Benedict Cumberbatch in "The Imitation Game"

[T.o.b.y]

my main problem in the film is the map of the convoys. There is no way the people at Bletchley could have laid their hands on a German U-boat grid, the whole operations room concerning them was somewhere in Liverpool, so the whole dramatic moment of deciding who is to live and who is to die is just a plot twist.

 

See, that is exactly the kind of thing that doesn't bother me at all.

It wasn't supposed to be a factual scene, I think... More about illustrating the problem the allies faced once they had broken Engima about what to do with the information without giving their success away too soon. And beyond that, it's about a tricky ethical question: Can you forfeit a few lives to save many? Who gets to decide that? Is there a right answer? I wish they had elaborated a bit more on Turing's standpoint that these decisions should be left to statistics (and I suppose eventually computers), even if maybe it wasn't the real Alan Turing who said that. But it's worth thinking about, isn't it: Would it be right to eliminate the human factor in these decisions and leave it all to pure logic? And where would that take us? Matrix, maybe? I Robot? I have no clue. But it's fascinating to think about.

 

 

This is what I mean when I say I am more interested in what is true than what is real. Individual hard facts don't interest me very much unless they mean something larger, and I think it's totally okay to make something up if it's to bring across an important point - unless, of course, you claim what you made up is factually true.

 

Oh dear, I'm having trouble saying what I mean...

[T.o.b.y]

Rats. I just realized I forgot to put stuff in the post above in a spoiler box, went back to correct my error, and ended up quoting myself by mistake. So sorry... And I do hope nobody read the plot-related stuff by mistake.

[joanneta1]

This forum is quite temperamental sometimes! Maybe we should call for better technical support!

If it's truth you are looking for, then you are a philosopher, if it's facts, then you are a historian, and I very firmly stand in the latter camp. Anyway, hearing that beautiful voice say "Are you paying attention?" was well worth the whole film. I actually saw it twice, because in between I went back and re-read the book on his life and work that they apparently used for the script. Talking about facts and truth, we come right up your alley, because there is no way that, bound by the Official Secrets act as he was, he would have told a mere policeman the story.

Slightly off topic, to answer dear Arcadia's query about the Titanic, it all involved the process of filming, lighting and effects. I have still got the American Cinematographer special edition brought out to explain all the (then) magic of making it.

[T.o.b.y]

This forum is quite temperamental sometimes! Maybe we should call for better technical support!

 

Oh no, it wasn't the forum, it was me! I forgot the spoiler box, and then I clicked quote instead of edit, and then... Anyway, it was all me. Sorry.

 

If it's truth you are looking for, then you are a philosopher

 

A philosopher...? That's... that's one of the nicest things that have ever been said to me. I've never thought of myself that way. I know nothing whatsoever about philosophy. Anyway, thanks!

 

[joanneta1]

It was meant completely in a nice way, I do hope I did not go too far! If you actually delve into truth, then you are either studying philosophy or theology in the university world, not in our forum obviously, since we are fans by definition, therefore a bit more Anderson than Sherlock

[sfmpco]

And if more of Anderson than Sherlock, then we get the general theme of facts right based on sentiment but the overall facts wrong based again on sentiment.

[Caya]

This forum is quite temperamental sometimes! Maybe we should call for better technical support!

 

Hey, we're doing what we can :P. Seriously now, I hid the double post, but you can do it yourself, too - a moderator can then delete it upon request.

 

[Arcadia]

Um, I know I'm getting off topic here, but what boundaries did you think Titanic broke, unless it was those of good taste? I bloody hated that movie, and I can't think of anything I'd call original about it.

Joanneta sorta answered this ... but in it's time, Titanic was a ground breaking film ... technically. I understand what you mean, because to take another example, I thought Avatar was one of the stupidest movies I've ever seen ... yet it was absolutely stunning to look at, especially in 3D, and worth every penny I paid for it ... as a visual experience. As a story, it stink, stank, stunk. (Imho.) So I'd say something similar about Titanic, except I liked the story a whole lot more than you did. But as a pure visual experience, on a big screen? It was really something.

