Whether you recognize that HBO’s Chernobyl took liberties in its story or not, there’s no denying that the historical drama is riveting, eye-opening, and beautifully presented. As with any other miniseries based on a true story, the series embellishes certain facts and misrepresents others. The narrative deliberately aims to elicit a strong emotional response from viewers. There’s nothing wrong with that. The show was developed as entertainment rooted in truth. It’s not a documentary. With that said, it hasn’t stopped viewers from picking apart what was accurate, what was dramatized, and what lies somewhere in the middle.
What ‘Chernobyl’ Gets Right
First, let’s dive into what the series, one of the best limited series on HBO Max right now, got right about the devastating 1986 disaster at a nuclear plant in the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic of the Soviet Union. Chernobyl is one of the worst, if not the worst, nuclear accidents in history.
The show has been widely praised for its depiction of Soviet culture, which many say is highly accurate, immersing viewers in both the look and feel of the 1980s. This holds true for specific scenes that capture subtle truths, such as the judge looking at the prosecutor as the Central Committee overruled his court decision in the case of the three charged men. It highlighted how prosecutors held more power than the judges themselves. The politics of the situation are largely handled accurately as well, says Nuclear Newswire, including the portrayal of a system allegedly rife with lies and deceit, and of safety protocols that weren’t always followed.
The emotions of those affected are also beautifully captured, largely because the series draws on the book Voices From Chernobyl. Journalist and oral historian Svetlana Alexievich wrote it after interviewing survivors. In an interview with the BBC, engineer Oleksiy Breus, who was on scene in the aftermath and knew and worked with many of the people depicted on the show, agrees that the “emotions and mood at that time are shown quite precisely, both among the personnel and the authorities.” However, when it comes to the actual story, many creative liberties were taken.
What ‘Chernobyl’ Embellishes
Chernobyl is based on a true story, but many technical details were embellished for dramatic effect, including the situation surrounding the explosion itself. “The technological aspects have some discrepancies,” says Breus, which he admits might not be lies but “merely fiction.” For example, he claims that when he arrived on the scene, he saw damage to the reactor but did not see smoke or fire. It was just fumes. Firefighters were indeed there, he claims, but they were pouring water on the reactor, much of which likely evaporated before it reached the reactor.
When it comes to the three people at the center of the story in the series — plant director Viktor Bryukhanov (Con O’Neill), chief engineer Nikolai Fomin (Adrian Rawlins), and deputy chief engineer Anatoly Dyatlov (Paul Ritter) — Breus claims that their characters were “distorted and misrepresented, made to look like villains. They were nothing like that.” He agrees that operators were indeed fearful of Dyatlov but maintains that he was always a “high-level professional.” Every dramatized story needs a villain, which likely explains why the harsher aspects of their personalities were amplified to create a compelling narrative.
Another three characters appear in a heart-wrenching scene as workers who seem to volunteer to navigate an underground tunnel to open a drainage valve. This heroic work was done to prevent molten nuclear material from the reactor from reaching the water source, which would have caused even more harm. This did actually happen, but not entirely as depicted.
The series suggests that all three men perished shortly after this valiant sacrifice. But in fact, they all lived. Borys Baranov, played by Oscar Giese, died in 2005. Valeri Bezpalov (Philip Barantini) and Alexei Ananenko (Baltasar Breki Samper) are both still alive. What’s more, while they could easily take the glory bestowed upon their characters in the show, Ananenko told the BBC that he didn’t volunteer for this task; it was simply his job. He had to do it or risk being fired. He clarified that, unlike on the show, their faces were only partially covered, since they needed to speak to one another. They didn’t get a reward after the task, nor were they met with applause when they emerged from the tunnel, as the show suggested.
Breus adds that the depiction of the miners digging a tunnel under the reactor was partially accurate. They did take off their clothes because of the high temperature, but did not strip entirely naked. They also were not, he claims, as crucial to the story as the series made them out to be. However, we’ll argue that anyone who bravely played a role in mitigating this disaster, in any capacity, deserves kudos for their hard work.
