The New Yorker Radio Hour

Episode: Armando Iannucci on “The Death of Stalin”

Date: March 16, 2018
Host: David Remnick
Guests: Armando Iannucci (filmmaker), Svetlana Alexievich (author, via interview)

Overview

This episode of The New Yorker Radio Hour, hosted by David Remnick, dives into the creation, themes, and contemporary resonance of Armando Iannucci’s political satire film The Death of Stalin. The episode features a candid conversation with Iannucci about the balance between horror and comedy in depicting totalitarianism, the creative process behind the film, and its political reception—especially in modern Russia. The show also highlights Nobel laureate Svetlana Alexievich’s reflections on Soviet and post-Soviet life, the burden of history, and the meaning of freedom.

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. Why Stalin? Why Comedy?

• David Remnick introduces Iannucci as a master of political satire, praising his work on The Thick of It, In the Loop, and Veep (00:29).
• Iannucci explains the stakes:

  "If they make a mistake, it’s embarrassing, but, you know, there’ll be another day. In the Death of Stalin, if they make a mistake, they're dead. And it's a difference. It's a comedy of paranoia, craziness. It's a comedy of anxiety, really." (02:18)

• The real-life absurdities under Stalin's regime gave Iannucci his inspiration:

  “Even if you write the wrong musical note, it could end badly for you.” (03:02)

  • Example: Shostakovich keeping a suitcase packed in fear after Stalin’s displeasure with his opera (03:02–03:43).

2. Origins of the Movie & Approach to History

• Iannucci was drawn to the material after reading a French graphic novel about Stalin’s death, finding it “absurd, it was crazy, it was terrifying, it was horrific, and yet it was funny, it was dramatic, and it was true” (04:00).
• The movie’s opening concert scene—where a live radio broadcast goes awry under fear of Stalin—is a true story, though the film compresses real events for plausibility (05:01–06:31).

3. Structure of Stalin’s Inner Circle & the Banality of Evil

• Iannucci describes the environment around Stalin as one of deep complicity, mutual suspicion, and normalized atrocities (06:59):

  “They had all collectively signed death warrants... Some for their own relatives. They had to just live with this idea that what they had done was what Stalin wanted and therefore was right.”

  • Children of perpetrators and victims played together, blurring lines between guilt and innocence (06:59–08:42).

4. Dark Humor in Dictatorship

• The challenge: maintaining respect for victims while finding comedy in the corridors of power (10:05):

  “There’s no comedy about mass killings and shootings. That's played for real... But indoors, in the Kremlin, that's where the comedy is... they’re like a group of gangsters.”

• Circulation of underground joke books under Stalin (at great risk) signals the indomitable spirit of dark humor (10:54–11:03).

5. Relevance of Satire & Contemporary Authoritarianism

• Remnick probes the unifying themes of Iannucci’s work. Iannucci admits that tackling dictatorship is a departure from “schmucky people in Washington”:

  "No one's upset about a tweet in this movie, that's the least of problems, you know." (11:30)

• Discussion turns to Iannucci’s family history: his father, who resisted Mussolini, distrusted democracy’s permanence:

  “Last time I voted, Mussolini got in. And that was his way of saying, don’t think because you have a democracy that it’s perfect.” (11:50–12:21)

• They reflect on the rise of anti-democratic sentiment:

  “About 20%, 25% of people say democracy isn’t the only system they might be interested in... someone like Trump comes along and says, okay, I’m going to talk to you.” (12:24)

6. Satire’s Effect on Audiences

• Does comedy change hearts or minds?

  “That work is born out of a sense of frustration I found in how democracy works... how are decisions made? And therefore what does go on behind the scenes?” (13:51–14:48)

7. Making the Film & Russia’s Reception

• The film was mainly shot in England, with some scenes in Kiev and Moscow for authenticity (14:48–15:01).
• Iannucci recounts researching attitudes toward Stalin among contemporary Russians:

  “Some people say he killed millions. Other people say he industrialized us and made us a great power. You decide.” (15:01)

• In Russia, the film was licensed, dubbed, and received warmly by press—but banned just before opening, likely due to pre-election jitters (16:01–16:46).
  • Notably: “How can you ban a film these days? People are gonna see it. Somebody tweeted me a photo of them watching it on their laptop underneath Putin’s window.” (17:05)
• Iannucci jokes about pirated copies:

  “No, I’ve reported them to the Higher Authority. I mean, that has to be stamped out. Absolutely.” (17:22–17:29)

8. What’s Next for Armando Iannucci

• Iannucci discusses his upcoming adaptation of Dickens’ David Copperfield, focusing on the book’s psychological and emotional richness, not just its plot:

  “Too many adaptations pay so much homage to the story... I want it to feel rather like contemporary London... It should feel exciting, it should feel like ancient Rome.” (18:28–19:56)

• The theme continues: status anxiety, loss, and rediscovering one’s values (19:56).

