“Chernobyl Diaries”: Is It Really Any More Insensitive Than Zombie Nazis?

Courtesy of Warner Bros. Pictures

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.

Chernobyl Diaries
Warner Bros. Pictures
86 minutes

It sometimes seems as though people who make zombie movies (and zombie-ish movies) are trying to create a monopoly over minimizing tragedy.

This trend continues with Chernobyl Diaries, the new zombie(-ish) horror flick conceived and produced by Oren Peli (the Israeli-American director and ex-video game programmer who brought you the Paranormal Activity series and ABC’s The River). A group of upper-middle class white kids from America sojourn to Eastern Europe. They decide to dabble in “extreme tourism” and jump in a van headed to Prypiat, a long-abandoned Ukrainian city bordering the site of the 1986 Chernobyl nuclear catastrophe. It’s worth mentioning that these kids have big dreams. One of them is about to propose to his intelligent/hot/super-loyal girlfriend. Another is mulling over plans to relocate to Prague. Another wants to make a name for herself as an artist and photographer.

Well, none of those nice things are ever going to happen because, as previously mentioned, these people made a conscious decision to hike through a radiation-drenched, eerie-ass ghost town—a deserted city where (you guessed it) they are not alone.

By “not alone,” I mean to say that there’s a large gaggle of flesh-chomping freaks waddling all about the joint. The deranged gaggle of nuclear-undead chase after them in the dark of night. Needless to point out, the young tourists are: [censored].

Chernobyl Diaries does indeed have some chilling atmospherics—for that you may thank first-time feature director and visual-effects ace Bradley Parker. But the movie ultimately falls flat due to its lagging energy and a disappointing, thrill-free final act.

I’d now like to address the minor-to-moderate controversy surrounding the film: A number of advocacy groups and concerned citizens have been pushing for a boycott of the film, arguing that it exploits the hundreds of thousands of victims. (Parker claims he’s also received a gush of “kudos” from Chabad’s Children of Chernobyl, so I think it’s fair to say that he considers it a wash.)

“Anyone visiting Chernobyl should have the same respect as if they were visiting Auschwitz or the Khmer Rouge Museum in Cambodia,” Yago Alayza, a Florida-based activist who started a boycott petition on Change.org, said in interview with Reuters earlier this month.

It’s hard not to at least somewhat sympathize with this argument. The tragedy of Chernobyl is no less real than any other tragedy in human history. And if a movie popped up titled Holocaust Zombies (not to be confused with Zombie Holocaust), in which victims of the Third Reich emerged from a deep slumber to begin feasting on unsuspecting tourists, you can safely bet that people would be raising quite the justified fuss.

But in all fairness, if you’re looking for political correctness or sensitivity, you’ll have about as much luck with the zombie and horror genres as you would with the internet. Let’s flip through a few examples:

  • Robert Rodriguez’s Planet Terror features Iraq War veterans as zombified, rape-y antagonists. Last time I checked, veterans of foreign wars are often worthy of respect.
  • The critically acclaimed Dead Snow is a nonstop cavalcade of zombie Nazis. Granted, it’s not the same thing as, say, Buchenwald zombies, but it’s still not exactly a deferential riff on history.
  • Ditto the zombie totalitarians in the upcoming The 4th Reich.
  • It’s not a movie, but the Image Comics series ’68 is a gleeful mash-up of zombie cataclysm and Vietnam War atrocities.
  • Remember the suffering caused by witch-hunting throughout the 15th-18th centuries? All kinds of movies, like The Sorcerer’s Apprentice and Dark Shadows, name-check Salem as if it were a model of jurisprudence on par with the Nuremberg trials.

By this standard, one could accuse Hot Tub Time Machine of spitting in the faces of Chernobyl victims, since it prominently features an energy drink called “Chernobyl.” The point is that almost everything in life is offensive. But if you want to organize a boycott of Chernobyl Diaries, I would argue that it isn’t even worth your time boycotting. Besides, the quality of the movie will probably keep viewers from flocking to it all the same.

Chernobyl Diaries gets a wide release on Friday, May 25. The film is rated R for violence, some bloody images and pervasive language. Click here to get local showtimes and tickets.

Click here for more movie and TV features from Mother Jones. To read more of Asawin’s reviews, click here.

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate