Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Debunking the Myths of the HBO Chernobyl series (2023)

blog.osm-ai.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 79 posts

Re: Debunking the Myths of the HBO Chernobyl series (2023)

#51

Post by ggm »

senderista wrote: post #14
ggm wrote: post #3

This kind of "for the drama" variance is very common. Look at archaeologists reaction to Coogans film about Richard III which went to court. Films, even documentary, don't always get it right and often don't even try because "based on" admits a lot of change. People often don't understand history. "The KGB regiments shot deserters in ww2 Stalingrad" since the KGB was formed in 1954, that's a serious mis-statement of…

Confusing the KGB with the NKVD (different names used at different times for essentially the same organization) is a totally inconsequential mistake and it is disingenuous to pretend it has any significance.

You kind of make my point because any one of the things complained of could be said to be inconsequential but the sum total strongly suggests more fiction than fact.

"Enemy at the gates" comes to mind. That whole "pick up the gun of your dead comrade" scene..

Re: Debunking the Myths of the HBO Chernobyl series (2023)

#52

Post by spwa4 »

mvkel wrote: post #5

> Legasov commended the swiftness and efficiency of the government response at all levels Sure, but in those times, he would be compelled to say such things. That doesn't mean he believed it. It seems the main faults that OP finds in the show are that Legasov had issues with his government, when in "reality" he thought they were great. But is that "reality," or oppression? I also don't see the fault in highlighting h…

The main issue is what the Soviet government did before the disaster even happened. Someone, in the series it is implied it was a student, in Legasov's institution wrote a paper about what the risks was when AZ-5 was pressed. Apparently there was even a suggested redesign for the rods that would mitigate the risk (but it required lowering the maximum power output for the reactor, and thus required building more reactors, and so would increase the cost of the nuclear program by maybe 10-20%)

The Soviet government did something to shut that person up (and in the series Legasov implies he was part of that, I can't even find what he did exactly), repressed the knowledge (declaring it a state secret) ... and then a decade later Chernobyl exploded.

In other words: what happened is that the Soviet government refused to fix their nuclear reactors due to cost, and then that decision blew up Chernobyl, making tens to hundreds of thousands of victims.

Then, during the cleanup of the disaster, the KGB took additional measures to keep it hidden.

So yes it was oppression ... oppression is the cause of the disaster in the first place. And you can't forget that Legasov is not a hero: his career was built on oppression, not scientific accomplishment (there was a Soviet program to make sure Jewish students would fail at the institute. Legasov was the one implementing that). So of course Legasov can't be trusted.

Who knows, maybe the student who wrote that AZ-5 would blow up the reactor in the first place was one of the Jewish students whose career Legasov sabotaged.

Re: Debunking the Myths of the HBO Chernobyl series (2023)

#53

Post by belZaah »

chemotaxis wrote: post #20

This is a really weird post. The thrust appears to be a contrarian desire to portray the Soviet government as capable and competent, and I wonder if it's the author's naivete or some sort of an agenda. The post latches on small discrepancies, but somehow ignores the entire impetus of Legasov's tapes. He sure didn't record them to praise the government: "And when I visited the Chernobyl station after the accident and…

Not telling the population for days on end and drafting people to deal with the consequences without informing them where and why they would be going does not constitute an adequate government response. I lives in the USSR at the time and remember it well. And the consequences for the people who came back.

Re: Debunking the Myths of the HBO Chernobyl series (2023)

#55

Post by moribvndvs »

This is an incredibly naive and wild take. The first complaint is that the show focuses on Legasov and “claims” he was the primary scientist when Legasov says he wasn’t, then proceeds to “debunk” the show based on the tape alone. A testimony BTW which is not only not always consistent with the multitude of other sources and evidence but also sometimes contradicts things Legasov himself said (allegedly or on-record).

I don’t defend the show as an academic, completely accurate documentary, because it isn’t and never claimed to be. But suggesting it is almost entirely falsified is an awful take. I can’t wait to read about their outraged takedown piece on Titanic once they get around to reading one survivor’s memoirs.

Re: Debunking the Myths of the HBO Chernobyl series (2023)

#56

Post by xtiansimon »

As a piece of writing it does not come across as sober or thoughtful. Rather it’s filled with mixed metaphors, hyperbole, and leaps of logic.

No indications the real-life event was an _act of god_ or _natural disaster_. The HBO series is a dramatization of human error, and stands or falls on the merits of fiction.

In other words—Sorry you didn’t like this dramatization of the disaster. As other said, it’s not a documentary.

Re: Debunking the Myths of the HBO Chernobyl series (2023)

#57

Post by amiga386 »

netrem wrote: post #42
osm3000 wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would have accepted that if it wasn't for Craig Mazin (the creator of the series) insistence that he stuck to the details and the truth in the series: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yY0r1Ln6tkM For the life of me I couldn't figure out what truth he is talking about (other than that Chernobyl happened, and some characters existed)

They even published a podcast highlighting the creative freedoms, but failed to mention the important ones, like the fact that the reactor caps couldn't bounce up and down... Deeply ironic for a show with the tagline "What is the cost of lies?"

You think that's an important one? To me, that's just a creative liberty; the need for visuals in the seconds before the explosion led to a choice to visualise it like the top of a boiling kettle.

To me, there are more substantive issues, e.g.

* Claiming that nobody survived watching from the Bridge of Death, when it hasn't even been confirmed there was a gathering of people on the bridge, let alone any of that group dying from it. But Voices of Chernobyl contained accounts from survivors who claim they were there and happened, and it makes excellent drama, so into the show it goes.

* Raising the idea that Vasily Ignatenko was giving off dangerous radiation to his wife, but her baby "absorbed" it, killing it and protecting her. This is a complete myth, and it comes directly from Lyudmilla Ignatenko herself. It's gripping testimony, but it's simply not true, and one doctor who was there, reflected on how the myth of people being "contaminated" led to a lot of evacuated children not being accepted by families in Moscow because of this fear. (https://www.vanityfair.com/video/watch/radiation-expert-revi...)

But overall, I agree with your point, the irony is not lost. This series was utterly compelling to me, and had such amazing drama. It's almost certainly not the case that Valery Legasov gave an eloquent speech berating his own government in the middle of the Chernobyl trial, but it felt so good when he did that in the TV show. It's a lie that comforts the viewer, telling them that there is a just world, and the liars and self-serving bureaucrats and dysfunctional governments of this world will be held to account, by good people, truthtellers.

There was no mass funeral with victims buried in concrete. But the spectacle of the TV show moved me to tears. Again, dramatic license. There were victims buried in lead coffins, in regular graves: wouldn't that imagery have been enough? No, because once the show has brought you to your knees with a row of lead coffins and mourning families, the cement mixer arriving over the hill then pushes you right over the edge. The concrete flowing around the coffins is such a visually powerful scene. Even though it's false, I wouldn't ever take it out of the show.

Re: Debunking the Myths of the HBO Chernobyl series (2023)

#60

Post by nocoiner »

rl3 wrote: post #29

> It was about Anatoly Grishchenko, a Soviet helicopter pilot who had served in Chernobyl and, like many others, had developed cancer as a result. If there's one thing that pissed me off about the TV series, it was its poor to non-existent storytelling surrounding the helicopter crews who ran sortie after sortie right over the burning reactor—around the clock—knowing full well the grave risks posed by the radiation.…

But which was it? Was “aviation instrumental in containing the disaster” or did “virtually none of the neutron absorbers” reach the core? Those are both quotes from your post.

In literal or figurative battles, there are plenty of examples of actions that are simultaneously indisputably brave and utterly futile.

Post reply on HN