June 5, 2019 at 07:03The series "Chernobyl": watch and think
The bitter experience of the series, which begin well and end disappointingly, kept me from writing an enthusiastic review of the Chernobyl series until this week. And now, when the last, fifth series was released, unfortunately, I have to say that this is an excellent series, this is a great occasion to learn more about the Chernobyl disaster, it is definitely worth a look if you haven’t, but if the first three episodes are in my look, rise to the level of my favorite movie "Apollo 13", then the last two, again, in my opinion, are noticeably worse.
Frame from the series
Under the cut, spoilers, however strange it may sound for a series based on a true story.
When the American HBO made a film about the tragic page of Soviet history, I was afraid of two things - the “cranberries” and the deliberately biased presentation of material for the sake of the political moment. Moreover, the second is much worse than the first - earflaps with balalaikas in the reactor hall are ridiculous, but constructions in the style of “bloody gebene under machine guns drive some people into the reactor, and others to the May Day demonstration, but all to certain death” may seem plausible, especially since such accusations sounded. And, in general, the first three episodes, I sincerely rejoiced that this was not (even the story that they did not cancel the May Day demonstrations did not begin to show!). Unfortunately, there was more ideology beyond that, and in the final, for the sake of wanting to tell a good and correct parable, they began to directly distort historical facts. And now more or less in order.
The film begins with the fact that Academician Valery Legasov finishes dictating his memoirs, feeds the cat and commits suicide on the anniversary of the Chernobyl accident. Suicide and the films were real, but given the fact that on Wikipedia the circumstances of his death were presented with the possibility of various interpretations, many thanks to HBO that Legasova does not hang "bloody gebnya". On the contrary, the bloodstained handkerchief in the film hints that the academician had cancer, and suicide appears in a completely different light. Re-dramatization with hidden cassettes is not confirmed in the sources, their decoding is available on the Internet , and there is no talk about “what is the price of truth”. But, in my opinion, this can be forgiven.
Then the action proceeds immediately to the moment of destruction of the reactor. As a popularizer, I was very sorry that the important point of the accident - that it was the result of actions that were perceived by the staff as the successful completion of the experiment, was not shown. But this is well and popular science (albeit not perfectly accurate) is explained in the last, fifth series, so this drawback is mostly neutralized.
A slight distraction to the side. In very simple terms, the Chernobyl accident occurred due to a combination of personnel actions and design features of the reactor. An experiment was conducted at the station, conceived to improve safety and repeatedly conducted, including at other nuclear power plants. But specifically in this case, the actions of personnel and changes in the program of the experiment led to the fact that the reactor became unsafe. And the final solution, the dumping of the emergency protection AZ-5 - standard shutdown of the reactor, due to design errors, led to the opposite effect, acceleration of the reactor, the sequence of explosions and the release of radioactive substances.
In the film, the operators of the fourth reactor act as if they do not quite understand what is happening, conduct reconnaissance without dosimeters, are irradiated and try to supply water to the already destroyed reactor. And in the memoirs of a nuclear engineer and liquidator Grigory Medvedev , the Chernobyl Notebookthis is confirmed. Indeed, people from the shift conducting the experiment first put forward the wrong version of the hydrogen explosion in the tank of the control and protection system (CPS) and for a long time refused to realize that the reactor was destroyed even despite the pieces of graphite lying around, which could only be taken from the core . And there really were no dosimeters for large values - one was in the capter littered with debris, and the second burned out when turned on. Medvedev’s memoirs even tell about the chief of civil defense of a nuclear power plant, who had a dosimeter for 250 x-rays, but his testimony was not corny. Fortunately, this person reported on the measurement results not only to Bryukhanov (Chernobyl director), but also duplicated the information in the civil defense services.
The story is also real with the deputy chief operating engineer Sitnikov, who was asked to evaluate the damage. Unlike the film, he was called out of the house, but he really received a lethal dose, observing the destruction with his own eyes. Of course, it was hardly worth portraying an accompanying soldier (he just wasn’t there).
