Benedict Cumberbatch in "The Imitation Game"

[J.P.]

Just a short note here, as I haven't seen whether Theory nor TIG, but it was enough to watch the trailers and some snippets online to be sure Redmayne would get an Oscar. Such immersion in another person is really rare. But to be fair: Redmayne had a still alive person to study for his performance.

[sfmpco]

I understand what you are saying, but whether the person is living or dead or completely fictional, I believe Sherlock an Khan much more than Turing.  

[Arcadia]

Well, I loved TIG, so I feel like I need to jump to its defense here. But first let me say; I agree it could have been a better movie, but for reasons other than you all have mentioned; I just thought it played it a little too safe to win an Oscar. (I was convinced either Boyhood or Birdman - the "edgy" flicks -- would be the winner.) But it was pitched just right to reach what seemed to be its actual goal; teaching a mainstream audience about Turing's contributions AND his persecution. I think if this movie had come out even five years ago, the Oscars would have been all over it; but hey, railing against the persecution of gays is already passe. (And before anyone reacts to that, take it easy, I'm being facetious.)

 

I don't agree, however, that Turing was portrayed as a cold, heartless machine, particularly not in the scene you mentioned, Boton. I took that scene a whole different way ... initially, the team was inclined to dislike, resist and/or poke fun at Turing; but in that scene, this highly awkward and unlikely candidate for leader suddenly became one. He made the hard choice the others couldn't make. (I haven't seen the movie in a few months but in my memory, Turing was anything but cold in that moment; he was just rational, which isn't the same thing.)

 

The only problem with that is, we've seen it many times before ... they simply couldn't (or didn't want to) find a less conventional way to show it. I've reached an age where that's not as important to me as it used to be, but I get why that would be held against the movie.

 

I'm really happy for the scriptwriter, though. I thought it was a beautifully -- and imaginatively -- constructed script.

[Boton]

Well, slightly off topic, but not really, since you guys may enjoy this:  Mr. Boton and I live very, very near where Joe Desch spearheaded the American side of the bombe project.  About 15 years ago (we can't quite remember), we had a friend who had a connection and got us a tour to see the works from Desch's lab.  As near as I can figure, this was very shortly after the bombe project was declassified; it would have been about 55 years after the end of WWII, and TIG suggested that at least the Bletchley Park side was declassified at the 50 year mark.  Anyway, I remember seeing all the wheels and everything that made up the bombe that Desch and his crew were working on, kind of all laid out for the historians to catalog and deal with -- the materials hadn't even been put up for public display yet.

 

Anyway, Mr. Boton tells me that the American bombe ran so fast that the machine couldn't stop once it realized it had scored a "hit" on decoding that day's work.  The wheels were simply moving so quickly that they would continue to rotate even if the machine was ready for them to stop.  So, once it registered it had scored a "hit," it had a function where it would come to a stop and then slowly click backwards, trying each combination it had sped through until it backed itself into finding the right wheel settings for that day once again.

 

I thought that was cool.

[Carol the Dabbler]

The only problem with that is, we've seen it many times before ... they simply couldn't (or didn't want to) find a less conventional way to show it. I've reached an age where that's not as important to me as it used to be, but I get why that would be held against the movie.

 

The trouble with showing things in an unconventional way is that people may totally miss what you're getting at.  Like any other art form, movies have their own set of conventions that the audience understands.  It's not as rigid a set as with, say, opera or kabuki, but it nevertheless provides standard "shorthand" ways of expressing certain ideas.

 

The Imitation Game was already dealing with a number of concepts unfamiliar to many moviegoers.  Dealing with them in an unconventional manner would have risked misleading the audience, so I can understand why the writers resorted to a certain number of cliches.  It was apparently their way of keeping the movie grounded.

[Arcadia]

 

The only problem with that is, we've seen it many times before ... they simply couldn't (or didn't want to) find a less conventional way to show it. I've reached an age where that's not as important to me as it used to be, but I get why that would be held against the movie.

 

The trouble with showing things in an unconventional way is that people may totally miss what you're getting at.  Like any other art form, movies have their own set of conventions that the audience understands.  It's not as rigid a set as with, say, opera or kabuki, but it nevertheless provides standard "shorthand" ways of expressing certain ideas.

