Connect with us

Lifestyle

New book explores the real-life KGB spy program that inspired 'The Americans'

Published

on

New book explores the real-life KGB spy program that inspired 'The Americans'


DAVE DAVIES, HOST:

This is FRESH AIR. I’m Dave Davies. The FX TV series “The Americans” portrayed a seemingly ordinary couple raising two children in a suburb of Washington, D.C., except that Mom and Dad were actually Soviet spies working on long-term assignment for the KGB. In this scene, the couple, played by Matthew Rhys and Keri Russell, are talking after learning that their new neighbor is an FBI counterintelligence agent. The husband’s telling his wife maybe it’s time to give up their ruse and defect to the U.S. government.

(SOUNDBITE OF TV SHOW, “THE AMERICANS”)

MATTHEW RHYS: (As Phillip Jennings) We just get relocated, take the good life, and be happy.

Advertisement

KERI RUSSELL: (As Elizabeth Jennings) Are you joking? Is this a joke?

RHYS: (As Phillip Jennings) No.

RUSSELL: (As Elizabeth Jennings) You want to betray our country.

RHYS: (As Phillip Jennings) Well, after everything we’ve done, I don’t think it’s such a betrayal.

RUSSELL: (As Elizabeth Jennings) Defecting to America?

Advertisement

RHYS: (As Phillip Jennings) America’s not so bad. We’ve been here a long time. What’s so bad about it, you know? The electricity works all the time. Food’s pretty, great. Closet space…

RUSSELL: (As Elizabeth Jennings) Is that what you care about?

RHYS: (As Phillip Jennings) No, I care about everything.

RUSSELL: (As Elizabeth Jennings) Not the motherland.

RHYS: (As Phillip Jennings) I do, but our family comes first.

Advertisement

DAVIES: The series, which earned a host of honors, including two Peabody Awards, was fiction. But our guest today, investigative reporter Shaun Walker, has written a new book about the real-life espionage program that inspired it. Among others, Walker interviewed two members of the family the show was partly based on – brothers who had no idea their parents were Soviet agents, born in Russia until the day when the boys were 16 and 20, that the FBI raided their home in Cambridge, Massachusetts, and arrested their parents. We’ll hear more on that later.

From the beginning of the Soviet Union, Walker writes, its leaders put enormous effort into training spies in the language and culture of targeted foreign countries and sent them on missions that could last for decades. The book explores the agents’ efforts at espionage, but also the emotional strains they endured living a lie for so long. The program largely fell apart with the collapse of the Soviet Union, but Walker says it’s been revived in Russia under Vladimir Putin.

Shaun Walker is an international correspondent for The Guardian. He reported from Moscow for more than a decade and is the author of “The Long Hangover: Putin’s New Russia And The Ghosts Of The Past.” He currently divides his time among Warsaw, Kyiv and London. His new book is “The Illegals: Russia’s Most Audacious Spies And Their Century-Long Mission To Infiltrate The West.” Well, Shaun Walker, welcome back to FRESH AIR.

You know, so many countries spy on each other, and one typical technique that is used is to give their agents cover when they go to another country by having them employed as a diplomat at the embassy or as a businessperson traveling in the host country. This practice you write about is very different. How common is this idea of training agents to impersonate an ordinary citizen and embed in another country?

SHAUN WALKER: Well, it’s great to be back talking to you again, Dave. And yeah, I mean, the Soviet and then Russian illegals program, it does have some similarities with spying programs that a lot of countries use, but it’s really something quite unique. And that was sort of what kind of got me obsessed with the program over the last years when I’ve been researching this book, because I just felt that, like, somehow understanding the illegals and understanding the way this extraordinary program evolved from right at the beginning of the Soviet Union, through the Cold War, through the collapse of the Soviet Union, and up to now.

Advertisement

At all these moments – there were so many moments in this program where you just think, OK, this doesn’t quite make sense anymore to do this, to train these people for years, to spend, you know, one-on-one, really intensive training for years on end until you have an operative that’s ready to be sent out into another country and pose as someone with no links at all to Russia. There’s pretty much no other intelligence service that does that in this kind of scale.

DAVIES: You know, you write that the roots of this program date back to the beginnings of the Soviet Union, really before the Russian Revolution. So what were Lenin and, you know, his compatriots doing that led to this kind of espionage?

WALKER: So Lenin was the head of the Bolsheviks, and the Bolsheviks, at this point, before the revolution, were a kind of close-knit conspiratorial underground group, fighting the czar. Some of them were inside Russia, some of them were in exile. And Lenin developed this concept that, on the one hand, they were going to organize openly inside Russia. They would send people to the Parliament. They would work through trade unions. These would be the legal workers. But they’d also have illegals, who would do clandestine organization. They would often live in disguise. They would be trying to keep one step ahead of the czar’s secret police.

And these illegals, they often had fake foreign identities. They lived under false documents. They had code names. They wrote each other letters in invisible ink. Basically, they used a lot of spy craft. And so when Lenin and the Bolsheviks take over after the October Revolution in 1917, they readapt a lot of the spy craft for their brand new intelligence service. And it’s that heritage of the Bolsheviks as an underground clandestine organization that really kind of informs this idea of sending illegals out into the field.

DAVIES: In the 1920s and ’30s, when the new Soviet Union had a lot of international enemies, it ended up with a lot of these embedded spies, so-called illegals in the field. But things changed when there were these purges instituted by Joseph Stalin, the dictator of the Soviet Union, in which many people in many aspects of Soviet society, particularly government, were accused of disloyalty and tortured and forced to make public confessions. This happened to the illegals, too. Why did Stalin target those who presumably were among the most loyal of his followers?

Advertisement

WALKER: Yeah. I mean, so the logic of the purges was such that even the most loyal people were subject to suspicion, and everybody was desperate to show they were more loyal than everybody else. A key feature of the purges was accusing people of having links with foreign intelligence services. So essentially, spying for the enemies of the Soviet Union to bring down the Soviet state. And of course, the illegals here were kind of first in the firing line because, unlike your factory director in Siberia or your train worker in the Urals, who might be accused of working for German or Japanese intelligence – and it’s fanciful – here were people who were traveling all through the world. They were posing as capitalists. They had all kinds of links. And so suspicion, when it was so ubiquitous, naturally fell on them very quickly.

