Review: ‘Six Men Dressed Like Joseph Stalin' at A Red Orchid Theatre is based on an intriguing true story
One Joseph Stalin was one too many. The new play now at A Red Orchid Theatre is about the existential angst that flows from an acting role only a Soviet apparatchik could truly love: standing in for a murderous dictator with myriad enemies.
Apparently, there were at least four Stalin doubles in reality, all employed to throw off those who might do harm to the main man. Much work went into their preparation (hair, weight, mannerisms, gait and so on), to ensure the physical likeness was as deceptive as possible. The gig was hazardous and the run could be brief: At least one of the fake Stalins was killed by a roadside bomb as his cortege was passing Red Square.
In 'Six Men Dressed Like Joseph Stalin,' playwright Dianne Nora imagines a training session for one of those doubles, with characters based on the real-life figures of Aleksei Dikiy (a Stanislavski-trained actor who played Stalin in propaganda films) and Dikiy's trainee Felix Dadaev, a former dancer and juggler who was chosen in part for the job because he'd been left for dead on a battlefield and thus had little personal identity to be in potential conflict with Stalin. Dikiy kept silent for years about his Stalin act but eventually fessed up in a 2008 autobiography, presumably feeling enough time had passed that no one would be coming to take him out.
Dado's production at A Red Orchid Theatre went through some major problems (differences of process, I was told) that culminated in one actor leaving the production late into rehearsals, necessitating the cancellation of opening night, given that this is a two-person show. John Judd became the pinch hitter as Dikiy, working opposite Esteban Andres Cruz.
I suspect that if these two experienced actors had worked together from the beginning, the two would have gelled more than was the case when I saw the show last weekend, when the show's energy seemed to operate only in fits and starts and the stakes never rose to the ideal level. I also was confused as to why the director dado had not worried a little more about actual physical resemblance to Stalin, given that this is a play about that very thing. Cruz has some lovely long hair but I'm not sure that would aid in fooling a potential assassin.
Perhaps I'm being too literal there and the play absolutely explores some interesting broader issues, especially for people who work in the arts. Most interesting to me, at least, are the scenes that deal with the idea of maintaining professional and educational integrity in the face of both coercion (Dikiy had already been to Siberia) and moral bankruptcy. I saw glimmers of that conflict, which is hardly limited to playing Stalin, flash across Judd's face at times as he found his way into this role.
Cruz, meanwhile, puts his heart into this struggling but still youthful character, but I think the piece really needs to reveal more of his difficult transformation. Achieving that in this kind of play, though, requires more of a surrogate parental relationship between these two characters and that needs two actors who more clearly occupy the same world and find a mutual way to drive on through its thickets.
Review: 'Six Men Dressed Like Joseph Stalin' (2.5 stars)
When: Through June 22
Where: A Red Orchid, 1531 N. Wells St.
Running time: 1 hour, 35 minutes
Tickets: $35-$50 at 312-943-8722 and aredorchidtheatre.org
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time Business News
6 hours ago
- Time Business News
Why Listening to VOA in a Closet Saved a Family: Lessons from Alex Fink's Childhood in Soviet Moldova
In the USSR, access to uncensored news was strictly forbidden. For many, foreign radio broadcasts such as Voice of America (VOA) served as a vital connection to the outside world. Alex Fink , founder of the news platform OtherWeb, recalls how his family would secretly gather in a broom closet to listen to VOA broadcasts. For them, tuning in was not just about receiving information. It was an act of quiet defiance, a source of hope, and a reminder that freedom of thought still existed beyond the walls of repression. As the Moldavian Soviet Socialist Republic, Moldova was one of the 15 republics that made up the Soviet Union. The central government in Moscow controlled nearly every aspect of life, including the economy, the media, and individual freedoms. Private enterprise was outlawed, and the state dictated what could be said, heard, or believed. Citizens were expected to follow the Communist Party's ideology without question, and dissent was met with severe consequences. In such an environment, access to unfiltered news was extremely limited. Foreign radio stations such as Voice of America (VOA) were officially banned, and those caught listening to them faced punishment. Yet for many, these broadcasts served as a crucial lifeline. They offered a rare and precious window into the world beyond the Iron Curtain, providing not only information but also a sense of connection, truth, and hope. For Alex Fink's family, the closet became a sanctuary where they could quietly listen to Voice of America without the constant fear of being discovered. Late at night, with the volume barely audible, they tuned in to news from the other side of the Iron Curtain. What they heard was more than just information. It brought a sense of solidarity and hope. Listening to VOA was an act of silent defiance. It was a way to claim the right to know, to think freely, and to hold on to their humanity in a system designed to take it away. Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev in the 1980s had introduced policies of glasnost (openness) and perestroika (restructuring) in a bid to give the Soviet system a new lease of life. The reforms liberalized freedom of speech and curbed government intervention. But they also revealed the inherent flaws of the Soviet system and fueled ambitions for more freedom. For the vast majority of Moldovans, like Alex Fink, it was a time of upheaval and transformation. Increased freedom meant increased access to information and increased awareness of the world outside. But it meant political turmoil and economic hardship as the old order disintegrated. When the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991, Moldova underwent a dramatic transformation. The country gained independence, but the transition to a market economy was challenging. Economic hardship and political instability led many Moldovans to leave the country in search of work and a better life abroad. Alex Fink was among those who left, driven by the hope of building a freer and more secure future in America. Life was not easy, but it was fueled by a desire for opportunity and self-determination. His journey reflects the experience of many Moldovans who continue to seek a better life beyond their homeland. VOA's influence on Alex Fink's life shows the importance of an independent and unbiased media. Access to objective news in information-deprived societies is critical to informed decision-making and protecting the autonomy of individuals. Today, the issue of political interference in the media and media freedom remains a thorn in Moldova's side. All of this, despite the legacy of the people who lost everything so that they could have access to the truth, serves as a reminder of the value of freedom of the press in the long run. Alex Fink's testimony to having listened to VOA in a closet is a poignant tribute to the strength of the human spirit and the irrepressible human desire for freedom and truth. It is in remembrance of the immense difference that access to information can make to citizens of oppressive regimes and families. As we consider his testimony, we remember the role that a free press plays in democracy and human rights. TIME BUSINESS NEWS
USA Today
9 hours ago
- USA Today
At this year's NATO Summit the stakes couldn't be higher
At this year's NATO Summit the stakes couldn't be higher | The Excerpt On a special episode (first released on June 5, 2025) of The Excerpt podcast: Ukraine, Russia, defense spending and Trump's general disdain for the 70 plus year-old agreement are all on the table at this year's NATO Summit. Max Boot, a senior fellow with the Council on Foreign Relations, shares his expert analysis on the issues at hand. Let us know what you think of this episode by sending an email to podcasts@ Hit play on the player below to hear the podcast and follow along with the transcript beneath it. This transcript was automatically generated, and then edited for clarity in its current form. There may be some differences between the audio and the text. Podcasts: True crime, in-depth interviews and more USA TODAY podcasts right here Dana Taylor: Hello and welcome to The Excerpt. I'm Dana Taylor. The 2025 NATO summit will be held at the World Forum in The Hague from the 24th to 26th of June. Among the topics of discussion will be defense spending, strengthening the alliance, support for Ukraine and bolstering defense capabilities. With the summit fast approaching, how might European powers fill the leadership and aid vacuum left by the US as the Trump administration's appetite for foreign conflicts dissipates? Here to share his insights on what to watch out for leading up to and coming out of the summit is historian and author Max Boot, senior fellow for National Security Studies at the Council on Foreign Relations. Thanks for joining me Max. Max Boot: Good to be with you. Dana Taylor: First, give us a very brief history of NATO, how it came to be and its overall aims. Max Boot: Well, NATO was created in the late 1940s as a way for the United States and Canada to work together with our European allies to counter the Soviet threat to Western Europe. And it's become the most successful alliance in world history. It's still together after all those years, and it has been throughout its history, the linchpin of security and stability in Europe. And after the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989 and the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, NATO expanded to the east to take in the newly liberated former Soviet satellite states and republics, including the Baltic States, Poland, Romania, and others. And it