Film industries exist within multiple paradigms, showing cultural, social and political links. Motion pictures reflect various constructs, which possess reciprocal functionality – they create, shape and raise awareness of the existing issues. For instance, new genre conventions are first tested and may even cause audience resistance, but later are incorporated into the existing genre or form new ones. Familiarity with the genre traits creates expectations of narrative, characters, their behavior, and character archetypes. From film noir, we all expect a femme-fatale, a detective and a crooked law enforcement official. In horror films, the audience expects monsters, ghosts and other supernatural beings to hunt protagonists.
However, the situation gains another dimension of comprehension when characters are anchored through the representation of specific nationalities. For decades, film scholars like bell hooks and many others explored the issue, especially bound to the racial minorities in the U.S. One particular category of film characters’ representation may have been overlooked despite posing significant interest from the historical perspective and contemporary geopolitical dynamics: the archetype of Russians in films. Their representation, which emerged from primarily negative connotations during the Cold War, underwent various transformations after the collapse of the U.S.S.R. to return to where it started in recent years.
The following piece serves as a historical overview of the issue of Russian portrayal as a specific archetype in popular Western films. It intentionally avoids comprehensive research on philosophical, cultural and social levels, but presents resilient dynamics and illustrates how popular media creates, reinforces and transforms the nationally anchored archetype.
The Era of Confrontation
One of the most vivid examples of persistent portrayal of Russians as villains is the James Bond saga. Though possessing significant threat, ultimately, they were no match for 007. The 80s, the conclusive decade of the Cold War, continuously utilized a similar approach and portrayed Russians as antagonists.
For instance, Rocky 4 depicted Dolph Lundgren as Ivan Drago, a ruthless boxing athlete enhanced by years of training on steroids. He became a killing machine and seemed invincible. Nevertheless, Rocky, as a true American champion, after training under the highest pressure, finally got the upper hand and defeated Drago to the surprise and appreciation of the Soviet leaders, with one of them oddly resembling Mikhail Gorbachev.
In Rambo: First Blood 2, the protagonist fought with the Vietnamese and Soviet special forces. In Rambo 3, only with the Soviet forces but on a higher scale. Top Gun featured breathtaking air battles between the U.S. and Soviet interceptors. In Predator, the team discovered a guerilla camp in one of the South American countries operated by Soviet military advisors. The protagonists heroically stormed the camp and exterminated everyone.
Soviets were primarily depicted as villains, representing state, military or related forces, which aimed to underline the superiority of the U.S. statehood, military traditions and professional training. Upon analyzing these films, it becomes evident that U.S.S.R., as a so-called “Evil Empire,” should have been portrayed negatively to reinforce Ronald Raegan’s claims due to the Cold War climax. It is not surprising that Hollywood appealed to such an archetype. It was familiar and could be easily incorporated into a suitable political, social and cultural context. Additionally, the intensity of the archetype’s recycling seems to be accelerated to gain the momentum of the geopolitical processes. Surprisingly, such a portrayal gradually raised awareness and curiosity among the Soviet population, especially in the 80s. Some antagonists are among the favorite and memorable characters even today, with their one-liners quoted upon recalling the movie titles. In general, Soviet and Russian audiences did not resist the chosen Hollywood archetype but treated it as a funny yet primitive cliché.
80s: From Foes to Partners
The 80s cannot be narrowed down to the confrontation only. The announcement of “Perestroika,” subsequent international contacts, armaments treaties and nuclear disarmaments seriously impacted the popular films.
For instance, Red Heat depicted Arnold Schwarzenegger as a Soviet law enforcement officer on a “professional exchange” mission, pursuing the Georgian mob lord. Such a shift in the archetype paradigm would have been impossible less than a decade prior. Police Academy: Mission to Moscow further developed the ideas from Red Heat – former foes during the Cold War maintained military contacts and joined forces to prevent the nuclear holocaust or fought criminal syndicates. The Hunt for Red October, an adaptation of Tom Clancy’s book, inspired by the actual mutiny in the Soviet navy in the 70s, showed a submarine captain defecting to the U.S. to prevent the delicate strategic nuclear balance violation. Finally, Russkies portrayed a shipwrecked Soviet sailor in Florida who met a group of local boys with whom he developed friendly relations. Thus, even military officers and those usually associated with executing the Soviet state functions can be friends.
The warming up in the relations between the countries was reflected in the archetypes: “bad guys,” previously attached to Soviets or Russians ethnicities, were transformed into a transnational category of criminals. Additionally, the strong sentiments of cooperation to build a safer global and social order existed alongside previous the “villainous” concept. The most curious example is Russkies, which took a further step from Red Heat in showing how similar people of two political and social systems could be. Russkies claimed that Soviet citizens are not much different from U.S. citizens, especially when accepting Western fashion and living standards.
In these films, this duality of partnership and humanized, even westernized metamorphosis, seems like a rehabilitation of Russians from portraying them as villainous archetypes. It coincided with the the Common European Home concept proclamation and symbolized a new page of global relationships. Without these films’ transitions and popularization of the new political realities, it would be more challenging to explain to the public why politicians suddenly shake hands and smile at yesterday’s foes.