And so what you see is that these people who, you know, in the case of someone like Dmitri Bystrolyotov, he had spent years posing as a Hungarian, as a Brit, as different brands of capitalists, and he hadn’t been uncovered in the West. He comes back to the Soviet Union, and he’s accused that this whole career when he was working for Moscow, was all a sham. He actually – there’s another layer to his cover, and the whole time he was this secret enemy spy. Now, this is ridiculous, but to get him to admit to this, there are weeks, months of interrogations, violence, torture, until eventually, he feels his life slipping away from him, and he agrees to sign whatever they put in front of him just to make it stop.

DAVIES: And ends up with a very long prison term.

WALKER: Yeah. I mean, in some ways, luckily for him, he managed to hold out long enough that by the time he signs, the real peak is winding down. He doesn’t get shot, like many of the other illegals, but he does end up with 20 years in the gulag, which completely breaks him.

DAVIES: You know, I think one of the most interesting points of this description is when he is being repeatedly tortured, beaten and tortured by this operative who is trying to get him to sign a statement making this false admission that he had betrayed his country, and at some point, he realizes what his interrogator is going through. Tell us about this.

Advertisement

WALKER: Yeah. I mean, the – it’s a really extraordinary scene. And actually, the – Dmitri’s description of his interrogations, it’s some of the most interesting and evocative writing about the purges that I’ve ever seen. And yeah, there’s this moment where the guy who’s been in charge of his torture, suddenly – it sort of suddenly dawns on him this life that Dmitri had had in the West – wearing nice suits, going out to bars, traveling, having money. And he just looks at him and he says, you know, so you mean to say you could have just run off somewhere with all this money, and you could have lived in luxury until the end of your life? But you chose to come back here and face a bullet. I mean, what an idiot. And he starts beating Dmitri, like, why on earth did you come back here? And I think there’s this moment where Dmitri sort of sees – there’s a little bit of – the kind of curtain of the theater raises a bit, and he sees this guy as maybe someone who’s also a bit of a victim of this crazy system, even though he’s the torturer and Dmitri is the tortured.

DAVIES: We’re going to take a break here. Let me reintroduce you. We are speaking with Shaun Walker. He’s an international correspondent for The Guardian. His new book is “The Illegals: Russia’s Most Audacious Spies And Their Century-Long Mission To Infiltrate The West.” We’ll continue our conversation in just a moment. This is FRESH AIR.

(SOUNDBITE OF NATHAN BARR’S “THE AMERICANS MAIN TITLE THEME”)

DAVIES: This is FRESH AIR, and we’re speaking with Shaun Walker, an international correspondent for The Guardian. His new book is about a program run by the Soviet Union, and later by Russia, to train intelligence agents to learn the language and customs of a foreign country and then go there in missions that could last for decades, posing as ordinary citizens. His book is called “The Illegals: Russia’s Most Audacious Spies And Their Century-Long Mission To Infiltrate The West.”

I want to move to the postwar era when, you know, Germany was defeated, and it was clear to the Soviet leaders that their greatest rival would be the United States. They refer to it as the main enemy, right? So a new crop of these sleeper agents, these illegals, were trained and dispatched to the United States, typically going through Canada. They go to Canada, and then they eventually make their way to the U.S. One difficulty was that this life was hard on these agents – mostly single men – and would lead them to make mistakes or abandon their missions. You want to give us an example of this? You cite some of this in the book.

Advertisement

WALKER: Yeah. So you have a few of these early postwar spies, illegals, who are sent out to the U.S. And yeah, as you say, it’s very hard on them. There’s one – the one case that springs to mind is a chap called Yevgeni Brik (ph). So he arrives in Canada with the ultimate goal of getting to the U.S., and he’s supposed to spend a bit of time in Canada brushing up on what the KGB called the legend of the spy – so his backstory, basically. So he would go around several Canadian towns. He would visit the places where, supposedly, he had grown up, and he would sort of get himself a nice cache of stories that he’d be able to tell about these places.

But he shows up, and in one of the first places he stays in in Winnipeg, he’s in a guesthouse. And he’s missing his wife, who’s back in Moscow. His family is in Moscow. Of course, he has absolutely no links. He’s not allowed to contact them and not even allowed to contact the local Soviet Embassy. And so, rather lonely, he starts drinking in this guesthouse. He meets the daughter of the guesthouse owner, decides that he’s in love with her and, basically, at the first opportunity, sort of spills the whole story – who he is, what his training was, what his mission is. She’s absolutely horrified and persuades him to go to the police and confess everything. This story, much later, ends with Brik going back to Moscow and being arrested because the Soviets had realized that he talked to the Canadians.

But yeah, there’s a whole bunch of these stories where illegals would sort of get drunk. They would confess. They would defect. And the whole idea of this program is that they have to be on a very long leash, that the Soviets can’t be watching them from the embassy because they can’t have any links. So it becomes a real problem of, what do you do? How do you send these people out and make sure that they’re loyal when you have no oversight?

DAVIES: Another issue was – and this is fascinating – that a lot of these agents had advanced education in the Soviet Union, but they couldn’t carry their degrees with them. So they would often get trained in blue-collar employment and then be sent to, you know, the United States, in many cases, often through Canada, and then given instructions that were pretty unrealistic, right? There was this guy who adopted the name Rudy Herrmann – right? – who was – he was a delivery man. And what was his instruction?

WALKER: So he was actually a cameraman, Rudy Herrmann.

Advertisement

DAVIES: Cameraman. That’s right. OK.

WALKER: Yeah. So Rudy Herrmann, exactly as you said – I mean, he had this wonderful degree from Charles University in Prague. He was an incredibly clever guy. And he was posing brilliantly as a right-wing German. But he was very, very good at the job. But the problem was he didn’t have any German or American qualifications. So he was very resourceful guy. He learned how to be a cameraman. He got a good job at CBC, Canadian Broadcasting. Then he moved to New York.

