already know that, to make matters worse, when he starts talking, usually about the central role he occupies in his imagined Russian imperial history, he doesn't stop. ”
“I mean, Putin is a bore who borders on madness?”
“It doesn't touch her.
He is crazy as hell.”
“Like Donald Trump or Javier Milei?”
“Like Trump, quite a bit, but like Javier Milei, what's up!
His style is deceptive, but next to Putin, Milei is a serene Socrates, the holy Buddha.
And Milei does not have under his command either the largest nuclear arsenal in the world, nor a murderous mafia without borders.”
“So, if I agree to be Putin in the movies, I would be playing the role of the most dangerous madman in the world…”
"As it is.
But a classic madman at the same time: a being who lives captive to
a story that he himself has invented
.
"Perhaps the best evidence of his pathology is that he is the only person in the world convinced that his power is democratically legitimate."
“Is that why the film would be made against the backdrop of a presidential election?”
"Correct.
That is, against the background of the big lie that only Putin believes.
“No one is deceived, no one in the world, except Putin himself.”
“Explain to me the connection between Putin's madness, between this story of which you say you are a captive, and his spectacular electoral setup.”
“Well, first keep in mind that neither your admired Peter the Great or Josef Stalin, nor Al Capone, nor your little North Korean friend Kim Jong Un, nor any other imperialist, gangster.
or an important and openly criminal dictator like him has stooped to the indignity of asking the people for approval through the vote.
With the exception of Hitler, of course.
But, once he gained power, he also stopped humping.”
“So, if Putin is an all-powerful gangster, why does he insist on messing around with the absurdity of elections?”
"Good.
That's the thing.
The thing is that he needs proof, on paper objective, that his delusion of grandeur is true.
He wants to believe that he is not only feared, but loved;
that he is not a mediocre, but a champion;
that he has the love and trust and support of the vast majority of the glorious Russian people.
In his imagination, the electoral numbers support him.”
“So this movie would essentially make fun of him?”
“Exactly: following the example of Aléxei Navalni.
Navalny was the rival that Putin hated the most because he was the one who laughed at him day after day, the one who confronted him with the fantasy world that he had created.
He betrayed how crazy he was.
That's why he killed him."
“I mean, if I accepted this role, would I be taking over from Navalni?”
“In a way, yes.”
"No, thanks".