 

The Imitation Game was already dealing with a number of concepts unfamiliar to many moviegoers.  Dealing with them in an unconventional manner would have risked misleading the audience, so I can understand why the writers resorted to a certain number of cliches.  It was apparently their way of keeping the movie grounded.

 

So THAT's why we can't make heads or tails of HLV!!! They threw out the cliches!  :D

 

I'm inclined to agree with you; it was more important to them to get their point across, and to as many people as possible, than it was to stand out in the crowd. It's an old debate in art circles, so I imagine it would be in movie circles too; if you have something to say, do you sacrifice clarity for innovation? Or do you just say your say in the clearest manner possible? There's no right answer, but innovation usually garners more awards. Perhaps rightly so, I'm not sure. There's something to be said for tradition, too.

 

If I had been an Oscars judge, I think my main kick against TIG was that it was just a bit too earnest, almost naively so. It was anxious to garner goodwill with its viewers, instead of letting them come to their own conclusions. Sort of like Mr. Holland's Opus; a good movie, but it just wanted a little too much to be loved, and you end up pulling back from it a bit, like one would from an overanxious puppy. Not that I wouldn't watch either film whenever they appear on my TV; I like puppies.

 

The movie was a hit, so they did something right!

[J.P.]

It wasn't a hit here. It even didn't make it into the bigger cinemas and ran in small off-mainstream theater. As well as Theory of Everything, btw. :(

[Carol the Dabbler]

So THAT's why we can't make heads or tails of HLV!!! They threw out the cliches!  :D

You may have hit on the answer there!  :P

[Boton]

Well, there's some kind of unified field theory here, since I always think that HLV is the finest 90 minutes of television I've ever seen aired (with the possible exception of the last episode of MASH, and that's a different category).  And I think TIG was over-simplified to the point of missing some of the important pieces.

 

So, film producers -- hire me to come screen your movies!  If I love it, it won't be Oscar material, so you don't have to waste all that money on promotion!  

[Arcadia]

It wasn't a hit here. It even didn't make it into the bigger cinemas and ran in small off-mainstream theater. As well as Theory of Everything, btw. :(

 

Really? Were any of the Oscar nominees popular there, though? Even without having seen it, "Boyhood," for example, seems like such an "American" film to me, I can't imagine it being popular elsewhere. (It wasn't even that popular here, I don't think! )

[Carol the Dabbler]

Well, there's some kind of unified field theory here, since I always think that HLV is the finest 90 minutes of television I've ever seen aired....

 

Umm, well, I like it OK, and there are parts that I like very much (just don't ask me to list them right now).  But those parts are mixed up with so much  that I am left with an overall feeling of bewilderment.  Seems to me that I liked it far better before I read the forum comments, though, so maybe that's the main source of my mixed emotions.  I am really very seriously considering not looking at any forum comments whatsoever till I've fully digested Series 4.

[J.P.]

 

It wasn't a hit here. It even didn't make it into the bigger cinemas and ran in small off-mainstream theater. As well as Theory of Everything, btw. :(

 

Really? Were any of the Oscar nominees popular there, though? Even without having seen it, "Boyhood," for example, seems like such an "American" film to me, I can't imagine it being popular elsewhere. (It wasn't even that popular here, I don't think! )

 

 

Oh, I don't remember anymore. Sorry.

[Arcadia]

 

Well, there's some kind of unified field theory here, since I always think that HLV is the finest 90 minutes of television I've ever seen aired....

 

Umm, well, I like it OK, and there are parts that I like very much (just don't ask me to list them right now).  But those parts are mixed up with so much  that I am left with an overall feeling of bewilderment.  Seems to me that I liked it far better before I read the forum comments, though, so maybe that's the main source of my mixed emotions.  I am really very seriously considering not looking at any forum comments whatsoever till I've fully digested Series 4.

 

I'm having the same thoughts. Although it seems rather counter to the point of being on a forum... We'll see, we'll see......

 

 

 

It wasn't a hit here. It even didn't make it into the bigger cinemas and ran in small off-mainstream theater. As well as Theory of Everything, btw. :(

 

Really? Were any of the Oscar nominees popular there, though? Even without having seen it, "Boyhood," for example, seems like such an "American" film to me, I can't imagine it being popular elsewhere. (It wasn't even that popular here, I don't think! )

 

 

Oh, I don't remember anymore. Sorry.

