Kirpianuscus one of provocative films. not itself but for the expectations of the public. because it is not an homage and nor a critic. it is only a honest portrait of an East European leader, influential, obscure, strange and ambiguous for a large part of audience. his words, his decisions, his memories, his hobbies, his Russia. and the relation with the power, the influence of political traditions, the political regime, who is far to be classical democracy but, in same measure, it is not exactly the expected dictatorship. a film who, like many interviews, looking for truth. with a result who only the viewer can define. because , like each leader of Russia, from XVII century to present, the ruler is Russia. Putin is not an exception. and this fact is the basic message of the film.

Armand it is not a film about a man. but about his country. a cold, direct image. about the perception of a noble duty, about past and future. not propaganda or demagogy. only an old tradition chain who defines the history of Russia. a man and his vision. maybe too realistic and almost cynical. but realistic. the virtue of movie - the status of support for understand a strange form of change. in fact - essence of survive in a democracy not very similar with the West rules. that equilibrium is the best ingredient of documentary. at its end, Vladimir Putin remains a stranger and the questions seems be more. but each of theme is more clear. and the map of a country like a continent, an almost exotic place is little more than a sketch. a film about Russia. maybe, an useful one as key for discover more than a poster.