The Imitation Game : This whole "its inaccurate" nonsense…
Re: This whole "its inaccurate" nonsense…
well, i find it frustrating that turing is portrayed as committing treason, not once but twice. first, by covering for a soviet spy, and secondly by blabbing the whole story of Bletchley park to a policeman. That is highly insulting to Turing's memory, I think.
Re: This whole "its inaccurate" nonsense…
Turings mind worked differently to the average person. He didn't understand sarcasm, certain conversational styles, he was differently tweaked to me, and more than likely you, and definitely the vast majority of the world.
There's every chance he wouldn't have recognised either as an act of treason, and I doubt the majority of the viewers of this film would do either. As for insulting his memory, its only since his pardon and subsequent publicity surrounding not least the release of this film that he's getting anything approaching the appreciation he, and the rest of Bletchley Park, so richly deserves. This film will educate and inspire far more than it will irritate.
Man, I've got vision and the rest of the World wears bi focals
There's every chance he wouldn't have recognised either as an act of treason, and I doubt the majority of the viewers of this film would do either. As for insulting his memory, its only since his pardon and subsequent publicity surrounding not least the release of this film that he's getting anything approaching the appreciation he, and the rest of Bletchley Park, so richly deserves. This film will educate and inspire far more than it will irritate.
Man, I've got vision and the rest of the World wears bi focals
Re: This whole "its inaccurate" nonsense…
If so then it will be educating people with innacurate history, and inspire people to believe in inaccuracy. Not everyone will be bright or enthused enough to check out the real facts and they will just believe that this movie is the truth, when indeed there's very little truth in it.
"This film will educate and inspire far more than it will irritate."
Re: This whole "its inaccurate" nonsense…
Very little truth? Really?
I don't understand how clearly lucid, intelligent people cant see it for what it is. Its a film, based on pivotal episode in the war, focussing on a leading protagonist.
The dilemmas associated with the decisions over how to act over the information they received took place. They weren't dilemmas that Turing had, but does that really matter?
He was no traitor and wasn't portrayed as one. He told Menzies of the spy, albeit when he thought Joan was in danger, but he did what he thought was right.
The people on here disparaging the movie know about Turing, the Enigma codes, Bletchley, because they read books and drew conclusions of their own when details were hard to come by, and its to their credit. Now, with this film, the rest of the world can form an opinion. You may quibble with details, but surely that's a good thing?
Man, I've got vision and the rest of the World wears bi focals
I don't understand how clearly lucid, intelligent people cant see it for what it is. Its a film, based on pivotal episode in the war, focussing on a leading protagonist.
The dilemmas associated with the decisions over how to act over the information they received took place. They weren't dilemmas that Turing had, but does that really matter?
He was no traitor and wasn't portrayed as one. He told Menzies of the spy, albeit when he thought Joan was in danger, but he did what he thought was right.
The people on here disparaging the movie know about Turing, the Enigma codes, Bletchley, because they read books and drew conclusions of their own when details were hard to come by, and its to their credit. Now, with this film, the rest of the world can form an opinion. You may quibble with details, but surely that's a good thing?
Man, I've got vision and the rest of the World wears bi focals
Re: This whole "its inaccurate" nonsense…
I agree with you. Alan Turing and his team did break the Enigma code and help save many lives. That is the take-away from the movie, and that is important for people to know. I watched it in the theater 4 times before getting the DVD. Even though I knew it didn't happen exactly the way it was portrayed, I always got a big lump in my throat when they finally succeeded in breaking the code after so many failed attempts. It was moving.
The movie worked for me. If it doesn't work for some folks, that's ok too.
Que sera sera
The movie worked for me. If it doesn't work for some folks, that's ok too.
Que sera sera
Re: This whole "its inaccurate" nonsense…
No actually they didn't. The Enigma was broken by Maian Rejewski and his team at the Polish Cipher Bureau some years earlier. Turing and his team extended this work to apply it to the enhanced Enigma introduced at the start of the war. Even the machine created by Turing (this was not a computer, and certainly had nothing of the features of Turing's theoretical construct which alter came to be called the Turing machine) was called the "Bombe" because it was an extension of the Polish machine used to break Engima, the "Bomba".
If you are going to make a fantasy movie which has almost no basis in historical fact, don't claim that it is based on a real story, and don't insult Turing by appropriating his name.