 

If the idea was to make Turing's story and the terrible way in which he was treated by his own government known to the public, then why didn't they stick more closely to historical facts?

I think you answered this one yourself ... because it's more important in a 2-hour film to get people to think about the truth of a matter than it is to faithfully recite the dry facts of history...? (That's what nice long books are for!)

 

 

 

 

my main problem in the film is the map of the convoys. There is no way the people at Bletchley could have laid their hands on a German U-boat grid, the whole operations room concerning them was somewhere in Liverpool, so the whole dramatic moment of deciding who is to live and who is to die is just a plot twist.

 

See, that is exactly the kind of thing that doesn't bother me at all.

It wasn't supposed to be a factual scene, I think... More about illustrating the problem the allies faced once they had broken Engima about what to do with the information without giving their success away too soon. And beyond that, it's about a tricky ethical question: Can you forfeit a few lives to save many? Who gets to decide that? Is there a right answer? I wish they had elaborated a bit more on Turing's standpoint that these decisions should be left to statistics (and I suppose eventually computers), even if maybe it wasn't the real Alan Turing who said that. But it's worth thinking about, isn't it: Would it be right to eliminate the human factor in these decisions and leave it all to pure logic? And where would that take us? Matrix, maybe? I Robot? I have no clue. But it's fascinating to think about.

 

 

This is what I mean when I say I am more interested in what is true than what is real. Individual hard facts don't interest me very much unless they mean something larger, and I think it's totally okay to make something up if it's to bring across an important point - unless, of course, you claim what you made up is factually true.

 

Oh dear, I'm having trouble saying what I mean...

 

Not at all, I think you explained it perfectly. I feel the same way.

 

 

This forum is quite temperamental sometimes! Maybe we should call for better technical support!

 

Hey, we're doing what we can :P....

 

And a very good job you do, too!

[T.o.b.y]

 

Um, I know I'm getting off topic here, but what boundaries did you think Titanic broke, unless it was those of good taste? I bloody hated that movie, and I can't think of anything I'd call original about it.

Joanneta sorta answered this ... but in it's time, Titanic was a ground breaking film ... technically. I understand what you mean, because to take another example, I thought Avatar was one of the stupidest movies I've ever seen ... yet it was absolutely stunning to look at, especially in 3D, and worth every penny I paid for it ... as a visual experience. As a story, it stink, stank, stunk. (Imho.) So I'd say something similar about Titanic, except I liked the story a whole lot more than you did. But as a pure visual experience, on a big screen? It was really something.

 

Oh, technically. Yes, I suppose so. All I remember is being forced to sit through it by a girl whom I hung out with for reasons I cannot for the life of me understand today, and behaving myself well enough until Jack died, at which point I burst out "finally!" without thinking. We didn't see much of each other after that... :P

[Arcadia]

[Carol the Dabbler]

I must say though, that I thought the kid who played Turing as a boy was at least as good.

I've been meaning to post that very thought myself. I haven't been able to get him out of my mind -- just a riveting performance.

 

 

 

- My biggest problem was, as I had foreseen, what they did with the character of Joan Clarke. .... they made her way too perfect. "I am a woman doing a man's job - I can't afford the luxury of being an arse". That was one of the best lines in the script, and unfortunately, it seems to be behind how they wrote the character as well. It seemed to me that because she was the only woman there, they felt they couldn't make her flawed.....

 

 

I imagine that's historically pretty accurate. I don't remember that far back myself, but even later on when I was Joan's age, a woman had to be twice as good as the male candidates just to get the job, and I'm glad the movie Joan acknowledged that. Any flaws that the historical Joan did have were probably not relevant to the story.

 

 

 

 

- The part where Turing breaks up with Joan and tries to get her to leave Bletchley Park doesn't make sense.... To make a long complaint short, I thought the break-up was unnecessarily loud and dramatic.

 

 

 

Well, I don''t believe anyone knows exactly why he broke it off in real life. But they had to break up in the movie -- so apparently they decided to make it dramatic and hope no one think too hard about it.    :D 

 

 

When we left the cinema, I heard a woman say to her companion that she had been skeptical about The Imitation Game because she had only heard of the lead actor as playing Sherlock and she thought it would be "like that".

Do you have any idea whether the movie had changed her mind? Or did she still think it was "like that"?

[sfmpco]

Well, there was another awards shut out for tonight for TIG and for Ben.  Seems par for the course now.

[T.o.b.y]

Well, there was another awards shut out for tonight for TIG and for Ben.  Seems par for the course now.

 

What does "shut out" mean in this context?

 

Here's an interesting review of the film, mostly negative. If you haven't seen it yet, be warned: the critic gives away a lot of plot points in his essay.

 

http://www.nybooks.com/blogs/nyrblog/2014/dec/19/poor-imitation-alan-turing/

 

I often find unfavorable reviews more informative. This, for example, explains at length how the film differs from actual events and the real personality of Alan Turing, and while I personally don't think that lowers a fictional work's quality, I found it very interesting. I wish I could talk to the script writer and director and get them to explain why they decided to change what they did. I mean, it must all have been a conscious decision.

 

One point of criticism that is often mentioned I do not understand: Why are some people upset that the movie did not show Turing actually having sex with another man? I mean, why do they think this would have been relevant or what did they think was missing because of this omission? Actually, the way they wrote Turing's character, it would not have been believable if he had had a string of lovers. The movie version can't even make friends with people, how is he supposed to pick up men, especially at a time when that was not even legal? And there is no evidence at all that the real Turing had a relationship with anybody at Bletchley, except for his brief engagement to Joan Clarke, not that I know of, anyway.

 

In my opinion, a sex scene has to serve a purpose. It can be helpful in illustrating a relationship, but the only relationships in Turing's life the film decided to spend any time on were what he shared with Joan, which was certainly platonic, and Christoper. And come on, does anybody honestly mean to tell me they should have showed these very young boys having sex, which it is highly unlikely they had in reality, anyway?

 

Just for the purpose of making clear that Turing was gay, you don't need a sex scene, if you ask me.

[SherlockedCAMPer]

Shut out means it did not win any award it was nominated for. And agree with you on the whole Turing thing. There was definitely no need for any sort of sex scene. It wasn't that type of movie where one of any sort would have worked.

[Carol the Dabbler]

Well, there was another awards shut out for tonight for TIG and for Ben.  Seems par for the course now.

 

What does "shut out" mean in this context?

It's a term from baseball, meaning that one team has prevented the other one from scoring any points whatsoever. In other words, no awards for TIG.

 

One point of criticism that is often mentioned I do not understand: Why are some people upset that the movie did not show Turing actually having sex with another man?

My impression is that it's yet another example of "political correctness." Apparently some people claim that if it had been a heterosexual love story, there would have been some sex scenes, or at least some obvious romance, which is true. But this is clearly not, and could not truthfully have been, a gay love story. As you point out, there's no historical reason to believe that the real Turning had any romantic attachments other than Christopher, and that one was platonic. So the "best" they could have done without rewriting Turing's life would have been to show a few one-night stands -- which I doubt was the kind of tone they wanted to set.

 

As for how the real Turing dealt with sex, I'm assuming that there were certain bars or perhaps private clubs known to the then-clandestine gay community as pick-up joints.  And yes, he probably did engage in one-night stands.

 

[Bakerstreet Irregular]

I saw it and really, I think it was really well done. No tears though. Not even all that angry. Disgusted by how he was treated but then human beings do that a lot....have done that a lot....continue to do that a lot. Who said life is fair, not me. But I do see he was awarded the FRS and the OBE don't know if those came along with the Royal Pardon but there you go better dead then never.

