The Russians Are (Still?) Coming

Arin Kukharsky

Think of all the Russian characters in Hollywood films you've seen. Can you name a single sympathetic character? Older movies, such as the 1963 James Bond film From Russia with Love, and contemporary movies like John Wick, feature Russian characters as enemies. Whether they’re spies, KGB operators, or gangsters, the Russians in U.S. movies function almost entirely as the bad guys. Hollywood consistently casts its main villains as Russians, and the reason behind this abundance of negative Russian stereotypes in American films lies entirely in politics.

Tensions between the two superpowers of the United States and Russia have been high for most of the past century. Russia’s relationship with the U.S. can be seen as that of rivals or enemies. As a result, the malicious portrayal of Russia (or the Soviet Union prior to 1991) on the big screen makes perfect sense. If the United States views Russia as an enemy, increasing anti-Russian sentiment in the U.S. through negative, distorted representation in media is a political no-brainer, especially during the Cold War.

The U.S. entertainment industry and Hollywood play an important role in shaping the West’s view of the outside world, and views about Russia frequently have been shaped by negative Russian stereotypes. Ivan Katchanovski, a Post-Doctoral Fellow at the University of Toronto whose work will be referenced throughout the remainder of this essay, has culled through over one hundred Hollywood productions from the Internet Movie Database to compile a table displaying major Russian themes and heroes used in American films from 1992 to 2007. Of all of the major American movies included in his study, a 51% majority includes mafia and other criminals. The remaining movies feature Russian roulette, illegal arms dealers, the KGB, immigrants, and more. In his article, “Politically Correct Incorrectness: Kazakhstan, Russia, and Ukraine in Hollywood Films,” Katchanovski addresses the stereotypical portrayal of three countries from the former Soviet Union in Hollywood movies. He argues that Russia often is portrayed in films as “economically and technologically backward, extremely anti-American and anti-Semitic, . . . with pervasive ‘Russian mafia’ and widespread female prostitution” (2). He also points out the negative effect these distorted portrayals have on Americans’ perception of these post-Soviet countries and to the large percentage of people in the U.S. who consume Hollywood films in theaters, television runs and reruns, DVDs, videos, and Internet downloads. The same goes for popular television series. Based on the ubiquitousness of negative stereotypes in film, one can speculate that a significant proportion of the U.S. population consumes U.S. movies that portray Russia through negative stereotypes. One can also speculate that, despite the fact that these Hollywood films blatantly misrepresent and demonize Russia, American viewers generally accept these portrayals as politically correct based on their responses to the movies. Katchanovski points out that the extremely stereotypical movie Borat, portraying Russians as living in a backwards society with few morals, received over 90% favorable reviews from film critics and regular viewers alike. Meanwhile, public protests ensued when Hollywood productions cast Arabs as terrorists or Chechens and Jewish immigrants from the Soviet Union as mafiosi.

When considering the effect that Hollywood’s portrayals of Russians have on Americans’ view of the country, it’s important to keep in mind that these movies effectively serve as the primary source of information most Americans have about Russia. Katchanovski references statistics that show the comparison between U.S.-made films about Russia and films actually made in Russia. Hollywood movies that portray Russia and Russians will be seen at theaters alone by several million to several dozen million people worldwide, while Russian-made movies and films will be seen by only tens or hundreds of thousands of people (Katchanovski). He argues that American moviegoers tend to not distinguish between the distorted, stereotypical portrayal of Russia and the factual reality behind the country’s culture. As an analogy, he references a poll indicating that “34 percent of the Republican voters regarded Forrest Gump (1994) as a documentary.” The American tendency to perceive the stereotypes on the big screen as factual representations of a culture grows likelier with films that have a style reminiscent of a documentary, such as Borat.

While Russian stereotypes certainly had a presence in the American movie industry before the 1950’s, American cinema took a turn towards heavily increased demonization of Russia as the Cold War between the U.S. and Russia was heating up. These negative stereotypes have maintained their heavy presence in American movies ever since. In his article, “The Russians are Coming The Russians are Coming (1966): Reconsidering Hollywood’s Cold War ‘Turn’ of the 1960s,” Tony Shaw, a professor of contemporary history at the University of Hertfordshire, analyzes the most “Soviet-friendly” Cold War movie, The Russians are Coming The Russians are Coming, to question whether or not Hollywood really changed its attitude towards Soviet communism. Shaw discusses how early Hollywood “actively demonised America’s enemy by depicting communists as inhuman, as machine-like automatons bent on the enslavement of the Free World, and whose only emotions were anger, jealousy, hatred, and greed” (244). Hollywood was (and is) one of America’s most important sources of persuasion, a terrific medium for anti-communist and anti-Russian propaganda. Shaw argues that these Cold War films portrayed communism and Russia as one and the same, depoliticizing communism as an ideology that had corrupted and captured Russia, “robbing its people of any individuality.” When analyzing the film that supposedly marked the change in Hollywood’s view of Russia, he brings up the crucial point that The Russians are Coming, despite showing Russians in a more positive light compared to the other movies at the time, conveyed the same message as all of the other propaganda-esque productions of the Cold War. The movie doesn’t depict Russians as communists; it depicts them as Russians. Shaw argues that the Russians featured in the film are human because they aren’t communists. The heavily anti-communist agenda of the American government led to Hollywood productions’ portrayal of Russia as a nation corrupted by communism and, to an extent, evil, whether films portrayed the Russian people in a positive or negative light.

