Chernobyl was: kind of interesting, kind of exciting, kind of well-made. Chernobyl wasn't: really satisfying, really artistic, really authentic.
Banes:
- cheesy dialogue
- actors playing scientists who look like actors trying to play scientists
- choice of which events to depict
Boons:
- sober tone
- historical interest
- scientific exposition
I had to skip sections of silence in the final two episodes. I couldn't justify the time I was pouring into a show that barely egged me. I thought, considering the critical acclaim, something would ignite, literally or figuratively, near the end. The trial was good but the show never got anywhere near excellence. Save phony dialogue, I would have admired the execution.
This show is appealing mainly b/c it explores the technical aspects of the incident. It seems increasingly rare that we get that in contemporary movies/TV. Maybe I'm just watching the wrong things. Oppenheimer also had a good bit of this--the blackboard discussion of quantum mechanics or similarly technical concepts. I wish Opp leaned into that more, though. Far less interesting when it went away from that.
ReplyDeleteI'm all on board with the technical. Seems like writers just need to figure out how to do that without making the scientists sound fake. I know they have to dumb it down a little, but I figure there are creative ways to do that that still feel real.
Delete