He was doing very well. Like, he was making movies for IBM, doing all kinds of interesting stuff. But the KGB really wanted him to penetrate decision-making circles in Washington, D.C., and they particularly were interested in the Hudson Institute, which they were sure was a kind of front for the CIA. And Rudy Herrmann kept saying to his handlers, like, how do you expect me to do this? Like, I don’t have a degree. And they would just sort of say, well, do the best you can. And, yeah, I mean, it’s sort of emblematic of the way that as the decades go on, it gets harder and harder to do this job. The missions are longer and longer. The psychological strain is more and more. And the espionage results, with some exceptions, seem to get fewer and fewer.

DAVIES: Right. Well, I want to talk about the couple that – we mentioned this earlier – that actually were – partly inspired the TV series “The Americans.” This was a couple that came from the Soviet Union to Canada, and eventually to the United States, and stayed for a long, long time. Their names were Andrey Bezrukov and Elena Vavilova, right? They were actually recruited as college students from a university in Siberia – right? – where they were both in school.

WALKER: Yeah, that’s right. So by the time you get to the early 1980s, which was when they were starting their university in Tomsk – yeah, all these people that we were talking about at the beginning, the Dmitri Bystrolyotov characters who had already traveled the world and spoke many languages – they were long gone. The Soviet Union was quite a closed, quite a paranoid society. Anyone who actually had traveled would be a magnet for suspicion.

Advertisement

So instead, what they’re doing is they’re looking for very, very talented young students who come from what would be considered politically reliable families who are clearly clever, have an aptitude for languages. And they have spotters in universities all across the Soviet Union to look for these ideal candidates. They get short lists. They start interviewing them. They wouldn’t – they – at this early stage, they won’t even tell them, you know, we’re considering you might become an illegal spy. They just start to have conversations once a week. And eventually, they sort of whittle it down to a short list of really promising candidates, which Andrey and Elena were both on.

DAVIES: Tell us what their training was like – this is really interesting – when they decided they are going to be sent to a foreign country to embed as an – so-called illegal.

WALKER: Yeah. So the early-stage training will happen when they’re still at university. That will be personality tests and just sort of checking they’re compatible. And then they were sent – when it was decided that they really could be illegals, then they were sent on to the full training course. And by the early 1980s, this would last four or five years. It would be entirely one-on-one or, in the case of couples like Andrey and Elena, one-on-two.

They would have – they would – and one of the things that runs through the program – so they would never – it wouldn’t be that they would go in the morning to their, you know, training room at KGB headquarters and attend classes for the day. So they would never set foot inside a KGB building. They would never see any of their trainers in KGB uniform. They wouldn’t even know the real names of most of their trainers. This was all done in safe houses, secret apartments across Moscow. So you would go to one for your language classes. You’d go to another one for your etiquette classes. You would sit – so if you have a Canadian cover, you would sit in an apartment for hours on end reading Canadian schoolbooks year by year, so you would imbibe the things you would have imbibed if you really had been to Canadian school.

And then you’d have a whole set of tests for loyalty because, you know, the – almost nobody – the illegals, in fact, are the only Soviet citizens who are allowed to travel freely, and the KGB is very worried about kind of how to do this. I mean, how – it’s such a paradoxical situation that you have to shape these sort of virtuoso, maverick spies who are going to go out in the field and lie to absolutely everyone about everything, including their own children. But at the same time, without any oversight, you have to make sure they stay slavishly loyal to you.

Advertisement

And I think in all of the stories I heard from different people about the training, it – I mean, it almost sounds a bit like an induction into a cult. I mean, they’re really trying to break you. They’re trying to show you that they’re watching all the time. They will engineer different situations, fake arrests where you’ll be sort of, you know, pressured. And if you finally break and say, listen, there’s been a terrible mistake. I work for the KGB. Please call my handlers – that’s it. You’ll be kicked off the program. So just endless tests to make sure that you have what it takes for this, like, really quite intense psychological endurance that it’s going to be to live abroad for these years. And then it’s only after you’ve kind of passed all of those tests and learned how to look for surveillance, learned how to receive the messages in code – all of this stuff is incredibly time-consuming. Finally, after four or five years, they’re ready to go.

DAVIES: We need to take another break here. Let me reintroduce you. We are speaking with Shaun Walker. He is an international correspondent for The Guardian. His new book is “The Illegals: Russia’s Most Audacious Spies And Their Century-Long Mission To Infiltrate The West.” He’ll be back to talk more after this short break. I’m Dave Davies, and this is FRESH AIR.

(SOUNDBITE OF BLACKOUT & STEFON HARRIS’ “UNTIL”)

DAVIES: This is FRESH AIR. We’re speaking with Shaun Walker, international correspondent for The Guardian. He reported from Moscow for more than a decade. And he has a new book about a unique espionage program operated by intelligence services of the Soviet Union, in which agents were trained in the language and customs of a target country and then sent there to pose as citizens for missions that would last for years. In some cases, spy couples would raise families in their adopted country, keeping their true identities from their own children. Walker’s book is “The Illegals: Russia’s Most Audacious Spies And Their Century-Long Mission To Infiltrate The West.” When we left off, Walker was talking about Andrey Bezrukov and Elena Vavilova, a married couple recruited from their college in Siberia and trained for years to be sent on a mission to embed in the United States.

So they had two sons, Timothy and Alexander, who, as far as they knew, were Canadian, right? And the couple were making their way to the United States when, to their shock, the Soviet Union was changing rapidly. You know, Gorbachev was opening up the society. And in 1989, the Berlin Wall falls, and the satellite states around the Soviet Union are demanding independence. And this couple, who are known as Don Heathfield and Ann Foley, are in a motel room in Buffalo in 1991. And what do they see on CNN?

Advertisement

WALKER: Yeah. They turn on the TV, and they see the Soviet flag being lowered over the Kremlin for the final time. They see President Bush talking about the collapse of the Soviet Union, the fact that the U.S. has won the Cold War. And here they are, sitting in this cold motel room a few years after their deployment. They’ve had this intense training. They’ve sworn an oath to defend the motherland, and now the motherland doesn’t exist.