90s: Standing Together against Common Foes
Following previous creative dynamics, in the 90s, action films were the dominant genre with depictions of Russians. The archetypes still maintained familiar characters of soldiers, agents, and law enforcement officers. The utility reflected a dual strategy of preserving the elements of confrontation and cooperation. The villains were Soviet or Russian rogue officials or officers, still posing a threat to the protagonists. Simultaneously, the legitimate Russian government cooperated and supported the common cause, siding with the Western-drawn protagonists.
For instance, GoldenEye featured James Bond fighting the Janus Syndicate, which operated through its criminal network, connections within some Russian military command and even a rogue ex-MI6 agent. Air Force One illustrated the cooperation between the U.S. and Russia in capturing General Radek, the dictator of the new Kazakh regime. Both films reflected rogue elements, which transformed into criminal or terrorist organizations. The previous duality, shown in Red Heat, found its further development. This duality can be explained by the resilience of the former construct of the Soviet/Russian archetype and bounded to the social and geopolitical realities with a substantial part of society being dissatisfied with the U.S.S.R. dissolution and defeat in the Cold War. These opposition or, better say, “revisionist” elements oppose the “good” or pro-Western Russians, who willingly cooperate or at least distance themselves from such revisionist sentiments. This way, persisting anxieties and suspicions about Russians are reflected, and whether aligning with the West can be trusted, especially after the political crisis in Russia in 1993 when a coup was attempted, and in 1996, witnessing the struggle during President Yeltsin’s re-elections. Simultaneously, the films reinforce the message that only standing side-by-side with the West ensures progress. Any revisionist attempts will be treated as a threat and marginalized.
Again, the persistence of these constructs is logical and essential – after decades of confrontation, it would be naïve to expect radical changes in the characters’ portrayal. For the action films, it was also practical to use the familiar archetype. In some sense, creative scheming and extensive reach of Russian villains projected their strengths, inherited from the former U.S.S.R., which could also in some way appeal to the Russian audience.
Nevertheless, the motive of cooperation should not be neglected. GoldenEye and, more vividly, Air Force One emphasized that without Russian officials, the protagonists’ missions would have been harder to accomplish. Armageddon is the cornerstone of the 90s film industry, which shows joint efforts. Cosmonaut Lev Andropov, having ironic allusions with General Secretary Yuri Andropov, joined U.S. astronauts on Russian space station “Mir” in their mission to destroy the asteroid heading towards Earth. The film clearly pointed out that without Russians, the mission would have failed. Thus, in the face of world catastrophe, Russians and Americans should and can work side-by-side.
00s: Spinning Around
Russian archetype was dominated by but not limited to law enforcement officials, sailors, intelligence officers or soldiers. Neither were they restricted by the dominance of the action genre. The archetype continued to appear in films and other entertainment mediums.
For instance, a notable example is Spinning Boris, a political satire. Three U.S. consultants helped the first Russian President, Boris Yeltsin, during his political struggle in 1996. Starting his active political career as an opposition to the Soviet apparatchiks, Yeltsin enjoyed Western favor, previously concentrated around Mikhail Gorbachev. Yeltsin’s eccentric behavior, controversial political decisions and abusive consumption of alcohol created a humorous and dramatic fleur around his figure, laying a shadow on his political opportunities in 1996. Spinning Boris is an attempt to creatively approach a particular story to an unfamiliar Western audience. From one point, the film reinforced the notion of U.S. involvement in Russian politics. Alternatively, it humorously showed significant political cooperation between two political systems humorously, forcing the Russian archetype to drift away from the action-anchored characters to a more engaging construct.
However, video game medium followed the 80s and 90s suit of familiarizing antagonists and underground elements. For instance, Max Payne and its sequel depicted the Russian character Vladimir Lem, a mobster who initially helped Max and later tried to murder him. Tom Clancy’s Splinter Cell showed the Georgian dictator-president Kombayn Nikoladze as a main antagonist plotting to attack Azerbaijan and the U.S. through an extensive network of unconventional hacking attempts, Georgian criminal syndicates and even a Chinese general. Grand Theft Auto IV drew an entire story around the Balkan ex-military Niko Bellic, who immigrated to the U.S. and predictably was entangled in a series of criminal encounters. Bellic had a striking resemblance to the character of “KGB” from Rounders.
These examples are interesting from the two analytical perspectives. First, the examples incorporated various ethnicities into Russians archetype: the Russians, those from former U.S.S.R. republics and even Slavic ones from the Balkans. Additionally, the archetypes reflected attempts to expand them into other mediums through various creative approaches. Yet, they signalled continuous resilience in portraying Russians primarily as threatening elements operating beyond the legal field, with Spinning Boris as an odd example that confirmed that axiom.
Persistent Traits and War of Terror
Despite the period of friendship during Yeltsin’s and the early years of Putin’s Presidency, the portrayal of Russians did not fully transform into a friendly archetype as shown in Russkies. On the contrary, an approach to show them as disruptive political and social elements proved resilience and resistance to significant alterations as if confirming phantom anxieties of looming threats. However, following global concerns about terrorism, its elements were additionally imported into the Russian film archetype.