The effect of radiation is shown well - in the memoirs there are also stories about the taste of iron in the mouth, and descriptions of nuclear tanning. But bleeding ulcers that instantly appear are already over-dramatization, not related to reality.
It is a pity that the film does not at all reflect the heroism of personnel working in the engine room under the leadership of Razim Davletbaev. These people managed to prevent the ignition of the generators, extinguished local fires and, acting simultaneously with the firefighters, did not allow the flame to go to the third power unit. A fake note is the scene with Palamarchuk carrying the burnt Shashenka (names are not given, but most likely it is them) who, to help the trainees sent for reconnaissance, simply puts the wounded comrade against the wall.
The attention of the creators of the series to the details is respectable. Yes, somewhere you can see plastic windows or intercoms, but against the background of very carefully selected and time-appropriate cars, clothes and other things, these are really trifles.
You can find fault with the fact that the closed Ignalina NPP, where the shooting was taking place, looks too shabby for the one working, but these are trifles. In general, the picture of the accident and the first, not always correct actions, is shown very well. And the view of the burning reactor is really creepy, but at the same time it is irrationally attractive - the power of megawatts and thousands of X-rays freed from the human reins cannot but cause emotions.
The second series begins with a piercing and very relevant quote from a poem by Konstantin Simonov. The first fictional character appears - Ulyana Khomyuk, a collective image of many scientists and entire commissions that participated in the investigation of the accident. Of course, I would like to see exactly what the investigation required the efforts of many experts, but I can understand the limitations of the film. It is perfectly shown and clearly explained how such an accident can be noticed over hundreds and thousands of kilometers.
The real Legasov found out about the accident in other conditions, but in general this is not so important. But the duet created by the plot of the “techie” Legasov and the “politician” Shcherbina is really beautiful. Yes, this is a simplification of the real situation and the interaction of people, but, in my opinion, it’s essentially correct - in a situation where you need to make non-obvious decisions quickly, you need different people with different abilities. And the scene with Shcherbina, quickly using the knowledge received from Legasov, is not particularly realistic, but causes real admiration. But the behavior of Bryukhanov and Fomin, worthy of condemnation, albeit somewhat dramatized, nevertheless finds confirmation in Medvedev's Chernobyl Notebook, which is very critical of their actions both before and after the accident. In general, working together is a “techie” who knows
In reality, a helicopter crash occurred six months later, but this is again perceived as trifles.
A separate acute issue concerns evacuation. Repeatedly heard accusations that she spent late. But this is clear to us now, in the aftermath. Real Legasov dictated:
Medvedev in the Chernobyl Notebook also noted that, unfortunately, mistakes were made during the evacuation, for example, it was worth changing tires on buses when leaving the infected zone - they didn’t, and the radioactive dirt was spread over roads over long distances.
In general, the second series sounds confident crescendo, and I want to look at the series even further.
The liquidation heroes from the end of the second series, contrary to expectations, will not die like firefighters and personnel of the fourth block, but will live for a long time (two are still alive). But this does not detract from their heroism.
The third series focuses on the wife of Lyudmila and her mortally irradiated husband, fireman Vasily Ignatenko. This is practically a literal adaptation of Lyudmila’s direct speech from Svetlana Aleksievich’s book Chernobyl Prayer . The development of radiation sickness is generally shown correctly, and if there is excessive dramatization here, then it is impossible to complain about it - people have died a really unpleasant death.
The story with the miners is invented, but correct and appropriate. People go to risk their lives not because they were ordered or intimidated, but because they understand the need to prevent even greater disaster. Of course, there were different people among the liquidators, someone directly said that he wanted to earn money, but there were stories like a veteran of Afghanistan, who said, “So what is dangerous? There was no walk in Afghanistan either. I want to help the country. "
Even the fictional head of the KGB, Charkov, does not look like a ghoul, which struck me in a good way.