Most strikingly, the character Ulyana Khomyuk (Emily Watson) was entirely fictional. She didn’t exist, nor is she based on any specific person. The series’ closing title sequence suggests that she represents an amalgamation of scientists who came together to help Valery Legasov (Jared Harris) figure out what caused the disaster in the first place. But narratively, she was invented as a core character who knew how to navigate complex situations, figured things out quickly in a way no one else really did, and added intrigue to the plot.
Perhaps the most egregious creative liberty is placing primary blame on Dyatlov, portraying him as obsessed with asserting authority and securing a promotion above all else. But most historical reports chalk the disaster up to a series of systemic blunders. There was no single person at fault. For the sake of a TV series and narrative closure, however, there needed to be a fall guy, or fall guys. He was one of them.
The Effects of the Radiation Are up for Debate
There’s no denying that many people died in the immediate and short-term aftermath of the event. Others died later, and many suffered from serious health issues as a result of it. But there’s debate over how far-reaching the radiation was and who it actually affected.
Many sources, for example, dispute the far-reaching depiction of acute radiation syndrome (ARS). They claim the only people affected were firefighters and workers on scene. One scene in the series shows children in a hospital suffering, along with citizens of the nearby town of Pripyat. But many suggest this never happened. While people who came in close contact with the radiation did get sick, it wasn’t as far-reaching as suggested.
This adds a dramatic effect to the series — one of the best miniseries of the 21st century — and drives home the point that this disaster was absolutely devastating. But it might not be entirely accurate. Breus, for example, says that the story of the nearby bridge, which came to be known as the Bridge of Death, was embellished. He believes most people in Pripyat likely slept through the explosion and didn’t rush to the bridge to see what was going on. He does say, however, that the effects of radiation on the body shown in the series were accurately depicted. He recalls seeing colleagues whose skin had turned bright red before their deaths, something the series accurately represented.
One heart-wrenching story that is disputed is that of Lyudmilla Ignatenko (Jessie Buckley), a woman who refused to leave her dying firefighter husband’s side in the hospital. The baby she was pregnant with at the time apparently paid the price. The story suggests the baby absorbed the radiation that she somehow caught from her husband and died, while the mother survived. But many scientists dispute the story in Alexievich’s book, calling it fiction, saying it could not possibly have happened.
Why ‘Chernobyl’ Is Worth Watching
Chernobyl might be a fictional account of a true story. But let’s not forget that, at its core, it’s about something that really happened. And it sheds light on the brave people who lost their lives because of it. The unsung heroes are as dominant within the storylines as the perceived villains are. Given how little media coverage Chernobyl received in its aftermath, it’s a nice way to remind people that those who lost their lives taking threatening risks to prevent others from being harmed should be remembered, not just the damage that Chernobyl caused.
What’s most interesting to note about Chernobyl is that it was made with little historical information about the events on record. The purported first major account of what happened didn’t arrive until Alexievich’s novel in 1997, a decade after the events. The idea of the deep secrecy within the government was true, which arguably led to at least one reason that the series developed its own dramatic plot and interpretation to fill in the blanks.
No, there weren’t KGB agents everywhere, and people didn’t generally sip vodka while they worked. They weren’t overtly confrontational or intent on flexing their muscles with an air of machismo. These are plot-driven stereotypes, more than anything else. But they also make for good TV.
What makes Chernobyl a relevant masterpiece well worth watching, beyond the incredible script, set designs, costumes, acting, and historical accuracy in terms of the time and the place, is that it reignites interest and curiosity in one of the biggest disasters in modern history. Exploring what happened and the potential reasons behind it is a cautionary tale about cutting corners, skirting safety protocols, and, most importantly, putting people’s lives at risk. Seeing the emotional toll it took on people highlights just how horrifying the events were. The series has earned every bit of the universal acclaim it has received, historical inaccuracies and all. Chernobyl is available to stream on HBO Max.