If you are going to make a fantasy movie which has almost no basis in historical fact, don't claim that it is based on a real story, and don't insult Turing by appropriating his name.
Re: This whole "its inaccurate" nonsense…
I have to disagree with you. Many many people still believe that movies such as 'The Great Escape', 'Bridge on the River Kwai', 'The Heroes of Telemark' and yes even 'U571', depict the truth of events as they happened.
What puzzles me is why so much so-called artistic licence is needed when any of these historical events are turned into movies. Admittedly a certain leeway must be given for dramatic purposes, but the crux of the truth could and should still be retained, especially when the true events hold up just as well as the fiction, and in most cases even better than the fictitious drivel we're given, which often but wrongly claims (as in TIG) to be based on truth.
What puzzles me is why so much so-called artistic licence is needed when any of these historical events are turned into movies. Admittedly a certain leeway must be given for dramatic purposes, but the crux of the truth could and should still be retained, especially when the true events hold up just as well as the fiction, and in most cases even better than the fictitious drivel we're given, which often but wrongly claims (as in TIG) to be based on truth.
Re: This whole "its inaccurate" nonsense…
That's what always puzzles me about films like this one. Why isn't the truth deemed exciting enough?
Re: This whole "its inaccurate" nonsense…
The ironic thing is, if it wasn't for Turing, we probably wouldn't have message boards like this, where people squabble about the historical accuracy of a film, or lack thereof.
I liked the film, and I plan to read the biography by Andrew Hodges, which I bought for my father last Christmas. He's a military history buff who is also given to nitpicking the accuracy of historical dramas. Even when watching documentaries, he'll point out when they're showing the wrong footage, the wrong aircraft for that time period, etc, etc. Like the OP was saying in this thread, it can get a bit annoying.
I liked the film, and I plan to read the biography by Andrew Hodges, which I bought for my father last Christmas. He's a military history buff who is also given to nitpicking the accuracy of historical dramas. Even when watching documentaries, he'll point out when they're showing the wrong footage, the wrong aircraft for that time period, etc, etc. Like the OP was saying in this thread, it can get a bit annoying.
Re: This whole "its inaccurate" nonsense…
In the picking out of goofs and anachronisms etc , I confess to be somewhat like your father. That said, I don't normally do it to excess, but there are so many errors in this movie to make it absurd.
The movie in itself isn't bad, and yes it is just a drama, but it is supposed to based on fact and on Hodges's book, but oh dear, it's so far from either. When I go to a restaurant to buy steak, I don't expect to be served up chicken instead. I expected so much from this movie, and got so little. I got chicken instead of steak. And a pot boiler at that.
The movie in itself isn't bad, and yes it is just a drama, but it is supposed to based on fact and on Hodges's book, but oh dear, it's so far from either. When I go to a restaurant to buy steak, I don't expect to be served up chicken instead. I expected so much from this movie, and got so little. I got chicken instead of steak. And a pot boiler at that.
Re: This whole "its inaccurate" nonsense…
"If it wasn't for Turing, we probably wouldn't have message boards like this".
Since the war was essentially won by the USSR (80-90% of German casualties were on the Eastern front) and as the movies correctly says (a refreshing deviation from most of the rest of it) Ultra was almost never shared with the Soviets how do you figure that? The overemphasis on the role of Ultra is just another part of the cold-war mythology that attempts to devalue the role of the Soviet Union in the war.
Since the war was essentially won by the USSR (80-90% of German casualties were on the Eastern front) and as the movies correctly says (a refreshing deviation from most of the rest of it) Ultra was almost never shared with the Soviets how do you figure that? The overemphasis on the role of Ultra is just another part of the cold-war mythology that attempts to devalue the role of the Soviet Union in the war.
Re: This whole "its inaccurate" nonsense…
I believe he was referring to Turing's contributions in computer science and algorithms theory, not his war efforts, which got largely ignored in the film. This film basically reduced Turing to someone who broke German code, which, I believe is a gross injustice to his memory.
Re: This whole "its inaccurate" nonsense…
Because movies have a certain pace and a shape. There are conventions which make a movie readable. You can notice this when watching asian movies, which follow different conventions and often even though technically executed correctly do not have the impact on a western audience a western movie has.
Also a movie is a visual medium. A good movie will still work to some degree if you don't understand a word, as the main story is told visually.
Unfortunatly history does not care to much for following such a dramaturgy, sticking to a limited number of protagonists and plot points and therefore ephasis has to be changed according to the needs of the movie, which else won't work.