In general, in my opinion, the third series is the real culmination of the series. And, paradoxical as it may be, she involuntarily sets up a life-affirming mood - the state and public machine began to work. Yes, it does not work absolutely effectively, individual parts spin in vain or break, but overall there is movement in the right direction. It is the organization and systemic work of many people that allows us to do the most difficult things and in general gives hope for the future of mankind.
The fourth series has two main sources - the story of the hunter from the Chernobyl Prayer Aleksievich and the documentary film Chernobyl 3828.
And, in general, in my opinion, here the level begins to fall. Pavel from the liquidation squad is shown to be too subtle, he just lacks the violin. Yes, of course, there were such people among the liquidators, but he was almost caricatured. And in the record Aleksievich still says a hunter who has experience. However, thanks to the creators of the series, the most terrible moments from his story were removed. And I also have a claim to the fact that it is not shown that feral dogs strayed in packs and began to pose a danger to people. Their shooting was an unpleasant, but necessary thing.
Shcherbina’s hysteria doesn’t look very good, but, indeed, according to the recollections, when buying a robot from Germany, the wrong figure was announced, because of which he would definitely not be able to work.
And in the history of Lyudmila Ignatenko there is one unpleasant change. The fact that Lyudmila’s daughter, who died shortly after birth, “took over radiation” - a direct speech of Lyudmila herself, is not necessarily true. And in the film, it is presented as the opinion of doctors. According to the entry in the book, Aleksievich clearly shows emotions, and, honestly, I can understand, but I can’t accept the violation of the safety rules that was in this story, and just in case told my wife that if the doctors suddenly forbid me to touch me, then it's better to do it. Saying goodbye is important, but don’t make yourself worse.
The final scene with the raising of the flag from today seems like a spreading cranberry, but it really was in reality and is shown in Chernobyl 3828. Another time, other people, other characters ...
The fifth, final series goes as far as possible from the real story. The present Legasov spoke in Vienna and told that the cause of the accident was a combination of serious problems in the design of the reactor and human errors ( source - Christian Science Monitor, September 1, 1986). In the film, he blamed only the cameramen and managed to overpower himself only at a meeting of the Soviet court. However, the fictitious head of the KGB nevertheless becomes a ghoul and, in Orwell's traditions, promises Legasov nonexistence (which in reality, of course, was not).
The series is good for practically documented reconstruction of the accident with popular science explanations, but this is practically its only advantage. Alas, the creators move away from the real story and begin to tell their own parable that a lie creates a debt that will someday be surely paid, even if the lie has long been forgotten. This is a good, correct universal morality, but was it worth it to violate a very realistic story before it?
A rare translation error. In Russian, the option “steam reactivity coefficient” is more often used, but the “void coefficient” also occurs.
Medvedev, who worked in the nuclear industry, in the Chernobyl Notebook, sharply criticizes the competence of not only Dyatlov, but also Bryukhanov and Fomin, so if the scenes in the control room are reramatized, then not fatal.
If anyone was embarrassed by Mickey Mouse, then he was in reality . But the "bridge of death" does not have reliable evidence.
If the third series ends on a life-affirming note and celebrates the heroism and professionalism of the liquidators, the final finale is much more minor, which I personally liked less.
My personal opinion is to watch (if you haven’t) yet, but then look for and study additional information in order to have a more accurate idea of what happened in reality.
Grigory Medvedev. Chernobyl notebook
A detailed article describing the causes of the accident in the journal Science and Technology , a human factor issue and, in general, a good resource on the topic.
Dyatlov's interview recorded in the 90s.
Interview with Stolyarchuk (you have to endure absolutely terrible interruptions)
Frame from the series
Under the cut, spoilers, however strange it may sound for a series based on a true story.