 

No worries! I had to look them up myself to be sure what they were. :D

[Carol the Dabbler]

Just ran across this (here):

 

 

[Arcadia]

I don't remember seeing this one before: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6NyyJlUmLXA&list=PLbmdwH_cSzgxI8UxC66jWAqdzO8SItSuf#t=41

[SherlockedCAMPer]

Must watch that later when I have time.

[Boswell]

More people I know are aware of Benedict Cumberbatch because of The Imitation Game than because of Sherlock, shockingly; it could be that I just don't know enough of the 'right' kind of people!  :lol:

But I guess it also shows that the 'accessibility' of TIG is actually a good thing, for Benedict's popularity atleast ;)  And his role as Alan Turing was as much, if not more, about the vulnerability of the character as/than his genius. It is a very important story to bring to the masses, Alan Turing is a man to be celebrated, and I think whatever means the makers used to achieve that noble end are justified. 

[J.P.]

I have read somewhere that The Imitation Game is on Netflix. Which one? I can access UK, US an German versions, but TIG is nowhere to be seen.

[sfmpco]

I have read somewhere that The Imitation Game is on Netflix. Which one? I can access UK, US an German versions, but TIG is nowhere to be seen.

 

Not on the one in the USA, at least not for streaming.  However, it is available on Netflix DVD.

[J.P.]

Have seen in anyway. :D

Well, did anyone notice that the name of Alan's school friend and also of the machine was Christopher?

 

I don't know much about the real Turing, but in this movie he was portrayed as someone who clearly shows signs of Autism. He's not cold or rude, he just don't understand how people work. And this on fully other level than Sherlock.

 

What really interests me now - did he propose to Joan only to be able to work with her, or did he broke up only because he wanted to protect her. For an autistic person both was quite an achievement, because it meant that he lied/played a game in one of the cases.

 

To me the movie is also about terrible choices in terrible times.

 

ETA: the scene when Joan comes to the test - it stroke a chord with me. If I really hate something about male-female relationship in the society, it's the assumption women cannot think logically.

 

ETA: I wish they explained more about the machine itself (yes, I know it wasn't a movie about the machine), and I don't really get why they needed the repeating words for breaking the code in this case, but from the moment of Alan's epiphany to the moment when the machine stops having the code - a whole bunch of goosebumps moments.

 

Will have to read something on the matter. I love machines. I had an epiphany in front of a mechanical computing machine myself. Computers are boring, because I cannot see them working.

[Carol the Dabbler]

What really interests me now - did he propose to Joan only to be able to work with her, or did he broke up only because he wanted to protect her. For an autistic person both was quite an achievement, because it meant that he lied/played a game in one of the cases.

A little of both, I think.  He didn't have romantic feelings for her, of course, but he valued her as a friend, and wanted to give her control of her own life.  (Remember, her father had told her to come home.)  At that time, the only way he could negate her father's control over her was to marry her.  And she was OK with all of that.

 

What still puzzles me is why he broke it off.  Had merely being engaged broken her father's control, or did he decide that even though he could choose to live a lie, he couldn't ask anyone else to share that lie with him -- or something else?  That's the problem with (more or less) true stories -- you can't tweak them.  I've seen an interview with the real Joan, and she said all she could do was guess.  He had never explained the breakup to her.

 

ETA: the scene when Joan comes to the test - it stroke a chord with me. If I really hate something about male-female relationship in the society, it's the assumption women cannot think logically.

 

That's improving.  It's slow, but that's probably a good thing, because it gives people time to adjust, especially as new generations come along.  If people get the feeling that change is being shoved down their throats, they tend to resent it, which is counter-productive.

 

Meanwhile, those assumptions can take some silly forms.  One place where I worked, we hired a programmer trainee, a young woman whose eventual ambition was to be a systems programmer.  She said that at one place where she'd applied, the interviewer told her she should be an applications programmer instead, because it was more feminine!

 

ETA: I wish they explained more about the machine itself (yes, I know it wasn't a movie about the machine), and I don't really get why they needed the repeating words for breaking the code in this case, but from the moment of Alan's epiphany to the moment when the machine stops having the code - a whole bunch of goosebumps moments.

I understood the basic idea when I was watching the movie, but my head is a little fuzzy today.  If nobody else comes up with an explanation you like, I'll have a go at it after I've had some sleep.

 

Will have to read something on the matter. I love machines. I had an epiphany in front of a mechanical computing machine myself. Computers are boring, because I cannot see them working.