DAVIES: Right. So all of these agents that are all around – in 1991, I guess, the KGB is disbanded, right? So the instructions stop coming, the money stops coming, and they have to decide what they’re going to do. What do all these agents that are around there, the so-called illegals, do? I guess they took different courses.

WALKER: Yeah, many – I mean, it’s – it was a really kind of individual moment. So some of them decided to come home, see – be with their families. Others had a look at this choice and decided not to come home. They – you know, maybe – in the way that Andrey and Elena tell it, they were always patriotic and they were just waiting for Russia to kind of come back, to – OK, to get back off its knees and they could spy again. I think the reality was probably a little bit more complicated.

I think for a lot of these people, they looked, and they saw, OK, well, we’ve started building a life in the West. We’ve got quite a comfortable life. We’ve made solid foundations. This is what we’ve spent years training to do. We have kids who were born in the West. So we can either stay here, see what happens – maybe Russia and the U.S. will become friends, but then, OK, we don’t need to be spies. We’ll just live this other life that we’ve created for ourselves. Or we could go back to the Soviet Union, which is in chaos, where there’s economic turmoil, where it’s uncertain what will happen, where it’s – also, at this stage, it’s uncertain, I mean, will there be trials for top people in the KGB?

Suddenly, this – the work they were doing that was seen as sort of patriotic, wonderful work, maybe it’s not going to be viewed like that in the new Russia. So some of them maybe just decide to wait and see. Perhaps they’ll come back into the fold if and when there is a renewed demand for spying. Or maybe they will just start their new lives in their cover identities, and no one will ever know that once upon a time, they were from Siberia.

Advertisement

DAVIES: All right. Well, we’ll see what happens to this couple after we take a break here. Let me reintroduce you. We’re speaking to Shaun Walker. He’s an international correspondent for The Guardian. His new book is “The Illegals: Russia’s Most Audacious Spies And Their Century-Long Mission To Infiltrate The West.” We’ll continue our conversation after this break. This is FRESH AIR.

(SOUNDBITE OF HOWARD FISHMAN SONG, “DIRTY”)

DAVIES: This is FRESH AIR, and we’re speaking with Shaun Walker, an international correspondent for The Guardian. His new book is about a program operated by the Soviet Union – and later Russia – to train spies to learn the language and culture of a target state and then embed there for decades. His book is called “The Illegals: Russia’s Most Audacious Spies And Their Century-Long Mission To Infiltrate The West.”

So the Russian government begins to revive the program under Vladimir Putin, And so once again, they are now filing reports on things they’re observing in the United States. Unfortunately for them, the FBI got on to them, in part because a Russian agent who knew all about this, who was right in the middle of this program, flipped and started providing information. And in 2010, the FBI swooped in and arrested them. Tell us what happened that day in Cambridge.

WALKER: Yeah. So after this nearly quarter of a century of living in these cover identities, they’re very comfortable. They’ve got the two kids. They think that everything is going very well. But of course, as with all spies, you’re only ever one turncoat, one defector, away from being exposed. And for some years, they’d actually – every move had been tracked by the FBI. And this was a day – the FBI had been tracking illegals across the United States. There was about 10 of them, and this was the – finally the time. The defector wanted to be exfiltrated. They needed to round them up. And this was the day, in June 2010, that it was decided it was going to happen.

Advertisement

So across the U.S., coordinated raids and arrests. And it’s actually Tim, the older son – it’s his 20th birthday. There’s a knock at the door. Everyone thinks it must be somebody come to wish him happy birthday. It’s actually the FBI, who put Andrey and Elena – Don and Ann – into separate cars, drive them away. And Tim and Alex, the two sons, are left there kind of asking, you know, what on earth is going on? And they’re basically told, well, your parents have been arrested for being agents of a foreign government. And it’s only a few days later that they will start to hear the full details and, even then, not really believe it.

DAVIES: Now, what’s fascinating about this is that at the time that this arrest happens – I mean, the boys have never been told anything about their true identities. As far as they know, they’re all Canadians. And their grandparents live so far away, they never see them. There’re various excuses for that. The family had been planning – they had traveled a lot, but they’d been planning a trip to Moscow. They’d been all over Europe, but never to Russia. And so they had visas to go there. The couple are taken to an American court where they have to admit their guilt. And you wrote a fascinating story because you talked to the two boys in 2018 and wrote the story in The Guardian. But as I – if I have this right, the sons, who were taken to a hotel by the FBI, didn’t really know what to think about any of this, and they have a brief conversation with their mom in court. She’s still wearing an orange jumpsuit from prison, right? What is that conversation like?

WALKER: Yeah. So she tells them, you should fly to Moscow. And they do. And this is like – I mean, this is one of these kind of slightly confusing moments here. So what on earth was this trip that they were going to do to Moscow that summer? In their telling, this was just going to be an ordinary tourist trip. You know, they’d traveled all over the place. One of the kids had said, oh, let’s – what about Russia? We’ve never been there. They were going to go. They were going to stay in character the whole time as Canadians, Americans and leave again.

Now, of course, I’m a little bit suspicious about this. I do wonder if, you know, we had that story decades earlier of the illegal trying to recruit his son as a second generation, maybe this was a trip where they were going to reveal – they’d decided it was time – and see if their children would join their mission. The FBI have suggested they believe that might be the case. Parents and the children fully deny it. I think we’ll never know the truth of that. But, yeah, I think at the moment when your mom tells you, (laughter) what I think you should do is fly to Moscow, I guess that’s the moment where you realize, OK, looks like this is true.

So these poor kids, they fly off to Moscow. Their parents arrive a couple of days later in a spy swap. They swapped on the tarmac at Vienna Airport, and they arrive back in Moscow. And yeah, and the – one of – the younger brother said to me that the moment he realized it was all true was when one of these – one of the people who met them at the airport, and they introduced themselves as, you know, we’re friends of your parents. We work with them. And they showed the two brothers pictures of their parents in KGB uniforms, which had been taken just before they were sent off to the – to Canada back in the late 1980s. And Alex said, you know, this was the moment where I realized it was all true.