9. Obscenity in Satire

• David Remnick teases Iannucci’s reputation for careful, creative swearing:

  “Is there swearing at Dickensian England?” (20:12)

  • Iannucci: “Certainly not in the novels. There won’t be swearing in the film.” (20:17)

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• On Satirizing Authoritarianism:
  “There's a lot of comedy in The Godfather. It was just business, you know? Where's the cannoli? Get the cannoli, while they're beating someone up. There's a lot of that kind of strange dark comedy.”
  — Armando Iannucci (10:05)

• On Stalin's Circle:
  “They all lived near each other. They all lived in these apartments. So all their children played with each other, even though he might have signed the death warrant for my father and I might have signed the death warrant for her sister.”
  — Armando Iannucci (06:59)

• On Democracy’s Fragility:
  “Don't think because you have a democracy that it's perfect. You know, Hitler got in through an election.”
  — Armando Iannucci (12:21)

• On Russia’s Reaction to the Film:
  “The press applauded when Stalin fell over... Two days before the opening night, the license was withdrawn.”
  — Armando Iannucci (16:01)

• On Piracy and Censorship:
  “How can you ban a film these days? ...Somebody tweeted me a photo of them watching it on their laptop underneath Putin's window.”
  — Armando Iannucci (17:05)

Timestamps for Key Segments

• 00:29 — Remnick introduces Iannucci, linking his earlier TV work to the new film
• 02:18 — Iannucci discusses why The Death of Stalin’s stakes are different for comedy
• 03:02–03:43 — Shostakovich anecdote demonstrating the climate of terror around Stalin
• 05:01–06:31 — Iannucci retells the true absurd concert story that opens the film
• 06:59–08:42 — Describing the psychology and relationships among Stalin’s inner circle
• 10:05–11:03 — The challenge of balancing humor with historical horror
• 12:21 — Explaining his father’s skepticism of democracy after Mussolini
• 15:01 — Researching Stalin’s legacy in modern Russian consciousness
• 16:01–16:46 — Russian ban on the film and government sensitivities before election
• 18:19–19:56 — Iannucci’s next project: re-envisioning David Copperfield
• 20:10 — The mechanics of swearing in his screenwriting

Svetlana Alexievich on Soviet & Post-Soviet Memory (22:32–32:42)

Highlights

• On Her Method:
  Alexievich collects oral histories, cultivating a deeper, literary language out of people’s life stories (22:32).

  “Journalism deals with banalities. It picks up only the surface layer. I am also a witness of this time, and I approach another witness, and we try to talk.” (22:32)

• On Victims and Accomplices:

  “Millions of inmates had to be surveilled, arrested... Someone had to do all of this. To what extent is everybody from the Soviet past an accomplice?” (23:37)

• Alexievich stresses complexity and empathy:

  “From the point of view of art, both Stalin and the victim are equally interesting. We must understand, what is this? Who are they?” (24:39)

• On Russia's Cyclical History:

  “I think I try to answer this throughout the whole book. Why do we walk through this circular history? Why do we, as we say in Russian, step on the same rake again and again?” (26:17)

• On Putin’s Appeal:

  “There's no reason to demonize the figure of Putin like everybody does, thinking of him as the problem of problems. In truth, we're talking about our collective Putin. He has made himself the focal point of the desires of millions of people.” (28:10)

  • “When a national leader like Putin says that whoever doesn’t understand our politics is a national traitor, that makes me a national traitor... It’s the lexicon of Stalinist times.” (29:22)

• On Freedom:

  “I can live freely, but unfortunately, many of us don’t have that freedom... In the beginning, they built a great state. There was no individual person. ...And the person? Where is the person?” (31:16)

Segment Timestamps

• 22:32 — Alexievich on literature vs. journalism
• 23:37–24:39 — On complicity and the art of portraying Soviet life
• 26:17–27:56 — On cyclical Russian history and the search for guiding ideas
• 28:10–29:22 — The psychology of Putin’s support and use of grievance
• 31:16 — Alexievich on the definition of freedom

Episode Tone & Language

• Iannucci’s sections are lively, irreverent, and darkly witty.
• Remnick brings intellectual curiosity and warmth, steering the conversation to both personal and societal stakes.
• Alexievich’s segment is contemplative, deeply empathetic, and literary.

For Listeners Who Haven’t Heard the Episode

This episode offers a sharp, often funny, but always thoughtful look at the absurd logic and real horror of totalitarian politics, filtered through satire and art. Iannucci describes both the surreality of 1950s Soviet power struggles and the grimly comic details that make them relatable in today’s age of rising authoritarian nostalgia. Alexievich’s reflections, meanwhile, provide a stark, moving picture of the Soviet inheritance—how people survived, how history is remembered and forgotten, and why the allure of strongman politics persists.

Whether you're interested in film, history, or the psychology of power, this episode is full of insight, laughter, and a sobering sense of how the past is never quite past.