has played a massive role in stabilizing that part of Europe and preventing Russian aggression. I think it's very significant, for example, that Vladimir Putin is attacking Ukraine, which is not a member of NATO, but he is not attacking the Baltic Republics or Poland, which are members of NATO. I think that's a demonstration of the importance of NATO and the deterrent effect that it has in action. At this year's NATO Summit the stakes couldn't be higher Ukraine, Russia, defense spending and a general lack of U.S. enthusiasm are all on the table at this year's NATO Summit. Dana Taylor: Max, are we seeing a return to the United States pre-World War II diplomatic isolationism? What's the historical significance of President Donald Trump's threatening to change the US's participation in NATO? Max Boot: Well, it's very concerning to see a US president who labels his foreign policy America First because of course, that was the label used by Charles Lindbergh and other isolationists in the pre-World War II period, and their philosophy was completely repudiated and discredited by the outbreak of World War II. In similar fashion by the way, President Trump is not only the most unilateralist or isolationist US president since the 1930s, he's also the most protectionist and the Greatest Generation saw the consequences not only of isolationism, but also protectionism because protectionism like the Smoot-Hawley Tariff in 1930 was widely seen as one of the influences that made the Great Depression as devastating as it was and helped to lead the world to war. And so after World War II, the Greatest Generation in the United States and our European allies vowed never again, and they instituted policies of pursuing security alliances like NATO, of pursuing free trade, of trying to promote and defend liberal democratic institutions around the world, all in order to avoid the outbreak of World War III. And those policies have been stunningly successful in keeping the peace and expanding the global sphere of prosperity and democracy. And now they're, all of those basic tenets of US foreign policy for more than 70 years are under assault by President Trump, who doesn't seem to believe in any of those ideas that have served America so well for so long. Dana Taylor: During an ABC News interview with President Trump's envoy to Ukraine, Keith Kellogg, he said that Russia's concern over the Eastern enlargement of NATO was fair. He also reiterated that the US does not support Ukraine's entry into the alliance. Is this now a moot point heading into the summit and is the US the lone holdout? Max Boot: It is a moot point. NATO is certainly not going to extend an invitation to Ukraine at this summit or any summit anytime soon. On this issue the US is not the lone holdout. Germany among others has also been very reluctant. And this is not just the Trump administration, this is in fairness also the Biden administration was also not here to extend NATO membership to Ukraine. That's not a crazy position because obviously if NATO were to extend an invitation to Ukraine right now, there's a real concern that NATO would become embroiled into war against Russia. But there's a lot that the European countries and the United States can still do to help Ukraine without the NATO membership, including helping Ukraine to become a member of the European Union, and also ensuring that the pipeline of weaponry from the United States to the Ukraine continues, that pipeline is almost dry right now. But one point I would make about NATO, and I think very important to keep in mind, Vladimir Putin has used the boogeyman of Ukraine and NATO as an excuse for his unprovoked aggression against Ukraine. And that is to quote a previous US president, that is just malarkey because it's been evident that Ukraine was never going to join NATO anytime soon. And NATO is, in any case, a defensive alliance. It's not a threat against Russia. And by the way, if Putin's primary concern is to avoid the expansion of NATO, his invasion of Ukraine had the opposite consequence because it led Finland and Sweden to join NATO, which they had not done in the past, but now they have done because they are so afraid of Russian aggression. So that rationale that the Kremlin has advanced for its war against Ukraine doesn't hold up to any scrutiny, in part because everybody knows, and everybody knew even before the invasion that Ukraine was not going to be admitted to NATO anytime soon. Dana Taylor: Leading up to the NATO summit were peace talks that took place in Turkey on June 2nd. As of this recording, Russia is still refusing to back down on its demands that Ukraine give up large swaths of territory and agree to limit the size of its army. This is according to a memo reported by Russian media. What might move the needle in this negotiation? Max Boot: That's a great question because clearly at this point, Putin has no interest in negotiating. President Zelensky and Ukraine have agreed to a thirty-day unconditional ceasefire as demanded by President Trump. Putin has consistently rejected that demand and made clear that his war of aggression will continue until