When the American HBO made a film about the tragic page of Soviet history, I was afraid of two things - the “cranberries” and the deliberately biased presentation of material for the sake of the political moment. Moreover, the second is much worse than the first - earflaps with balalaikas in the reactor hall are ridiculous, but constructions in the style of “bloody gebene under machine guns drive some people into the reactor, and others to the May Day demonstration, but all to certain death” may seem plausible, especially since such accusations sounded. And, in general, the first three episodes, I sincerely rejoiced that this was not (even the story that they did not cancel the May Day demonstrations did not begin to show!). Unfortunately, there was more ideology beyond that, and in the final, for the sake of wanting to tell a good and correct parable, they began to directly distort historical facts. And now more or less in order.
First series
The film begins with the fact that Academician Valery Legasov finishes dictating his memoirs, feeds the cat and commits suicide on the anniversary of the Chernobyl accident. Suicide and the films were real, but given the fact that on Wikipedia the circumstances of his death were presented with the possibility of various interpretations, many thanks to HBO that Legasova does not hang "bloody gebnya". On the contrary, the bloodstained handkerchief in the film hints that the academician had cancer, and suicide appears in a completely different light. Re-dramatization with hidden cassettes is not confirmed in the sources, their decoding is available on the Internet , and there is no talk about “what is the price of truth”. But, in my opinion, this can be forgiven.
Then the action proceeds immediately to the moment of destruction of the reactor. As a popularizer, I was very sorry that the important point of the accident - that it was the result of actions that were perceived by the staff as the successful completion of the experiment, was not shown. But this is well and popular science (albeit not perfectly accurate) is explained in the last, fifth series, so this drawback is mostly neutralized.
A slight distraction to the side. In very simple terms, the Chernobyl accident occurred due to a combination of personnel actions and design features of the reactor. An experiment was conducted at the station, conceived to improve safety and repeatedly conducted, including at other nuclear power plants. But specifically in this case, the actions of personnel and changes in the program of the experiment led to the fact that the reactor became unsafe. And the final solution, the dumping of the emergency protection AZ-5 - standard shutdown of the reactor, due to design errors, led to the opposite effect, acceleration of the reactor, the sequence of explosions and the release of radioactive substances.
In the film, the operators of the fourth reactor act as if they do not quite understand what is happening, conduct reconnaissance without dosimeters, are irradiated and try to supply water to the already destroyed reactor. And in the memoirs of a nuclear engineer and liquidator Grigory Medvedev , the Chernobyl Notebookthis is confirmed. Indeed, people from the shift conducting the experiment first put forward the wrong version of the hydrogen explosion in the tank of the control and protection system (CPS) and for a long time refused to realize that the reactor was destroyed even despite the pieces of graphite lying around, which could only be taken from the core . And there really were no dosimeters for large values - one was in the capter littered with debris, and the second burned out when turned on. Medvedev’s memoirs even tell about the chief of civil defense of a nuclear power plant, who had a dosimeter for 250 x-rays, but his testimony was not corny. Fortunately, this person reported on the measurement results not only to Bryukhanov (Chernobyl director), but also duplicated the information in the civil defense services.
The story is also real with the deputy chief operating engineer Sitnikov, who was asked to evaluate the damage. Unlike the film, he was called out of the house, but he really received a lethal dose, observing the destruction with his own eyes. Of course, it was hardly worth portraying an accompanying soldier (he just wasn’t there).
The effect of radiation is shown well - in the memoirs there are also stories about the taste of iron in the mouth, and descriptions of nuclear tanning. But bleeding ulcers that instantly appear are already over-dramatization, not related to reality.
It is a pity that the film does not at all reflect the heroism of personnel working in the engine room under the leadership of Razim Davletbaev. These people managed to prevent the ignition of the generators, extinguished local fires and, acting simultaneously with the firefighters, did not allow the flame to go to the third power unit. A fake note is the scene with Palamarchuk carrying the burnt Shashenka (names are not given, but most likely it is them) who, to help the trainees sent for reconnaissance, simply puts the wounded comrade against the wall.
The attention of the creators of the series to the details is respectable. Yes, somewhere you can see plastic windows or intercoms, but against the background of very carefully selected and time-appropriate cars, clothes and other things, these are really trifles.