Also a movie is a visual medium. A good movie will still work to some degree if you don't understand a word, as the main story is told visually.
Unfortunatly history does not care to much for following such a dramaturgy, sticking to a limited number of protagonists and plot points and therefore ephasis has to be changed according to the needs of the movie, which else won't work.
Re: This whole "its inaccurate" nonsense…
No.
This is why society and culture are *beep*
This is why society and culture are *beep*
Re: This whole "its inaccurate" nonsense…
Sounds like you did some pretty deep thinking there, mate.
Re: This whole "its inaccurate" nonsense…
The major motivation for making this film was to use it as a pro-homosexuality propaganda piece. Period. Including the assertion that Truing committed suicide because of the chemical castration. When the reality is that he had ceased taking those drugs some time before his death. And though his death was ruled a suicide, it is entirely likely it was an accident.
Re: This whole "its inaccurate" nonsense…
The major motivation for making this film was to use it as a pro-homosexuality propaganda piece.
Well, I thought the motivation for making the movie was to tell the story of Alan Turing, and I think they did it well. To each his own I guess.
Post deleted
This message has been deleted.
Re: This whole "its inaccurate" nonsense…
It isn't just my opinion. There are clear signs of this given the emphasis on Turing's sexuality, and the narrative. This wasn't a film about Turing, so much as a homosexuality agenda film using Turing's story as it's vehicle. Albeit well made, and well acted. Truthfully, I would probably watch Cumberbatch read the phone book.
Re: This whole "its inaccurate" nonsense…
Including the assertion that Truing committed suicide because of the chemical castration. When the reality is that he had ceased taking those drugs some time before his death. And though his death was ruled a suicide, it is entirely likely it was an accident.
Well, you can speculate about motives if you wish. That is not an empirical exercise. However, the cause of death is unclear. It could have been suicide, it could have been an accident, it could have been something elsewhy does the post-mortem coroner's report say "death appeared to be due to violence"?? He noted the presence of cyanide in the room, but did that indicate someone other than Turing administered the cyanide? What is this "violence?" A puzzle.
As for whether he had motive for suicide, that too is debatable. He clearly had other plans on the go, had theatre tickets to an upcoming performance, if it was a suicide it was sudden and possibly impulsive. But, the chemical castration treatment could have been a motive. While the actual shots had been terminated a year earlier, the effects are not necessarily reversible. They may diminish over time..or not. Turing joked about growing breasts, etc. but he did not find it at all funny that he was impacted cognitively by the hormones. He found he was less able to concentrate, found it difficult to get work done, noticed his thinking was foggy and scattered, and this bothered him a great deal. He could not be certain it was a passing problem.
Turing's death could have been an accident. Or something else. There are unexplained issues. Since cyanide kills almost instantly, how did Turing administer it to himself and then manage to get into bed in a relaxed position, where he was found? It appeared some at least of the cyanide was inhaled where was the implement for effecting this? The apple on the bedside was never tested for cyanide, but would not likely have contained the amount of cyanide necessary to produce the indicators in the body. It appeared to be both ingested AND inhaled. Did someone knock Turing out ("violence") and then administer cyanide?
The coroner has long gone and cannot clarify what he meant, and a full autopsy was not performed. The empirical data are conflicting and inconclusive.
One thing I thought very strange was the fact Turing had gone to a fair of some kind with friends two weeks before, and while there went in to a fortune-teller's tent. When he came out, his friend said he was white as a sheet and very upset and frightened. He would not talk about it. One would not expect a man of science to be superstitious, but.another puzzle.
Post deleted
This message has been deleted.
Re: This whole "its inaccurate" nonsense…
Spoken like someone who does not understand dramatic structure, pacing, or the purpose of characters.
It's kind of silly not to let a work of fiction (whether it is based on actual events or not) be a work of fiction. You all sound like people who moan about movies based on books changing things.
It's kind of silly not to let a work of fiction (whether it is based on actual events or not) be a work of fiction. You all sound like people who moan about movies based on books changing things.
Re: This whole "its inaccurate" nonsense…
We have different ideas about what is silly. I personally think it is silly to portray important historical events entirely differently from how they actually happened. And I especially think it is unfair to show Turing engaged in treasonable activity, when he is not inown to have done any such thing.