Russia achieves its war aims, which include annexing a large chunk of Ukrainian territory, changing regimes in Kiev, putting limits on the Ukrainian armed forces, and basically turning Ukraine into a quasi-colony of the Kremlin. And those are all conditions that Ukraine will fight to the death in order not to agree to. So clearly, as long as Putin sticks to those hardline demands, negotiations over a peace settlement are not going to go anywhere. And so far they haven't gone anywhere. In terms of your question, which is I think the right one to ask, what could possibly move the needle? I think it's sending clear signals that Putin will not be able to defeat Ukraine, that he will not win this war because right now he thinks he can still advance. He thinks that Trump will cut off Ukraine. He thinks that the Russian armed forces can still make major gains. I think it's imperative to signal to Russia that there is no battlefield solution for Russia here, that there is no way they will achieve their battlefield objectives. And how do we do that? Well, there are several ways of doing it. One way at the moment, the European countries have about $300 billion in frozen Russian assets. They should turn those over to Ukraine immediately so Ukraine can use that money to finance its own arms industry and build the weapons it needs to defend itself indefinitely. The US should also give or sell weapons to Ukraine and crack down on sanctions on Russia as called for in a Senate bill. All of these things combined together would send a very clear message to Putin, you're not going to win this war. You have to compromise. You have to negotiate in earnest. But so far, that message has not gone out. President Trump has said several times over the last couple of months that he's unhappy about Russian airstrikes on Ukrainian civilians, but he is not backing up those words with actions. And unless we do something to increase the cost to Russia, its aggression, that aggression will continue. Dana Taylor: President Trump promised, of course, to end the war in Ukraine on his first day in office. After initially siding with Russia, Trump recently expressed his frustrations, as he said, saying Putin is gone, quote absolutely crazy unquote, with this massive ongoing military strikes against Ukraine. What's been the effect of Trump's mixed messages regarding Putin on a relationship with our NATO allies? Max Boot: I think this is very worrisome for our NATO allies because they want the US to take a tough line against Russian aggression as we were doing under President Biden. So they're very concerned about the mixed signals from Washington, and those mixed signals undercut any impetus for ending the war. I mean, if you want to talk about why Trump hasn't had any success in peacemaking, even though he promised that he would end the war in a day, a lot of the reason why he's not being more successful is he's not doing anything to put pressure on Russia. He's sending signals to the Kremlin that he is more interested in doing business with Russia than he is in forcing Russia to end its war of aggression. And so as long as that continues, it'll be very hard to bring this war to a close. But this is definitely a huge transatlantic divide because our European allies see this Russian invasion of Ukraine as an existential threat to themselves. They are very, very worried that if Russia prevails in Ukraine, Putin will continue moving further west, that the Baltic Republics or Poland, which are both NATO members, could be next, and an attack on those countries could trigger a massive global war. So the European countries want to hold the line against Russian aggression in Ukraine, and Trump seems to be at best ambivalent in terms of the war. And having the US and Europe at cross purposes, the only person that helps is Vladimir Putin. Dana Taylor: I want to turn now to the funding of NATO. President Trump has pushed for NATO members to pay their quote fair share, 2% of each nation's GDP on NATO defense. How have other nations responded so far? Max Boot: Well, actually, most NATO countries are now spending at least 2% of GDP on defense. But Trump is moving the goalposts. He's now demanding that NATO countries spend 5% of GDP on defense, which by the way is more than the US itself spends. We spend about 3.5% of GDP on defense. So I don't think this is a realistic demand, but I think the European countries are recognizing that even 2% is insufficient, and they're, I think, going to set 3% or 3.5% as a benchmark for their defense spending. And then they're going to do some creative accounting and claim that they're getting up to 5% by counting infrastructure investment as part of their quote unquote national defense budget. But I think clearly there is a recognition in Europe that they need to spend more on defense. They are spending more on defense. And the fact that we now have a government in Germany that is willing to do deficit spending, which is willing to take on debt in order to expand its defense budget, that's a big deal. That's a huge amount of money potentially that Germany's going to be able to pour into