Advertisement

So they have this, I mean, unimaginable sort of family summit back in Moscow. They meet grandparents they didn’t know they had, or at least they thought they were living somewhere in remote Canada rather than in Siberia. They’re taken to the Bolshoi Theatre. They have these long discussions with their parents about, you know, what on earth has just happened. And they’re given Russian passports with new names. They can’t even pronounce their names properly. And, yeah, it was meeting the two of them – it was actually back in 2016, when I wrote a story about them and their battle to have their Canadian citizenship restored, that was the sort of first impulse for me – this crazy, twisted family story that sort of set me on this path of getting obsessed with the illegals over the years.

DAVIES: Yeah. It is a fascinating story. I mean, suddenly their lives are turned upside down, these boys. The couple stays in Russia. You know, they hadn’t been there in decades. What were their lives like? Are they – are you still in touch with them? Are they comfortable with it? You did speak with Elena, right?

WALKER: I spoke with Elena a couple of times, yeah, a few years ago. We’re not – we haven’t been in touch a lot recently. I think context has changed a bit since the full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022. I – you know, I used to go to Russia very regularly. I’m now on a blacklist, so I can’t visit. But, yeah, I mean, they were essentially – I mean, what’s fascinating about them – so with earlier illegals, who achieved an awful lot, they were often, as we discussed, sent to the gulag, shot. Some of them were disgraced because they were caught. And despite having, you know, given years of their lives to this program, what you see with Andrei and Elena is sort of the opposite. I mean, they definitely did a very impressive job to integrate so well and live many years undercover.

But because of this defector, for 10 years, the FBI knew exactly what they were doing. So essentially, their value as espionage agents was pretty much zero. But that’s slightly glossed over or rather fully glossed over when it comes to the sort of modern Russian telling of their story. And, of course, now under Putin, there is a really big focus on finding patriotic stories on nationalist mythmaking. And the illegals are perfect for this. These people who sacrificed everything, they – you know, they lived abroad for years. They gave everything for the motherland. And that’s now their position in Russian society.

So they came back. They were given a very nice apartment. They were both given quite lucrative jobs in state-controlled companies. They met with Vladimir Putin in the Kremlin and sang songs together. And then, you know, they’re introduced on chat shows as legendary spies, and they will give the talking points. Well, more Andrei, actually. Andrei will often be on chat shows, giving the talking points of the day about Russia’s war in Ukraine or how the evil West is trying to bring down Moscow. So they fit quite nicely into this system. What they say to each other in their quieter moments in the evenings, I don’t know.

Advertisement

DAVIES: And what about the two boys, Timothy and Alexander? Do you know where they live, what they do, how they regard their parents?

WALKER: So I think it was very difficult for them, particularly I think Alex, the younger son. They had both found ways to live outside Russia, but they were struggling with getting visas. You know, I know Alex had been applying to various schools in Europe and then not – had not been able to get visas. And I think with their parents, it was not an easy conversation. But they somehow – you know, they felt they’d had a loving childhood. They felt their parents had been very good to them in many ways, and they tried to find a way, I think, to sort of sidestep this big deception. And, you know, I guess there are ways in which with all of these families – and it was the same talking to Peter Herrmann, the guy whose father tried to recruit him. In many ways, these – the dilemmas these kids face and these families face are similar to a lot of families. You know, there might be a secret affair or a secret past history that parents don’t want to talk about. You have the dilemmas of immigrant parents coming to a new country, and, you know, they want their children to integrate, but they also don’t want to lose them to the new culture. And Illegals had all these same dilemmas, but they were just heightened 10 times over by this kind of extraordinary secret that they had a second life as Soviet citizens.

DAVIES: You spent more than a decade reporting in Russia. You mentioned earlier that you’re on a blacklist, which prevents you from traveling there now. How did that happen? What got you there?

WALKER: While I’d love to say it was a phenomenal journalistic scoop that infuriated Vladimir Putin, but it was basically early on in the full-scale war in the summer of 2022, I think the Brits must have put sanctions on a certain number of Russians, and as the Russians love to do, they put reciprocal sanctions on whoever’s sanctioning them. If you sanction me, I’m going to sanction you back. So they released a list of about 50 British journalists, politicians, analysts, all kinds of people. My claim to fame is I was No. 1 on the list, but there was also every other journalist for The Guardian who’d reported from Ukraine, pretty much was on this list.

And, yeah, and actually, most of the – what was frustrating about is most of the people on this list were not people who were ever going to Russia, so they get to sort of very proudly put on their biographies that, you know, I’ve been banned by the Kremlin whereas, yeah, I mean, I was last there a few months before the war started, the full-scale war started. I was continuing to go back. I’m obviously – you know, it’s really quite sad and depressing to see what’s happened to the country, but I would – it doesn’t feel a good feeling to not be able to go after I spent so many years reporting from there.

Advertisement

DAVIES: Well, Shaun Walker, we’ll look forward to more of your reporting. Thanks so much for speaking with us.

WALKER: Thank you very much for having me.

DAVIES: Shaun Walker is an international correspondent for The Guardian. His new book is “The Illegals: Russia’s Most Audacious Spies And Their Century-Long Mission To Infiltrate The West.” Coming up, jazz historian Kevin Whitehead pays tribute to the versatile tenor saxophonist Gene Ammons, born a hundred years ago this week. This is FRESH AIR.

(SOUNDBITE OF CHARLES MINGUS’ “SELF-PORTRAIT IN THREE COLORS”)

Copyright © 2025 NPR. All rights reserved. Visit our website terms of use and permissions pages at www.npr.org for further information.

Advertisement

Accuracy and availability of NPR transcripts may vary. Transcript text may be revised to correct errors or match updates to audio. Audio on npr.org may be edited after its original broadcast or publication. The authoritative record of NPR’s programming is the audio record.

Lifestyle

Baz Luhrmann will make you fall in love with Elvis Presley

Published

on

Baz Luhrmann will make you fall in love with Elvis Presley

Elvis Presley in Las Vegas in Aug. 1970.

NEON


hide caption

toggle caption

Advertisement

NEON

“You are my favorite customer,” Baz Luhrmann tells me on a recent Zoom call from the sunny Chateau Marmont in Hollywood. The director is on a worldwide blitz to promote his new film, EPiC: Elvis Presley in Concert — which opens wide this week — and he says this, not to flatter me, but because I’ve just called his film a miracle.