You can find fault with the fact that the closed Ignalina NPP, where the shooting was taking place, looks too shabby for the one working, but these are trifles. In general, the picture of the accident and the first, not always correct actions, is shown very well. And the view of the burning reactor is really creepy, but at the same time it is irrationally attractive - the power of megawatts and thousands of X-rays freed from the human reins cannot but cause emotions.
Second series
The second series begins with a piercing and very relevant quote from a poem by Konstantin Simonov. The first fictional character appears - Ulyana Khomyuk, a collective image of many scientists and entire commissions that participated in the investigation of the accident. Of course, I would like to see exactly what the investigation required the efforts of many experts, but I can understand the limitations of the film. It is perfectly shown and clearly explained how such an accident can be noticed over hundreds and thousands of kilometers.
The real Legasov found out about the accident in other conditions, but in general this is not so important. But the duet created by the plot of the “techie” Legasov and the “politician” Shcherbina is really beautiful. Yes, this is a simplification of the real situation and the interaction of people, but, in my opinion, it’s essentially correct - in a situation where you need to make non-obvious decisions quickly, you need different people with different abilities. And the scene with Shcherbina, quickly using the knowledge received from Legasov, is not particularly realistic, but causes real admiration. But the behavior of Bryukhanov and Fomin, worthy of condemnation, albeit somewhat dramatized, nevertheless finds confirmation in Medvedev's Chernobyl Notebook, which is very critical of their actions both before and after the accident. In general, working together is a “techie” who knows
In reality, a helicopter crash occurred six months later, but this is again perceived as trifles.
A separate acute issue concerns evacuation. Repeatedly heard accusations that she spent late. But this is clear to us now, in the aftermath. Real Legasov dictated:
On the 26th evening the radiation situation in it was even more or less favorable. Measured from milli-roentgen per hour to maximum values of tens of milli-roentgens per hour, of course this is not a healthy situation, but it still seemed to allow some thought.
In these conditions, on the one hand, repeated radiation measurements, on the other hand, in conditions when medicine was limited by the established procedures and instructions, according to which evacuation could be started if there would be a danger for civilians to get 25 biological x-rays per person for a certain period of time staying in this zone, and such evacuation became mandatory only if the threat of the population receiving 75 biological x-rays per person while in the affected area.
And in the range from 25 to 75 x-rays the right to make a decision belonged to local authorities. It was under these conditions that the discussions were going on, but here I have to say that physicists, especially Viktor Alekseevich SIDORENKO, foreseeing that the dynamics would not change for the better, insisted on the mandatory decision to evacuate, but, therefore, the doctors here, or something, they gave way to physicists and somewhere at 10 or 11 o’clock in the evening of April 26, Boris Evdokimovich <Scherbina>, after listening to our discussion, decided on the mandatory evacuation.
Medvedev in the Chernobyl Notebook also noted that, unfortunately, mistakes were made during the evacuation, for example, it was worth changing tires on buses when leaving the infected zone - they didn’t, and the radioactive dirt was spread over roads over long distances.
In general, the second series sounds confident crescendo, and I want to look at the series even further.
Third series
The liquidation heroes from the end of the second series, contrary to expectations, will not die like firefighters and personnel of the fourth block, but will live for a long time (two are still alive). But this does not detract from their heroism.
The third series focuses on the wife of Lyudmila and her mortally irradiated husband, fireman Vasily Ignatenko. This is practically a literal adaptation of Lyudmila’s direct speech from Svetlana Aleksievich’s book Chernobyl Prayer . The development of radiation sickness is generally shown correctly, and if there is excessive dramatization here, then it is impossible to complain about it - people have died a really unpleasant death.