Call of Duty game series, especially the Modern Warfare trilogy, is an excellent example of such developments. The events of the game approached the genesis and consequences of the direct conflict between the U.S. and Russia through a series of actions led by ultranationalists and terrorists. Modern Warfare 2 blended various traits for the new Russia-anchored antagonists. The game depicted the Caucasus as a reference to two Chechen wars and emerging terrorist groups. Secondly, it referred to the ultranationalists and revisionists who previously utilized Splinter Cell, GoldenEye and Air Force One.
If Eastern Promises approached Russians conventionally through the lens of their criminal and undercover activities, A Most Wanted Man pointed out Russian political refugee’s drama: suspicions of terrorism and drowning into the political and spying mind game. This approach differs from the one in Red Heat, with good Soviet officers and evil Soviet criminals having some common similarities. The archetype was expanded through the incorporation of terrorism anxieties and reflection of a combined approach, when Russian nationals can pose a terrorism-related threat but are also victims of complex social and political circumstances. The humanist approach prevailed over oversimplified cliché. The example of “KGB” in Rounders also confirms grounding to a common level. He runs a small illegal poker venue, sometimes aggressive to his debtors while at the same time cracking jokes at the table. These examples of framing the archetype made Russians someone you may see on the street of, let us say, the Big Apple.
The complexity of the archetype utilization was also tested in RocknRolla, Mission Impossible – Ghost Protocol and John Wick, with the persistence to simplify it. RocknRolla showed Uri (or Yuri) Omovich, a secondary character of a Russian business oligarch, elegantly referring to a famous Russian oligarch, Roman Abramovich. Ghost Protocol depicted a Russian SVR (intelligence) agent pursuing Ethan Hunt. He was less an antagonist but a supportive character with solid clues of potential cooperation against a common foe. The film continued the tradition of the Bourne franchise to include intelligence as a core of spy films’ narrative.
However John Wick used a combination of a direct and complex approaches. Most of the antagonists were Russians with a criminal past. However, John Wick himself, as Baba Yaga, ballet, and other underworld aesthetics, produced dualism in the archetype portrayal. Together with the other mentioned examples, the familiar depiction of Russians as villains or secondary characters lacked depth and was a mere vehicle of the narrative genesis and progression. In John Wick, though, Russian culture was incorporated as an aesthetic device of elegance, beauty, and mystery.
Thus, in the 00s, the archetype of Russians confirmed its incorporation of anything related to the Soviet past and continued expansion in other mediums and directions: from terrorists to oligarchs, from people to aesthetics. Yet, the archetype failed to hold ground in genres other than action and, despite a few attempts, did not transform the archetype into characters of substantial depth. The elements of threat and anxiety persisted.
Rounabout?
Recent trends show expected reversals. In 2014, Russia entered an era of active confrontation with the West. It would be odd if film industries ignored the fact. John Wick showed an exciting blend of approaches to the Russian archetype through the additional aesthetics surrounding it. However, the tendency to return to a simplified antagonistic approach gained prevalence.
Christopher Nolan’s Tenet depicts Andrei Sator, an oligarch. Unlike Yuri Omobich, he is an antagonist with ambitions to trigger the end of the world. These features elevate him to the same arch-villain level as Ernst [Stavro] Blofeld in James Bond films. Sator is not a mere goon, terrorist, agent, rich guy or runner of an illegal poker parlor. He is a financially independent mastermind orchestrating a vast network of bribed politicians and officers, allowing his transnational arms and smuggling activities. Top Gun: Maverick follows the suit. Showing fidelity to the original film, it does not reveal any specific person as a villain. However, it appeals to the country’s military collective, which restores sentiments of confrontation with Russians through the breathtaking flight scenes with Russian jets.
The mentioned examples do not exhaust all depictions of Russians in films and video games. There are still examples, in which Russians and Americans work together, like in The Man from U.N.C.L.E. Alternatively, filmmakers attempt to tell stories from the other side, as in Red Sparrow.” Tenet and Top Gun: Maverick are crucial releases, reflecting striking tendencies.
Another evident conclusion of the presented analysis is that the filmmakers continued to utilize it and recycle in various ways, but prioritized the lens of antagonists or threatening narrative vehicles. It is only partially related to the decades of confrontation – the archetype proved flexible, memorable and familiar. Its familiarity seems to be enough motivation for the filmmakers. Additionally, there are not many other archetypes matching similar adjustability and recognition. If not Russians, then who? Arab terrorists? After 9/11, terrorist threats as a theme have slowly faded. Chinese? Creative industries are still hesitant to do so for various reasons – the release of Beyond: Two Souls, with controversial references to the P.L.A., is a great example.
It seems that Western filmmakers are already returning to depicting Russians as threatening and formidable foes as an archetype in various dimensions again, especially taking the escalating conflict around Ukraine. It does not mean that Russians will “enjoy” such privilege forever. It is sad but ironic that more than 30 years after the end of the Cold War, we have returned to the point where we started.