its defense budget. It's going to vastly enhance European defense capabilities. We see the UK just came out with a defense white paper that calls for an expansion of the British military and British defense spending. I think this is pretty universal across Europe. All these countries recognize that there is a threat, but it's going to take them a while to scale up spending. And I think the primary impetus is not so much President Trump's browbeating, it's the threat that they see from Putin, and they're concerned that they're going to be abandoned by the United States, so they're going to have to fend for themselves. Dana Taylor: In terms of the US remaining in NATO, some Americans may be joining Trump in asking, what's in it for us? So what's in it for us? Max Boot: Well, what's in it for us is a more prosperous, stable and mutually beneficial world order. I mean, Europe is one of our largest trade partners. It's a massive continent of 350 million people. We do a tremendous amount of business with them. We share common values with them. These are all liberal democracies. So it's imperative that we stand with our allies as we have done since 1945 to ensure peace and stability in Europe. The alternative is too horrific to contemplate. We're already getting a small taste of it in Ukraine with the most serious war of aggression that Europe has seen since 1945. We don't want to see the rest of the continent becoming embroiled in war. And the most effective way to avoid conflict is to deter aggressors. And nothing deters aggression more than NATO. We've seen that over more than 70 years. NATO has keep the peace, that's very much to America's benefit, as well as to Europe's benefit, and indeed, the entire world's benefit. Dana Taylor: And finally, Max, as I mentioned, this year's summit will be held in The Hague, the city synonymous with international justice. What's at stake with this year's talks? Max Boot: Well, I think there's a lot at stake we've talked about, the divisions between the US and Europe on how to deal with Ukraine. There also, although this is not a NATO issue per se, the fact that President Trump has declared trade wars on our allies is also something that strains ties and makes it harder for us to cooperate on defense and strategic matters when we're at war with each other on tariffs. And again, this is not going to be something that's going to be resolved at the NATO summit, but I think it is imperative for the Trump administration to back off its tariff threats and to reach accommodations with our European allies. I think there's a general sense of that what's at stake is the future of the Transatlantic alliance. Do we have enough in common anymore between the US and Europe to keep this alliance together? And I would emphatically argue yes, but nobody knows if Trump is convinced of that, because in the past and even now, he's been much more critical of US allies than he has been of US enemies. He continues to denounce the Europeans as freeloaders and people who are taking advantage of us. None of that is true, but it puts a massive strain on the alliance, and I think there'll be an opportunity to try to heal some of that strain at the NATO summit. Dana Taylor: Max, thank you so much for being on The Excerpt. Max Boot: Thanks for having me. Dana Taylor: Thanks to our senior producers, Shannon Rae Green and Kaely Monahan for their production assistance. Our executive producer is Laura Beatty. Let us know what you think of this episode by sending a note to podcasts@ Thanks for listening. I'm Dana Taylor. Taylor Wilson be back tomorrow morning with another episode of The Excerpt.
Yahoo
14 hours ago
- Yahoo
Poland cancels acquisition process for 32 Black Hawk helicopters
WARSAW (Reuters) - Poland has cancelled the procurement procedure for the purchase of 32 more Lockheed Martin S-70i Black Hawk helicopters for the Polish Army, the Polish Armament Agency said on Friday. "Maybe it is necessary to acquire other equipment in its (helicopters') place such as drones, or tanks, or some kind of communication," agency spokesman Grzegorz Polak told Reuters. Polak added that "some correction" was needed when the geopolitical situation and state security interests required other tasks to be carried out. Poland launched negotiations for the acquisition of 32 S-70i Black Hawk helicopters, produced by Lockheed Martin's Polish arm PZL Mielec, in 2023 under the previous Law and Justice (PiS) government. PiS lawmaker Mariusz Blaszczak, who was defence minister in the previous government, labelled the decision a "disgrace" in a post on X, saying it would slow down the replacement of the helicopter fleet. In August 2024 Poland signed a contract with the U.S. to buy 96 AH-64E Apache attack helicopters. Under the deal with the U.S. government the helicopters would provide new combat capabilities in terms of target engagement and reconnaissance, and will replace Poland's post-Soviet Mi-24 helicopters. Polak said the Armament Agency obtained equipment in accordance with Polish army plans, which are classified. It was not the Armament Agency that set procurement priorities, he added.