Re: This whole "its inaccurate" nonsense…
Many many people still believe that movies such as 'The Great Escape' etc depict the truth of events
Then they are the fools, not the film makers.
If I want to be entertained I visit the movies and it is all over within two hours.
If I want to understand the history of a particular event I visit a library and read for a couple of days (to interpret for the younger readers - that is the time it takes for about a million tweets or FaceBoof OMGs about Justin Bieber's latest eyebrow metal).
People who believe they are watching a historically accurate documentary when they sit to enjoy 'The Great Escape' are dim witted, too lazy to inquire and too ignorant to know where to start. The education departments of schools across the Western World guaranteed a dumb generation to follow when they ceased having Ancient History and Modern History as compulsory studies.
Re: This whole "its inaccurate" nonsense…
there is no reason why a film can't be entertaining and historically accurate. this film does a disservice to Turing by showing him doing things that were actually treason at the time. They have no business doing that.
Re: This whole "its inaccurate" nonsense…
For siargao Just so you know. we are talking here of needless inaccuracies, not depth or thoroughness.
Re: This whole "its inaccurate" nonsense…
WHAT?!?!!? So hes not gay then ?!
Re: This whole "its inaccurate" nonsense…
Sorry to say this and not be politically correct, but, it only speaks of how stupid some people are to believe everything they are spoon fed and not investigate on their own. It is not Hollywood's fault.
Quit ya moanin
Quit ya moanin
Re: This whole "its inaccurate" nonsense…
it wouldn't be too difficult for the film makers to make stories about real people reasonably accurate and still be interesting.
Re: This whole "its inaccurate" nonsense…
I'm not sure about the sarcasm part (as this article thoroughly notes: http://www.slate.com/blogs/browbeat/2014/12/03/the_imitation_game_fact_vs_fiction_how_true_the_new_movie_is_to_alan_turing.html).
The film actually makes him unnecessarily weird and overly-genius, in part because that's the only way they think we will accept a legendary mathematician/computer innovator.
I kind of agree with the other guy, who said that it twists the truth for cinematic reasons, but the way they do it is by making him an autistic like Rain Man, which there is no evidence he was. He didn't name the machine after his first and only true friend, at very least because he didn't "invent" it all by himself, it wasn't really his. The final scenes sort of exaggerate his pathetic life and tragedy. I know, it's a movie, it is allowed to take liberties, but it felt forced and cliched, and when you look it up it was ultimately not real, so it was actually a weird choice.
The film actually makes him unnecessarily weird and overly-genius, in part because that's the only way they think we will accept a legendary mathematician/computer innovator.
I kind of agree with the other guy, who said that it twists the truth for cinematic reasons, but the way they do it is by making him an autistic like Rain Man, which there is no evidence he was. He didn't name the machine after his first and only true friend, at very least because he didn't "invent" it all by himself, it wasn't really his. The final scenes sort of exaggerate his pathetic life and tragedy. I know, it's a movie, it is allowed to take liberties, but it felt forced and cliched, and when you look it up it was ultimately not real, so it was actually a weird choice.
Re: This whole "its inaccurate" nonsense…
https://media.giphy.com/media/5xtDarmwsuR9sDRObyU/giphy.gif
Ma-HAUUUUAAAHAGGHHH the French champagne has always been celebrated for its excellence.
Ma-HAUUUUAAAHAGGHHH the French champagne has always been celebrated for its excellence.
Post deleted
This message has been deleted.
Re: This whole "its inaccurate" nonsense…
The problem I have with this film is the sheer volume of untruths it uses. Having read Andrew Hodges' book upon which this film was based I was startled at the amount of artistic license taken. If, as you say, a film should entertain, inform and educate, then it utterly fails with the last two. And having some idea of the truth, I found the liberties taken so frustrating that it affected how I enjoyed the entertainment side of the film.
Although a bit of time-line juggling and some invented characters are to be expected, what really annoys me about this is the representation of Turing himself - apparently the filmmaker's aim was to capture his 'spirit', but I think they made a mockery of him.
In the film Turing covered up a for a Soviet spy (treason) - not recorded in real life.
In the film Turing confessed all to an interviewing policeman (treason) - not in real life.
In the film Turing appeared to be somewhere on the autistic spectrum with his robotic responses and weird obsessions - not in real life.
In the film Turing spent his last days mooning over his computer, called Christopher, whom he seemed to think embodied his dead boyhood friend - not in real life.