See, I’ve never cared a lick about Elvis Presley, who would have turned 91 in January, had he not died in 1977 at the age of 42. Never had an inkling to listen to his music, never seen any of his films, never been interested in researching his life or work. For this millennial, Presley was a fossilized, mummified relic from prehistory — like a woolly mammoth stuck in the La Brea Tar Pits — and I was mostly indifferent about seeing 1970s concert footage when I sat down for an early IMAX screening of EPiC.

By the end of its rollicking, exhilarating 90 minutes, I turned to my wife and said, “I think I’m in love with Elvis Presley.”

Advertisement

“I’m not trying to sell Elvis,” Luhrmann clarifies. “But I do think that the most gratifying thing is when someone like you has the experience you’ve had.”

Elvis made much more of an imprint on a young Luhrmann; he watched the King’s movies while growing up in New South Wales, Australia in the 1960s, and he stepped to 1972’s “Burning Love” as a young ballroom dancer. But then, like so many others, he left Elvis behind. As a teenager, “I was more Bowie and, you know, new wave and Elton and all those kinds of musical icons,” he says. “I became a big opera buff.”

Luhrmann only returned to the King when he decided to make a movie that would take a sweeping look at America in the 1950s, ’60s, and ’70s — which became his 2022 dramatized feature, Elvis, starring Austin Butler. That film, told in the bedazzled, kaleidoscopic style that Luhrmann is famous for, cast Presley as a tragic figure; it was framed and narrated by Presley’s notorious manager, Colonel Tom Parker, portrayed by a conniving and heavily made-up Tom Hanks. The dark clouds of business exploitation, the perils of fame, and an early demise hang over the singer’s heady rise and fall.

It was a divisive movie. Some praised Butler’s transformative performance and the director’s ravishing style; others experienced it as a nauseating 2.5-hour trailer. Reviewing it for Fresh Air, Justin Chang said that “Luhrmann’s flair for spectacle tends to overwhelm his basic story sense,” and found the framing device around Col. Parker (and Hanks’ “uncharacteristically grating” acting) to be a fatal flaw.

Personally, I thought it was the greatest thing Luhrmann had ever made, a perfect match between subject and filmmaker. It reminded me of Oliver Stone’s breathless, Shakespearean tragedy about Richard Nixon (1995’s Nixon), itself an underrated masterpiece. Yet somehow, even for me, it failed to light a fire of interest in Presley himself — and by design, I now realize after seeing EPiC, it omitted at least one major aspect of Elvis’ appeal: the man was charmingly, endearingly funny.

Advertisement

As seen in Luhrmann’s new documentary, on stage, in the midst of a serious song, Elvis will pull a face, or ad lib a line about his suit being too tight to get on his knees, or sing for a while with a bra (which has been flung from the audience) draped over his head. He’s constantly laughing and ribbing and keeping his musicians, and himself, entertained. If Elvis was a tragedy, EPiC is a romantic comedy — and Presley’s seduction of us, the audience, is utterly irresistible.

Unearthing old concert footage 

It was in the process of making Elvis that Luhrmann discovered dozens of long-rumored concert footage tapes in a Kansas salt mine, where Warner Bros. stores some of their film archives. Working with Peter Jackson’s team at the post-production facility Park Road Post, who did the miraculous restoration of Beatles rehearsal footage for Jackson’s 2021 Disney+ series, Get Back, they burnished 50-plus hours of 55-year-old celluloid into an eye-popping sheen with enough visual fidelity to fill an IMAX screen. In doing so, they resurrected a woolly mammoth. The film — which is a creative amalgamation of takes from rehearsals and concerts that span from 1970 to 1972 — places the viewer so close to the action that we can viscerally feel the thumping of the bass and almost sense that we’ll get flecked with the sweat dripping off Presley’s face.

This footage was originally shot for the 1970 concert film Elvis: That’s The Way It Is, and its 1972 sequel, Elvis on Tour, which explains why these concerts were shot like a Hollywood feature: wide shots on anamorphic 35mm and with giant, ultra-bright Klieg lights — which, Luhrmann explains, “are really disturbing. So [Elvis] was very apologetic to the audience, because the audience felt a bit more self conscious than they would have been at a normal show. They were actually making a movie, they weren’t just shooting a concert.”

Luhrmann chose to leave in many shots where camera operators can be seen running around with their 16mm cameras for close-ups, “like they’re in the Vietnam War trying to get the best angles,” because we live in an era where we’re used to seeing cameras everywhere and Luhrmann felt none of the original directors’ concern about breaking the illusion. Those extreme close-ups, which were achieved by operators doing math and manually pulling focus, allow us to see even the pores on Presley’s skin — now projected onto a screen the size of two buildings.

The sweat that comes out of those pores is practically a character in the film. Luhrmann marvels at how much Presley gave in every single rehearsal and every single concert performance. Beyond the fact that “he must have superhuman strength,” Luhrmann says, “He becomes the music. He doesn’t mark stuff. He just becomes the music, and then no one knows what he’s going to do. The band do not know what he’s going to do, so they have to keep their eyes on him all the time. They don’t know how many rounds he’s going to do in ‘Suspicious Minds.’ You know, he conducts them with his entire being — and that’s what makes him unique.”

Advertisement
Elvis Presley in Las Vegas in Aug. 1970.

Elvis Presley in Las Vegas in Aug. 1970.

NEON


hide caption

toggle caption

NEON

Advertisement

It’s not the only thing. The revivified concerts in EPiC are a potent argument that Elvis wasn’t just a superior live performer to the Beatles (who supplanted him as the kings of pop culture in the 1960s), but possibly the greatest live performer of all time. His sensual, magmatic charisma on stage, the way he conducts the large band and choir, the control he has over that godlike gospel voice, and the sorcerer’s power he has to hold an entire audience in the palm of his hands (and often to kiss many of its women on the lips) all come across with stunning, electrifying urgency.