The story with the miners is invented, but correct and appropriate. People go to risk their lives not because they were ordered or intimidated, but because they understand the need to prevent even greater disaster. Of course, there were different people among the liquidators, someone directly said that he wanted to earn money, but there were stories like a veteran of Afghanistan, who said, “So what is dangerous? There was no walk in Afghanistan either. I want to help the country. "
Even the fictional head of the KGB, Charkov, does not look like a ghoul, which struck me in a good way.
In general, in my opinion, the third series is the real culmination of the series. And, paradoxical as it may be, she involuntarily sets up a life-affirming mood - the state and public machine began to work. Yes, it does not work absolutely effectively, individual parts spin in vain or break, but overall there is movement in the right direction. It is the organization and systemic work of many people that allows us to do the most difficult things and in general gives hope for the future of mankind.
Fourth series
The fourth series has two main sources - the story of the hunter from the Chernobyl Prayer Aleksievich and the documentary film Chernobyl 3828.
And, in general, in my opinion, here the level begins to fall. Pavel from the liquidation squad is shown to be too subtle, he just lacks the violin. Yes, of course, there were such people among the liquidators, but he was almost caricatured. And in the record Aleksievich still says a hunter who has experience. However, thanks to the creators of the series, the most terrible moments from his story were removed. And I also have a claim to the fact that it is not shown that feral dogs strayed in packs and began to pose a danger to people. Their shooting was an unpleasant, but necessary thing.
Shcherbina’s hysteria doesn’t look very good, but, indeed, according to the recollections, when buying a robot from Germany, the wrong figure was announced, because of which he would definitely not be able to work.
And in the history of Lyudmila Ignatenko there is one unpleasant change. The fact that Lyudmila’s daughter, who died shortly after birth, “took over radiation” - a direct speech of Lyudmila herself, is not necessarily true. And in the film, it is presented as the opinion of doctors. According to the entry in the book, Aleksievich clearly shows emotions, and, honestly, I can understand, but I can’t accept the violation of the safety rules that was in this story, and just in case told my wife that if the doctors suddenly forbid me to touch me, then it's better to do it. Saying goodbye is important, but don’t make yourself worse.
The final scene with the raising of the flag from today seems like a spreading cranberry, but it really was in reality and is shown in Chernobyl 3828. Another time, other people, other characters ...
Fifth series
The fifth, final series goes as far as possible from the real story. The present Legasov spoke in Vienna and told that the cause of the accident was a combination of serious problems in the design of the reactor and human errors ( source - Christian Science Monitor, September 1, 1986). In the film, he blamed only the cameramen and managed to overpower himself only at a meeting of the Soviet court. However, the fictitious head of the KGB nevertheless becomes a ghoul and, in Orwell's traditions, promises Legasov nonexistence (which in reality, of course, was not).
The series is good for practically documented reconstruction of the accident with popular science explanations, but this is practically its only advantage. Alas, the creators move away from the real story and begin to tell their own parable that a lie creates a debt that will someday be surely paid, even if the lie has long been forgotten. This is a good, correct universal morality, but was it worth it to violate a very realistic story before it?
A rare translation error. In Russian, the option “steam reactivity coefficient” is more often used, but the “void coefficient” also occurs.
Medvedev, who worked in the nuclear industry, in the Chernobyl Notebook, sharply criticizes the competence of not only Dyatlov, but also Bryukhanov and Fomin, so if the scenes in the control room are reramatized, then not fatal.
If anyone was embarrassed by Mickey Mouse, then he was in reality . But the "bridge of death" does not have reliable evidence.
If the third series ends on a life-affirming note and celebrates the heroism and professionalism of the liquidators, the final finale is much more minor, which I personally liked less.
Conclusion
My personal opinion is to watch (if you haven’t) yet, but then look for and study additional information in order to have a more accurate idea of what happened in reality.
Additional materials
Grigory Medvedev. Chernobyl notebook
A detailed article describing the causes of the accident in the journal Science and Technology , a human factor issue and, in general, a good resource on the topic.
Dyatlov's interview recorded in the 90s.
Interview with Stolyarchuk (you have to endure absolutely terrible interruptions)