In the film Turing suffered so physically and mentally from his hormone treatment that it drove him to suicide - not recorded in real life.
In the film Turing worked alone, deeming his colleagues not clever enough to help with the making of his machine - not in real life.
In the film Turing was a fastidious and smart dresser - not in real life. This might seem like a minor point, but it just goes to show that the filmmakers are more interested in a caricature of the 'mad professor' than the man himself.
Ultimately, I think the filmmakers insulted Turing's memory greatly. And the idea that Cumberbach is considered as giving a good performance when he was so far from the person he was portraying is a joke.
Although a bit of time-line juggling and some invented characters are to be expected, what really annoys me about this is the representation of Turing himself - apparently the filmmaker's aim was to capture his 'spirit', but I think they made a mockery of him.
In the film Turing covered up a for a Soviet spy (treason) - not recorded in real life.
In the film Turing confessed all to an interviewing policeman (treason) - not in real life.
In the film Turing appeared to be somewhere on the autistic spectrum with his robotic responses and weird obsessions - not in real life.
In the film Turing spent his last days mooning over his computer, called Christopher, whom he seemed to think embodied his dead boyhood friend - not in real life.
In the film Turing suffered so physically and mentally from his hormone treatment that it drove him to suicide - not recorded in real life.
In the film Turing worked alone, deeming his colleagues not clever enough to help with the making of his machine - not in real life.
In the film Turing was a fastidious and smart dresser - not in real life. This might seem like a minor point, but it just goes to show that the filmmakers are more interested in a caricature of the 'mad professor' than the man himself.
Ultimately, I think the filmmakers insulted Turing's memory greatly. And the idea that Cumberbach is considered as giving a good performance when he was so far from the person he was portraying is a joke.
Re: This whole "its inaccurate" nonsense…
The most insulting 'poetic license' in my opinion was the film stating that the cryptographers actually decided life and death when in fact there was an Ultra committee specifically formed to decide what 'secrets' were allowed to be acted on and could be covered in other ways as far as where the knowledge came from. Thank God we did not have to depend on these intellectual types to decide these things. I doubt they would have wanted to be burdened with that task either.
Post deleted
This message has been deleted.
Re: This whole "its inaccurate" nonsense…
As time goes on and the survivors of WWII decrease every year, anything that keeps the actions of these people in the public domain has to be welcomed. Many fans of Cumberbatch or Knightley or interested in Oscar winning films will come to this knowing little or nothing of the subject matter, and go away moved and aware of what those at Bletchley achieved.
Well, and that's EXACTLY the problem. Those people know next to nothing about the subject and they are serverd a potpourri of true facts, half-knowledge and outright lies. Yes, this isn't a documentation and yes, it says in the beginning "basing on a true story". HOWEVER, nobody outside history buffs will ever bother to do reasearch on it's own, popular media like this movie is slowly replacing documentation. Yes, on the one hand it's "better than nothing" but on the other hand, spreading false information like this is only accelerating the process you describe.
See, somebody that knows next to nothing of the subject has absolutely no way to distinguish facts from fiction presented in this movie. Was the real Turing gay or was it just added because prosecution of homosexuals is the hot topic of the year? That person has only two options: "Save" everything to a part of the brain that treats everything as pure fiction that can't be trusted or assume that most of it is true. Humans almost always tend to do the latter. And since they still don't know which parts are true, subconciously they assume all of them are, especially if they heat the same thing again from other sources.
There are inaccuaries that are "harmless" and can be forgiven in order to make a better movie. For example it was ridiculous that the team was able to create a map with every ship of both sides some hours after breaking the code the first time (even with enough time, how would they know about the positions of the british and american ships!?). However, it was a good scene to demonstrate a) how useful breaking the code is and b) how difficult it is to use that knowledge wisely. More importantly, this scene doesn't do any harm to any person, group of people, nation or ideology.
Barely mentioning the polish efforts (and successes!) in breaking Enigma on the other hand? Portraying Denniston as a cardboard villain that actively tried to arrest Turing? Things like this not only overdramatize, they do harm to actual persons.
Post deleted
This message has been deleted.
Re: This whole "its inaccurate" nonsense…
I'm also sick and tired of this film being bashed for not being historically accurate. If you look at the history of films being based on true stories, you'll find that absolutely none of the films are 100 percent accurate.
