>>13050760The social context is completely out of place: no Pugacheva and charity, academicians afraid to give speeches in their area of expertise (wtf!), no word of mouth, no looting, no press, no social movements, no politic factions, no nuance whatsoever. The social atmosphere and party v people part is largely nonsense, I don't think they did their homework well.
The decorations are super close to reality, they clearly had consultants who knew the late USSR well. The details about the disaster are sometimes wrong, but the general story if more or less correct.
What you need to realize is that's not a documentary, but a docudrama. A free interpretation from someone who never been there, for his alikes. Which is fine, just don't have an illusion that it's some kind of an insider view.
As an aside, I detest the color grading used in the show. We remember Chernobyl disaster for being green, hot, and sunny, because the liquidation happened to be most active during the summer, and generally most of the Perestroika era is visually associated with summer as most important events happened during summer (or in Afghanistan). But I realize that you can't show the Union differently today because everybody expects it being bleak&gloomy. You have to perpetuate the stereotype.
t. was born not far from that place, my father was a physicist and an occasional late-stage liquidator