[Carol the Dabbler]

Overall, I think that's an interesting review which makes some good points, but I do have a few quibbles.  The review criticizes the movie for not being accurate about the historical details, which is an odd thing for (I assume) a professional movie reviewer to say.  You've got a couple of hours to tell a story -- if you take the time to set up the actual historical situation, you'll have none left for telling the story.  So the regular code-breakers were making meaningful contributions to the war effort all along -- a movie needs a tight focus, and this movie is about Turing, so they chose to focus on the major project that he's famous for.  So the Soviet spy wasn't actually in Turning's group -- the reviewer admits that there was a Soviet spy at Bletchley, so the movie had to choose between ignoring his presence and incorporating him as thriftily as possible.  It's a movie, not a documentary.

 

I agree with many of the points the reviewer makes about the mystery surrounding Turning's death (though he's pretty naive to suppose that all the effects of the hormone treatment would have evaporated within a year).  But again, the movie needed to focus, so they chose the official verdict, sloppy though it may have been.  And I suppose the final scene with Joan Clarke was intended as closure, but if it was actually as fabricated as the reviewer suggests, it does seem that they could have fabricated something closer to the truth.

 

[sfmpco]

The thing with real life vs. a screenplay adaptation of that life is that real life does not unfold itself in a way that lends itself to a 2-hr movie which follows certain rules of story-telling.  When I say "rules" I mean that the screenplay is divided into 3 acts the the middle of the 2nd act which is usually the middle of the film and represents a turning point for the whole film.  Adapting real life people or events means conforming those events into the movie format, and that always means "it didn't happen like THAT."  Okay, fine, but the essence of the true story is still there, just maybe not entirely in the right order.  

[Carol the Dabbler]

I guess that's the basic difference between a "movie" and a documentary.

 

[sfmpco]

Or as the old adage goes... and to quote Sherlock... "Everyone's a critic."

[Arcadia]

I guess that's the basic difference between a "movie" and a documentary.

Actually, even most documentaries follow storytelling rules, don't you think? And they take a lot of shortcuts too. Unless they are Ken Burns documentaries, in which case they last as long as the events they are about. :D

[Arcadia]

 

One point of criticism that is often mentioned I do not understand: Why are some people upset that the movie did not show Turing actually having sex with another man?

My impression is that it's yet another example of "political correctness." ....

 

My impression is that you are oh so correct.

 

I also note that in the last twenty years, seven of the Best Picture Oscars were won by movies rated PG-13; the other thirteen winners, almost twice as many, were rated R.

 

This year we have five R-rated nominees and three rated PG-13. My money's on one of the R-rated ones to win; presumably whichever one the Oscar voters think will shock unsophisticated, uptight, middle-America the most. (Sorry, sorry, my cynicism's showing.... )

 

(For anyone who may not be familiar with the American system of "rating" films; PG-13 means some content (sex, language or violence) may be "unsuitable" for children under 13; R means the sex, language or violence is so offensive that anyone under 17 has to have a parental unit with them in case they faint.)

[Bakerstreet Irregular]

Oh Lord I am so glad that we didn't get a Turing love scene on screen. People are getting voyeuristic aren't they. It would have spoiled the whole movie for me. But then we do get his love affair with "Christopher" the boy who befriended him in school and introduced him to cryptology.  His first love but never got to tell him so. In the movie Turing names the machine after him. Protected it. Tries to rebuild it in his home and tells Clarke that with "Christopher" he had never been alone. 

[Arcadia]

Plus, a repressed approach to any kind of sexuality would be far more believable for the times he lived in. Maybe the movie should be getting more plaudits for being historically accurate!

 

Mostly I think they just wanted to make an honest but "family-friendly" film. But as I was trying to point out above, critics often think "family-friendly" means "less realistic" and therefore less good -- as if realism was the primary goal of entertainment. I've never understood that kind of thinking; if I want reality, folks, I'll go outside, not to a movie theater.

[Bakerstreet Irregular]

That's why I seldom go to movies like Selma, Amelia Earhart, or any other documentary type movie. If I wanted realism I would read the newspapers and I really don't want to go to the movies to do that. I want entertainment. But that said, I had only recently even heard of Alan Turing and from all the things I had read here on the Forum about the movie it sounded better then most. At least there would be some kind of closure to it all. It wasn't going to be a rehash of all the known facts and not much else.