There are just some events in life or history that simply cannot be adapted on screen that way, either because it wouldn't make sense, appear too goofy, or because people just don't know what actually happened. So they make up a scenario with the personality of character, told by close friends or relatives, or documented in another, and put them in a scene, to illustrate how that person acted with others.
The accusations about him being a traitor are ludicrous. Tell me, if you were gay at a time where you could go to prison for it, and a spy threatens to report you to authorities if you disclose them, would you have told anyone? I certainly wouldn't have.
And Turing does end up telling Menzies about it when he threatens Joan Clarke, which shows him as a very brave man who cares for his loved ones. Menzies is the real traitor, because he put the spy John Cairncross at Bletchley in the first place.
Yes, there were certain things I wish they would have focused more on, such as Turing's work AFTER the war, on the very first computers and the Turing Test, and focus less on the relationship between Turing and Joan. But in telling the overall story of Alan Turing, I can honestly say that the filmmakers couldn't have done a better job.
This film moved me so much that it haunted me for days. It's a beautiful, heartbreaking, informative movie about a brilliant genius and war hero who was done a horrific and disgusting injustice.
But if people want only facts, just read the book Alan Turing: The Enigma for more information. I also really loved the book, an amazing and sympathetic portrayal of Turing, but there was too many details on the mathematics and engineering, and at times, it wasn't really entertaining. This film is an entertaining version of that story.
There are just some events in life or history that simply cannot be adapted on screen that way, either because it wouldn't make sense, appear too goofy, or because people just don't know what actually happened. So they make up a scenario with the personality of character, told by close friends or relatives, or documented in another, and put them in a scene, to illustrate how that person acted with others.
The accusations about him being a traitor are ludicrous. Tell me, if you were gay at a time where you could go to prison for it, and a spy threatens to report you to authorities if you disclose them, would you have told anyone? I certainly wouldn't have.
And Turing does end up telling Menzies about it when he threatens Joan Clarke, which shows him as a very brave man who cares for his loved ones. Menzies is the real traitor, because he put the spy John Cairncross at Bletchley in the first place.
Yes, there were certain things I wish they would have focused more on, such as Turing's work AFTER the war, on the very first computers and the Turing Test, and focus less on the relationship between Turing and Joan. But in telling the overall story of Alan Turing, I can honestly say that the filmmakers couldn't have done a better job.
This film moved me so much that it haunted me for days. It's a beautiful, heartbreaking, informative movie about a brilliant genius and war hero who was done a horrific and disgusting injustice.
But if people want only facts, just read the book Alan Turing: The Enigma for more information. I also really loved the book, an amazing and sympathetic portrayal of Turing, but there was too many details on the mathematics and engineering, and at times, it wasn't really entertaining. This film is an entertaining version of that story.
Post deleted
This message has been deleted.
Re: This whole "its inaccurate" nonsense…
Well I think you're wrong. The point of the film was to bring Alan Turing's story to wider audience and celebrate him for the hero he was never hailed as. To turn a story as complicated as the life of Alan Turing and the codebreaking years during the second world war into a film that's easily accessible to wide audience is brilliant and incredible. Graham Moore's script topped the blacklist of the best unproduced screenplays ever written, and went on to win the Oscar for Best Adapted Screenplay.
Not all people can like a craft, but that's what art is. You like it, or you don't. But if it makes you feel something, then it's a success. And I thoroughly enjoyed this film.
Not all people can like a craft, but that's what art is. You like it, or you don't. But if it makes you feel something, then it's a success. And I thoroughly enjoyed this film.
Post deleted
This message has been deleted.
Re: This whole "its inaccurate" nonsense…
but it isn't alan turing's story. that's the annoying part. The real,story of Alan turing is quite different. and I don't see why they couldn't have used the real story and not made a lot of stuff up.
Re: This whole "its inaccurate" nonsense…
How does one achieve greatness in art? Most people would say that great art illuminates the truth in a new way, so that viewers attain insights otherwise unavailable.
Avwillfan89 wrote:
"Not all people can like a craft, but that's what art is. You like it, or you don't. But if it makes you feel something, then it's a success."
You can't illuminate the truth by lying. You don't provide insight by turning your subject's life into a cliche.
Yes, I expect celebrated films to be great art. These film makers spend millions of dollars and months of labor. I expect excellence, always.
_____
I don't have a dog. And furthermore, my dog doesn't bite. And furthermore, you provoked him.
Re: This whole "its inaccurate" nonsense…
This is pure fantasy. For starters it wasn't illegal to be gay. The act of sodomy was.
The accusations about him being a traitor are ludicrous. Tell me, if you were gay at a time where you could go to prison for it, and a spy threatens to report you to authorities if you disclose them, would you have told anyone? I certainly wouldn't have.
And Turing does end up telling Menzies about when he threatens Joan Clarke, which shows him as a very brave man who cares for his loved ones. Menzies is the real traitor, because he put the spy John Cairncross at Bletchley in the first place.
There's no evidence that Cairncross even met Turing at the time the Bombe was being built. In 1942 and 1943 Cairncross worked in Bletchley Park, but in Hut 3. Turing worked in Huts 15 and 8, besides which Turing was probably in the US when Cairncross was in Bletchley. From November 1942, Turing worked with US Navy cryptanalysts on naval Enigma and bombe construction in Washington; he also visited their Computing Machine Laboratory in Dayton, Ohio.
There is no historical basis whatsoever for any blackmail on Turing by Cairncross, and none at all provided by the movie. The probability is that it's all just pure fiction. Just like the rest of the movie.
Post deleted
This message has been deleted.
Re: This whole "its inaccurate" nonsense…
the point is there is no evidence that turing was ever blackmailed, so to imply that he was, and that he went along with it, even for a short while, is a slur on turing's memory. Likewise to suggest that he blabbed everything to a policeman.
And there are numerous other inaccuracies in this annoying film. Apparently the filmmakers thought it wouldn't be exciting enough to tell the real story, which i find quite baffling.
I'm amazed that you think they couldn't have done a better job. i can hardly see how they could have done a worse job.
And there are numerous other inaccuracies in this annoying film. Apparently the filmmakers thought it wouldn't be exciting enough to tell the real story, which i find quite baffling.
I'm amazed that you think they couldn't have done a better job. i can hardly see how they could have done a worse job.
Re: This whole "its inaccurate" nonsense…
that keeps coming up. Its frustrating to keep reading.
Well, all of these arguments about how much truth is really in TIG are just a waste of bandwidth because neither side is going to convince the other. There are reasonable people on both sides of this issue. Some, like me, think TIG is a great movie even if parts of it are for dramatic effect and did not happen as portrayed in the movie. Others think it is a terrible movie because it isn't 100% truthful, or even 90% truthful.
People have opinions. I respect those on both sides.
On the other hand, I have no respect for people like beetlebrain and nakedgirl who don't add anything to the discussion.
Post deleted
This message has been deleted.
Re: This whole "its inaccurate" nonsense…
That is what is called "tempting fate", Shep. Don't encourage them. :-)
To get back to TIG. At least no one can deny it's controversial, and has indeed caused controversy on many fronts. Including whether or not includes cameras. :-)
To get back to TIG. At least no one can deny it's controversial, and has indeed caused controversy on many fronts. Including whether or not includes cameras. :-)
This whole "its inaccurate" nonsense…
Firstly, as has been pointed out numerous times, its a film, not a documentary. The words at the beginning state "Based on a True Story", not "A Definitive Account of Exactly What Happened." Films and filmmakers are granted dramatic licence to help stories flow and keep audiences interested. So lighten up a little.
My main bone of contention is this; the people on this board moaning about historical inaccuracies are clearly well read, well educated, in some cases keen students of Turing, the war, and the period this is set in general. As time goes on and the survivors of WWII decrease every year, anything that keeps the actions of these people in the public domain has to be welcomed. Many fans of Cumberbatch or Knightley or interested in Oscar winning films will come to this knowing little or nothing of the subject matter, and go away moved and aware of what those at Bletchley achieved.
A films prime aims must be to entertain, to inform, to educate. Any order of those three, depending on the subject matter and the individuals responsible. This film does all three. OK, its fairly apparent that Turing would never have been left to decide on which missions were reported and which weren't, but the scene with Peter pleading for his brothers life highlighted the decisions that had to be made. To be totally factually accurate, the story would have to contain high ranking military men, their back stories, the deliberations they had to go through and subsequent fall out, thus detracting from the main drive of the film, Turing.
Its a magnificent piece of story telling, it brings to the conscience of a modern society the way people who were "different" were treated not very long ago, and it celebrates the life of a pretty extraordinary individual.
Just saying, like.
Man, I've got vision and the rest of the World wears bi focals