Chernobyl
Out of context: Reply #61
- Started
- Last post
- 71 Responses
- sarahfailin2
I think that New Yorker article colin_s posted is pretty good. It's good to keep in mind what's fact and what is fiction. I also thought at times the character Emily Watson played was unrealistic in her demeanor and maybe a little trite in being the knowing scientist willing to confront directly the systems of power. Especially so because she was a *woman* scientist in the 80s in the soviet union. It felt like that was just a play to modern, western audiences who needed a woman in this drama that's otherwise a sausage-fest.
I think what the article gets wrong is that the show really DOES indict the system more than it does the individual men. The author claims that the show just vilifies a few bad actors and misses the system, but I thought that the show did just the opposite. The central thesis seemed to be that it was the system itself which created the disaster, and the people who played roles in directly causing it were following the design of the soviet system of lies and cutting corners.
It's right though to examine historical fiction and know exactly what is history and what is fiction.