Shaking off the rust and building a “dreamscape” 

The fact that, on top of it all, he is effortlessly funny and goofy is, in Luhrmann’s mind, essential to the magic of Elvis. While researching for Elvis, he came to appreciate how insecure Presley was as a kid — growing up as the only white boy in a poor Black neighborhood, and seeing his father thrown into jail for passing a bad check. “Inside, he felt very less-than,” says Luhrmann, “but he grows up into a physical Greek god. I mean, we’ve forgotten how beautiful he was. You see it in the movie; he is a beautiful looking human being. And then he moves. And he doesn’t learn dance steps — he just manifests that movement. And then he’s got the voice of Orpheus, and he can take a song like ‘Bridge Over Troubled Water’ and make it into a gospel power ballad.

“So he’s like a spiritual being. And I think he’s imposing. So the goofiness, the humor is about disarming people, making them get past the image — like he says — and see the man. That’s my own theory.”

Elvis has often been second-classed in the annals of American music because he didn’t write his own songs, but Luhrmann insists that interpretation is its own invaluable art form. “Orpheus interpreted the music as well,” the director says.

Advertisement

In this way — as in their shared maximalist, cape-and-rhinestones style — Luhrmann and Elvis are a match made in Graceland. Whether he’s remixing Shakespeare as a ’90s punk music video in Romeo + Juliet or adding hip-hop beats to The Great Gatsby, Luhrmann is an artist who loves to take what was vibrantly, shockingly new in another century and make it so again.

Elvis Presley in Las Vegas in Aug. 1970.

Elvis Presley in Las Vegas in Aug. 1970.

NEON


hide caption

toggle caption

Advertisement

NEON

Luhrmann says he likes to take classic work and “shake off the rust and go, Well, when it was written, it wasn’t classical. When it was created, it was pop, it was modern, it was in the moment. That’s what I try and do.”

To that end, he conceived EPiC as “an imagined concert,” liberally building sequences from various nights, sometimes inserting rehearsal takes into a stage performance (ecstatically so in the song “Polk Salad Annie”), and adding new musical layers to some of the songs. Working with his music producer, Jamieson Shaw, he backed the King’s vocals on “Oh Happy Day” with a new recording of a Black gospel choir in Nashville. “So that’s an imaginative leap,” says Luhrmann. “It’s kind of a dreamscape.”

On some tracks, like “Burning Love,” new string arrangements give the live performances extra verve and cinematic depth. Luhrmann and his music team also radically remixed multiple Elvis songs into a new number, “A Change of Reality,” which has the King repeatedly asking “Do you miss me?” over a buzzing bass line and a syncopated beat.

Advertisement

I didn’t miss Elvis before I saw EPiC — but after seeing the film twice now, I truly do.

Continue Reading

Lifestyle

L.A. Affairs: Sick of swiping, I tried speed dating. The results surprised me

Published

on

L.A. Affairs: Sick of swiping, I tried speed dating. The results surprised me

“You kinda have this Wednesday Addams vibe going on.”

I shrieked.

I was wearing my best armor: a black dress that accentuated my curves, a striped bolero to cover the arms I’ve resented for years and black platform sandals displaying ruby toes. My dark hair was in wild, voluminous curls and my sultry makeup was finished with an inviting Chanel rouge lip.

I would’ve preferred the gentleman at the speed dating event had likened my efforts to, at least, Morticia, a grown woman. But in this crowd of men and women ages ranging from roughly 21 to 40, I suppose my baby face gave me away.

Advertisement

My mind flitted back to a conversation I had with my physical therapist about modern love: Dating in L.A. has become monotonous.

The apps were oversaturated and underwhelming. And it seemed more difficult than ever to naturally meet someone in person.

She told me about her recent endeavor in speed dating: events sponsoring timed one-on-one “dates” with multiple candidates. I applauded her bravery, but the conversation had mostly slipped my mind.

Two years later, I had reached my boiling point with Jesse, a guy I met online (naturally) a few months prior who was good on paper but bad in practice.

Knowing my best friend was in a similar situationship, I found myself suggesting a curious social alternative.

Advertisement

Much of my knowledge of speed dating came from cinema. It usually involved a down-on-her-luck hopeless romantic or a mature workaholic attempting to be more spontaneous in her dating life, sitting across from a montage of caricatures: the socially-challenged geek stumbling through his special interests; the arrogant businessman diverting most of his attention to his Blackberry; the pseudo-suave ladies’ man whose every word comes across rehearsed and saccharine.

Nevertheless, I was desperate for a good distraction. So we purchased tickets to an event for straight singles happening a few hours later.

Walking into Oldfield’s Liquor Room, I noticed that it looked like a normal bar, all dark wood and dim lighting. Except its patrons flanked the perimeter of the space, speaking in hushed tones, sizing up the opposite sex.

Suddenly in need of some liquid courage, we rushed back to the car to indulge in the shooters we bought on our way to the venue — three for $6. I had already surrendered $30 for my ticket and I was not paying for Los Angeles-priced cocktails. Ten minutes later, we were ready to mingle.

The bar’s back patio was decked out with tea lights and potted palm plants. House-pop music put me in a groove as I perused the picnic tables covered with conversation starters like “What’s your favorite sexual position?” Half-amused and half-horrified, I decided to use my own material.

Advertisement

We found our seats as the host began introductions. Each date would last two minutes — a chime would alert the men when it was time to move clockwise to the next seat. I exchanged hopeful glances with the women around me.

The bell rang, and I felt my buzz subside in spades as my first date sat down. This was really happening.

Soft brown eyes greeted me. He was polite and responsive, giving adequate answers to my questions but rarely returning the inquiry. I sensed he was looking through me and not at me, as if he had decided I wasn’t his type and was biding his time until the bell rang. I didn’t take it personally.

Bachelor No. 2 stood well over six feet with caramel-brown hair and emerald eyes. He oozed confidence and warmth when he spoke about how healing from an accident a few years prior inspired him to become a physical therapist.

I tried not to focus on how his story was nearly word-perfect to the one I heard him give the woman before me. He offered to show me a large surgery scar, rolling up his right sleeve to reveal the pale pink flesh — and a well-trained bicep. Despite his obvious good looks and small-town charm, something suspicious gnawed at me. I would later learn he had left the same effect on most of the women.

