The new CNN documentary Navalny is about Putin’s main opposition figure in Russia.
Possibly the world’s most dangerous job. Alexei Navalny is a powerfully charismatic lawyer, who has garnered worldwide support through his masterful digital presence and his fearless criticism of Putin. Navalny founded the Anti-Corruption foundation with the dogged aim of identifying corruption in Putin’s regime. Up until the middle of the film, when Navalny puts international eyes on Russia, Putin wouldn’t even say his name.
In a dark wooden building, at the end of the film, Navalny tells his supporters that In case of death, he wants them to know how powerful they are. If the pressure he’s put on Putin, the Kremlin, and the Russian system of oligarchy is enough to end his life, they have to keep going. Navalny ends in the same dark wooden building with the same question it began with. Director Daniel Roher sits behind the camera and asks Alexei Navalny the question he knows he’ll “probably hate.” The In-case-of-death question. Navalny laughs it off.
“Come on Daniel… I thought this film was going to be a thriller and then if they kill me we can make a boring movie about memories.” The film lives in this tension to the very end.
During Alexei’s poisoning, his wife and daughter change this political documentary into something more visceral. The film follows Alexei’s poisoning, his recovery in Germany, the investigation into the crime, and his return to Russia. Christo Grozev, investigative journalist and head of Bellingcat, was the investigator who discovered the evidence of Putin’s assassination attempt on Alexei Navalny. His character gives the film its thriller element. Christo and producer Maria Pevchik both feature in the highlight scene of the film where Navalny “prank calls” his assassins. This scene, which was uploaded to Youtube in 2020, wouldn’t be believable if it was in a Jason Bourne film, it’s incredible. Unfortunately they’ve been unable to contact the scientist they tricked into divulging secrets of the poisoning on camera. During the scene they unanimously agree that the Russian government will kill him.
Christo explains to us that he can discover this information because he’s investigating a “moscow4” regime. The story of moscow4 is the story of a dysfunctional government. Apparently a high security Kremlin hack occurred because an official’s password was moscow1. Once he was hacked he changed his password to moscow2. This password was subsequently hacked. He changed this password… to moscow3. I hope this explains the origin of moscow4. Information about the Russian government is widely available on the dark web, which Christo used for large portions of his investigation. The genius of Christo’s work, along with Navalny’s mastery of social media embarrassed an authoritarian government, which hasn’t quite figured out how to deal with the internet.
Christo, Maria, and Navalny’s wife and daughter, were all at the premiere of Navalny. These were Navalny’s close confidants and characters in the documentary. The combination gave the excitement of the film a feeling of brevity. One of the most difficult scenes was watching Navalny’s wife Yulia being physically restrained while trying to get into the hospital after Navalny is poisoned. Yulia and Navalny are a natural duo and the documentary wordlessly captures it. She is strikingly beautiful and is Navalny’s perfect equal in determination and fearlessness, if not his equal in English and laissez-faire. Her character seems more at home facing down Russian police than feeding donkeys in a German field. Everyone knows that Navalny’s work carries with it the risk of violence against his family When his wife was introduced at the end of the Q&A she was the only person to receive a standing ovation.
The cost of this danger to Navalny, the man, and his family, is reaped by Navalny the politician. Nobody will ask you to explain your policy differences with the boogeyman. Sailing by his policies, It’s easy to forget that Navalny is running for office. On examination, Navalny’s political positions are troubling. He is a nationalist who has spoken out against immigration. The documentary plays a of clip of him speaking at an ultra nationalist rally, Nazi symbols flying on the flags behind him. Navalny tiredly answers the question when the director asks about it. He says that when you’re fighting a dictator you can’t be picky with your allies. He adds that Russia is fighting for simpler goals like democracy, freedom of speech and the press, anti-corruption etc. Although a political coalition is necessary, it’s hard to see Nazis being stalwart defenders of democracy and individual rights in the long run.
This film was released in the context of a major escalation in the new cold war between Russia and the United States. The U.S is currently fighting a diplomatic and information war against Russia. A lot of this war has been directed against Putin, the same place the film Navalny directs its attention. The war that the United States is waging is an attempt to capture the hearts and minds of the international community and ideally the Russian people. Navalny doesn’t galvanize the public behind concrete social goals; it galvanizes them against Putin. A film about a politician’s story and political objectives should lead with his policies. Alexei Navalny is willing to work with anyone who is anti-Putin but should we follow suit? Like every great power, the United States has its specialities when it comes to taking influence. All across the globe the United States has shown itself to be a specialist in coups. Selecting a leader, demonizing them, and forcing the international community to support the lesser of two evils is a well worn strategy. The Forever Wars of the 21st century have been about cleaning up the results of this strategy. The Mujahideen in Afghanistan and Saddam Hussein, both received support from the United States in proxy wars for regional dominance, and ultimately cost us trillions of dollars and millions of lives. We have to learn from the past and take international policy in a different direction this century.