I guess that's why movies involving computers always show tape reels spinning!

 

If anyone's interested, I'd be glad to post a brief, very basic (i.e., highly over-simplified) explanation of how computers work.

 

[J.P.]

 

What still puzzles me is why he broke it off.  Had merely being engaged broken her father's control, or did he decide that even though he could choose to live a lie, he couldn't ask anyone else to share that lie with him -- or something else?  That's the problem with (more or less) true stories -- you can't tweak them.  I've seen an interview with the real Joan, and she said all she could do was guess.  He had never explained the breakup to her.

I think he decided to broke off because he saw himself as a danger for her - it happened after this ominous MI6 guy was rummaging in her flat, saying she was in prison. The Script seems to confirm that (page 103-104)

 

BTW, both TIG and 5th Estate made me think about spheres where Mycroft has to work. Good thing, Sherlock is not that realistic, the reality wouldn't even let me look at him without getting paranoid, not to say liking him as a person. Not necessarily because he is evil, but he knows too much and probably is a target for several attacks a week from who know what organizations.

 

As for explaining computers - I decided I don't need to know it because the effort getting to know is not matching the possible advantages of the knowledge. I think I will stick with hairdryers and simple electrical circuits, and knowing how to use computers.

I might find myself something to read about Turing's machine. And something about Turing, because he did much more than only inventing computers and breaking Enigma.

[SherlockedCAMPer]

The reason for the repeating words needed for the machine was that the sheer number of possibilities was too much for the machine to process fast enough. Thus realizing weather and Heil Hitler was in every 6am message allowed the machine to solve the code quickly. as for the ASD, he more than likely had it along with untreated PTSD (because of the separation from his parents as an infant).

[Van Buren Supernova]

Oh.. I thought I had looked for it and didn't find Imitation Game thread back then after I watched it, apparently I didn't observe.

 

ETA: the scene when Joan comes to the test - it stroke a chord with me. If I really hate something about male-female relationship in the society, it's the assumption women cannot think logically.

Meanwhile, those assumptions can take some silly forms. One place where I worked, we hired a programmer trainee, a young woman whose eventual ambition was to be a systems programmer. She said that at one place where she'd applied, the interviewer told her she should be an applications programmer instead, because it was more feminine!

Oh ya, I believe it's better now. Back then I was told getting picked for competition and scholarships would reduce possible suitors aka, 'not ladylike'. Apparently some guys prefer their women dumb? I still don't get the logic. Nevertheless, those are opinions from people not worth to be taken seriously.

 

ETA: I wish they explained more about the machine itself (yes, I know it wasn't a movie about the machine), and I don't really get why they needed the repeating words for breaking the code in this case, but from the moment of Alan's epiphany to the moment when the machine stops having the code - a whole bunch of goosebumps moments.

What is the meaning of ETA? XD I only know Estimated Time of Arrival.

 

About repeating words helping the code, my lousy unreliable untested attempt explanation:

 

Once they realize that every enigma starts with greeting for Hitler and weather report, they find the constant factor on specific place (beginning). It's very tremendous help as they would be able to pin down certain codes.

 

For example:

Every morning the message starts with constant: Morning Sherlock. (Code of the day &%#@*@$ ?+=#>%:8)

They would be able to start dechiper message for that day using those codes (& for m, % for o, # for r etc etc..), thus eliminating a lot of probabilities. Together with constant weather report, there are probably many strategic words that can be cracked more easily, like weather, degree, rain, wind, knot, sunny and therefore solving more codes. The more alphabet they cracked, it would get easier. Vowels would be the most helpful as there are only 5 to crack and used heavily. With all those, cracking the code would be much faster and possible under 24 hours.

 

There, maybe that confuses you more.

I stand by a method, if you can't convince them, confuse them. :P

[Inge l-w]

Oh, dear, oh dear oh dear! Here we go, back to Computing 101, throwing switches for 1 and 0 to make up a computer language ( shades of Fortran, like Hamlet's father's ghost) arising to haunt us!

I'm not a u-boat expert, but I do know that the actual team first broke the Luftwaffe Enigma, because the lazy gits always started with Anton, Anton, Anton, German Morse for Alpha, meaning Achtung: Beware. And it was the Poles who first had a go at the Dutch design, by creating their famous 'bombes' long before Turing got involved. Here endeth my contribution!