Advertisement

My nose received Bachelor No. 3 before my eyes. His spiced cologne quickly engulfing my senses. He had a larger-than-life presence, seeming to be a character himself, so I asked for his favorite current watch.

“I love ‘The Summer I Turned Pretty,’” he actually said.

“Really?”

“Oh yeah, it’s my favorite. Oh, and ‘Wednesday.’ You kinda have this Wednesday Addams vibe going on.”

I was completely thrown to hear this 40-something man’s favorite programs centered around teenage girls, and by his standards, I resembled one of them. Where was the host with the damn bell?

Advertisement

Although a few conversations clearly left impressions, most of the dates morphed into remnants of information like fintech, middle sibling, allergic to cats, etc. Perhaps two minutes was too short to spark genuine chemistry.

After a quick lap around the post-date mingling, we practically raced to the car. A millisecond after the doors closed, my friend said, “I think I’m going to call him.” I knew she wasn’t referring to any of the men we met tonight. The last few hours were all in vain. “And you should call Jesse.”

I scoffed at her audacity.

When I arrived home and called him, it only rang once.

The following three hours of witty banter and cheeky innuendos were bliss until the call ended on a low note, and I remembered why I tried speed dating in the first place.

Advertisement

Jesse and I had great chemistry but were ultimately incompatible. He preferred living life within his comfort zone while I craved adventure and variety. He couldn’t see past right now, and I was too busy planning the future to live in the moment.

Still, in a three-hour call, long before the topic of commitment soured things, we laughed at the mundanity of our day, traded wildest dreams for embarrassing anecdotes, and voiced amorous intentions that would make Aphrodite’s cheeks heat.

Why couldn’t I have had a conversation like that with someone at the event?

It’s possible I was hoping to find the perfect replica of my relationship with Jesse. But when I had the opportunity to meet someone new, I reserved my humor and my empathy.

Also, despite knowing Jesse and I weren’t a good match, I thought we had a “chance connection” that I needed to protect. In reality, if I had shown up to speed dating as my complete self, that would have been more than enough to stir sparks with a new flame.

Advertisement

It would be several more weeks before I was ready to release my attachment to Jesse. But when I did, I had a better appreciation for myself and my capacity for love.

The author is a multidisciplinary writer and mother based in Encino.

L.A. Affairs chronicles the search for romantic love in all its glorious expressions in the L.A. area, and we want to hear your true story. We pay $400 for a published essay. Email LAAffairs@latimes.com. You can find submission guidelines here. You can find past columns here.

Editor’s note: On April 3, L.A. Affairs Live, our new storytelling competition show, will feature real dating stories from people living in the Greater Los Angeles area. Tickets for our first event will be on sale starting Tuesday.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Lifestyle

In reversal, Warner Bros. jilts Netflix for Paramount

Published

on

In reversal, Warner Bros. jilts Netflix for Paramount

Warner Bros. Discovery said Thursday that it prefers the latest offer from rival Hollywood studio Paramount over a bid it accepted from Netflix.

Bloomberg/Bloomberg via Getty Images/Bloomberg


hide caption

toggle caption

Advertisement

Bloomberg/Bloomberg via Getty Images/Bloomberg

The Warner Bros. Discovery board announced late Thursday afternoon that Paramount’s sweetened bid to buy the entire company is “superior” to an $83 billion deal it had struck with Netflix for the purchase of its streaming services, studios, and intellectual property.

Netflix says it is pulling out of the contest rather than try to top Paramount’s offer.

“We’ve always been disciplined, and at the price required to match Paramount Skydance’s latest offer, the deal is no longer financially attractive, so we are declining to match the Paramount Skydance bid,” the streaming giant said in a statement.

Advertisement

Warner had rejected so many offers from Paramount that it seemed as though it would be a fruitless endeavor. Speaking on the red carpet for the BAFTA film awards last weekend, Netflix CEO Ted Sarandos dared Paramount to stop making its case publicly and start ponying up cash.

‘If you wanna try and outbid our deal … just make a better deal. Just put a better deal on the table,” Sarandos told the trade publication Deadline Hollywood.

Netflix promised that Warner Bros. would operate as an independent studio and keep showing its movies in theaters.

But the political realities, combined with Paramount’s owners’ relentless drive to expand their entertainment holdings, seem to have prevailed.

Paramount previously bid for all of Warner — including its cable channels such as CNN, TBS, and Discovery — in a deal valued at $108 billion. Earlier this week, Paramount unveiled a fresh proposal increasing its bid by a dollar a share.

Advertisement

On Thursday, hours before the Warner announcement, Sarandos headed to the White House to meet Trump administration officials to make his case for the deal.

The meetings, leaked Wednesday to political and entertainment media outlets, were confirmed by a White House official who spoke on condition he not be named, as he was not authorized to speak about them publicly.

President Trump was not among those who met with Sarandos, the official said.

While Netflix’s courtship of Warner stirred antitrust concerns, the Paramount deal is likely to face a significant antitrust review from the U.S. Justice Department, given the combination of major entertainment assets. Paramount owns CBS and the streamer Paramount Plus, in addition to Comedy Central, Nickelodeon and other cable channels.

The offer from Paramount CEO David Ellison relies on the fortune of his father, Oracle co-founder Larry Ellison. And David Ellison has argued to shareholders that his company would have a smoother path to regulatory approval.

Advertisement

Not unnoticed: the Ellisons’ warm ties to Trump world.

Larry Ellison is a financial backer of the president.

David Ellison was photographed offering a MAGA-friendly thumbs-up before the State of the Union address with one of the president’s key Congressional allies: U.S. Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, a Republican.

Trump has praised changes to CBS News made under David Ellison’s pick for editor in chief, Bari Weiss.

The chair of the Federal Communications Commission, Brendan Carr, told Semafor Wednesday that he was pleased by the news division’s direction under Weiss. She has criticized much of the mainstream media as being too reflexively liberal and anti-Trump.

Advertisement

“I think they’re doing a great job,” Carr said at a Semafor conference on trust and the media Wednesday. As Semafor noted, Carr previously lauded CBS by saying it “agreed to return to more fact-based, unbiased reporting.”

Continue Reading

Trending