The U.S. Government has had its fair share of involvement in the workings of Hollywood. According to Dr. Matthew Alford, who has done extensive research on the relationship between Hollywood, politics, and propaganda in the West, the U.S. government has had close involvement in nearly 2,000 Hollywood movies and T.V. shows since 1911. In his interview on the television show “Going Underground,” Dr. Alford shares some of the findings he has written about in his book National Security Cinema. He claims that Hollywood plays a role comparable to news and other media in shaping Americans’ perceptions of the outside world and that the U.S. Government has a greater say in Hollywood than many people think. During the interview, the host brings up the fact that the Pentagon has, in recent times, been open about its involvement in the entertainment industry. Dr. Alford responds by asserting that the government, through this openness, “[plays] down the amount of cooperation that goes on between . . . Hollywood and the Government, [as well as] downplaying how politicized that cooperation is” (Attansi). Before Dr. Alford’s research on the subject, academics and journalists assumed that only a few hundred movies had been affected in some way by the Pentagon or CIA over the past century. The government’s involvement, in reality, affects several thousand of these films in very politicized ways. Even films such as Meet the Parents or The Hulk had government involvement. Given Dr. Alford’s research pointing to the U.S. government’s involvement in the American entertainment industry, the use of films as a medium for propaganda becomes clear. Since the government has such a powerful voice in Hollywood, the Russian stereotypes that show up time and time again on the big screen serve to raise anti-Russian sentiment in the U.S.

Some experts argue otherwise, claiming that the role of Hollywood’s villains has been consistently occupied by Russian stereotypes because they are simply convenient: Hollywood has a history of employing ethnic stereotypes when creating villains, and Russians are among the safest groups to fill that spot with. Katchanovski points out that “Russians . . . are not regarded in the U.S. as racial or religious minorities, such as Blacks, Asians, Native Americans, Jews, and Muslims, who suffer from racism, prejudices, and discrimination.” In order to avoid public protests and mass media charges, Hollywood resorts to using an ethnic group that isn’t viewed as a minority. This argument, however, has a glaring issue that instantly presents a counterargument: Russians aren’t the only ethnic group not recognized as a minority in the United States. Hollywood can easily cast Germans and Italians, yet they still insist on making their main villains Russian.

BBC journalist Tom Brook brings up another idea behind the Russian stereotypes in U.S. movies in his article “Hollywood Stereotypes: Why are Russians the Bad Guys?” He discusses the possibility that “Russia’s complaints over Hollywood movies may have a public relations impact that plays positively in the studios’ favour.” In the article, James Chapman, Professor of Film Studies at the University of Leicester, claims that the studios enjoy the interest and attention and, since Hollywood has a greater concern for the Chinese market, giving up the Russian market might be a beneficial move from a business perspective. However, the Russian market represents the seventh biggest movie market in the world. Giving up this enormous market has its risks since the rise of Russian displeasure might severely harm box office revenues.

The reason behind Hollywood consistently casting Russians as villains, using and reusing a plethora of negative stereotypes throughout the past century, lies solely in politics. Hollywood, as one of America’s finest tools for persuasion, influences the American public to view their nation’s official enemy, Russia, through these stereotypes, egged on by the U.S. government’s heavy involvement in the production of American movies and T.V. shows. Hollywood productions function as many Americans’ main source of information about the world, greatly outnumbering news outlets in both viewership and coverage, leading many U.S. citizens to view the stereotypical portrayals on the big screen as accurate depictions.

Works Cited

Attansi, Afshin. Going Underground. "CIA Cinema: Why Are Russians Always Portrayed as Bad Guys in Hollywood?" 19 Mar. 2018, https://www.youtube.com/watch?reload=9&v=eJeNNvnqiKo.

Brook, Tom. “Culture - Hollywood Stereotypes: Why Are Russians the Bad Guys?” BBC News, BBC, 5 Nov. 2014, http://www.bbc.com/culture/story/20141106-why-are-russians-always-bad-guys.

Katchanovski, Ivan. “Politically Correct Incorrectness: Kazakhstan, Russia, and Ukraine in Hollywood Films.” Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, Chicago, 30 August - 2 September 2007, https://www.academia.edu/454565/Politically_Correct_Incorrectness_Kazakhstan_Russia_and_Ukraine_In_Hollywood_Films

Shaw, Tony. "The Russians Are Coming The Russians Are Coming (1966): Reconsidering Hollywood's Cold War "Turn" of the 1960s." Film History 22.2 (2010): 235-250.