Historical Blindness?

 Pages 1 2 NEXT
 

Historical Blindness?

American Sniper, Selma, The Imitation Game... What's with all the controversy over this year's historical films?

Read Full Article

The Imitation Game wasnt a film about him being gay or how he got treated because of it. So why would they put that stuff in it? Be the same if the movie was all about how he was treated because he was gay yet left out all his computer achievements.

SonOfVoorhees:
The Imitation Game wasnt a film about him being gay or how he got treated because of it. So why would they put that stuff in it? Be the same if the movie was all about how he was treated because he was gay yet left out all his computer achievements.

Or given that's it's a biopic about the person, it might be best if it was honest about all aspects of that persons life and not just the ones that sell best...

SonOfVoorhees:
The Imitation Game wasnt a film about him being gay or how he got treated because of it. So why would they put that stuff in it? Be the same if the movie was all about how he was treated because he was gay yet left out all his computer achievements.

Because it gives them easy Oscar Points without having to all the way of exploring Turing's sexuality in any meaningful way?

At least Grand Budapest doesn't suffer from these kinds of missteps :P

Loved that movie.

SonOfVoorhees:
The Imitation Game wasnt a film about him being gay or how he got treated because of it. So why would they put that stuff in it? Be the same if the movie was all about how he was treated because he was gay yet left out all his computer achievements.

Because it would be like making a film about Leon Trotsky's creation of the Red Army and shooting the whole thing as a self-contained achievement of organisation, free of any wider historical context. It would be disingenuous to reduce said context to a mere ending black screen with the subtitles: "Leon Trotsky created the Red Army to win the Russian Civil War and crush anti-Bolshevik elements. He would later get an ice-pick that made his ears burn for his troubles."

OT

I haven't seen Selma so I'm not sure how it depicts LBJ but is it fair to say that *if* it has indulged in "mere" narrative simplification, it's an acceptable sacrifice for sake of drama? In any historical work, let alone one as seemingly sensitive as American race relations, the tiniest change for the sake of narrative can turn any figure into a complete bastard and send the wrong message.

Dragonlayer:

I haven't seen Selma so I'm not sure how it depicts LBJ but is it fair to say that *if* it has indulged in "mere" narrative simplification, it's an acceptable sacrifice for sake of drama? In any historical work, let alone one as seemingly sensitive as American race relations, the tiniest change for the sake of narrative can turn any figure into a complete bastard and send the wrong message.

I haven't either but, judging from the descriptions of all three, it sounds like the least egregious change even if it's still technically disrespectful.

The last line quote of the article feels like an (not deliberately intended) oxymoron as the truths being altered usually ARE the good story - it should really read, "Never let the truth get in the way of a safe bet."

I haven't seen Imitation Game but it's ridiculous that a film about Alan Turing doesn't feature his suicide or the events that drove him to it.

That's like "Lincoln" having no assassination or "Cool Runnings" were the Jamaicans win the gold... that was a weird second example.

SonOfVoorhees:
The Imitation Game wasnt a film about him being gay or how he got treated because of it. So why would they put that stuff in it? Be the same if the movie was all about how he was treated because he was gay yet left out all his computer achievements.

At the very least its a narrative misstep. I mean its VERY dramatic that the guy that helped the war so tremendously for his government was punished by that same government so severly for a "crime". Also this is probably going to be THE Alan Turing movie so including the most important details of his life is very important. I mean if you do a WWII Movie you can leave out the pacific war, or the war in the east/west, because there will be tons of other movies that do it. But I don't imagine there will be alot of interest in Hollywood to redo Alan Turing biopic for decades maybe even in our lifetime. So getting the whole story is more important than with other WWII movies.

SonOfVoorhees:
The Imitation Game wasnt a film about him being gay or how he got treated because of it. So why would they put that stuff in it? Be the same if the movie was all about how he was treated because he was gay yet left out all his computer achievements.

I think the problem is the campaign around it where they use the film to show how progressive the movie is where in fact the movie seems to avoid that part of his life.

At least that is what I got from the article

josemlopes:

SonOfVoorhees:
The Imitation Game wasnt a film about him being gay or how he got treated because of it. So why would they put that stuff in it? Be the same if the movie was all about how he was treated because he was gay yet left out all his computer achievements.

I think the problem is the campaign around it where they use the film to show how progressive the movie is where in fact the movie seems to avoid that part of his life.

At least that is what I got from the article

From the start the movie was actually promoted as the long awaited biopic for alan turing. If you were at all interested in the film early on it was primarily for that reason. Second as stated yeah this is a "gay" film because it's about a guy whos gay, but they skip over the "gay stuff".

The sad part about Bob worrying that American sniper is reshaping the historical view of the IRAQ war is that he needn't bother. Most Americans, whether they agree it was bad or not have already moved on. We stop caring about it about 3 years ago. It was just a thing that happened and not enough americans died for us to continue being beat up about it. Now we care about whatever Obamas up to and the superbowl. The American memory drops off about every 3 seconds. Oh and don't forget MARCH MADNESS IS COMING!

You lost me the second you wrote that The Imitation Game glossed over the tragedy of Alan Turing. The ignorance seething from that comment. There is actually a controversy about his alleged suicide, and that the facts are equal in weight in drawing the conclusion that it was an accidental Cyanide poisoning. The movie covers this in the first few minutes by showing that he had cyanide in his home which he had for actual experiments.

The important parts of the tragedy are covered in as much detail as most people can stomach. Chemical Castration is pretty nasty, but I don't think adding the growing boobs due to the estrogen they were forcing him to have would have added to any of it.

The Big parts that the movie got wrong was the Russian Double Agent did exist, but there is no evidence he was any where near Turing. And the entire we're using statistics to judge who lives and dies is actually the Churchill story that everyone is familiar with pared down to include Turing, and much of the cast of the movie without adding an actual actor to play Churchill.

The actual TRAGEDY of Turing is that Hollywood did this move a decade ago titled Enigma, and with the most offensive slap to Turing's legacy they wrote him 100% out of the story.

piscian:

The sad part about Bob worrying that American sniper is reshaping the historical view of the IRAQ war is that he needn't bother. Most Americans, whether they agree it was bad or not have already moved on. We stop caring about it about 3 years ago. It was just a thing that happened and not enough americans died for us to continue being beat up about it. Now we care about whatever Obamas up to and the superbowl. The American memory drops off about every 3 seconds. Oh and don't forget MARCH MADNESS IS COMING!

This reminds me of what the King wrote when America declared/won independence

"Nothing of Importance happened today" - King George III :P

Bobs point about relegating LBJs contribution seems a little disengenious when put up against how much he is opposed to Eastwood sanding off the edges of Chris Kyle.

I don't agree with Kyles politics either, but you can either alter history in cinema to make a point or you can't, Bob seems annoyed by Fox News appropriating Kyle for Bush/Cheneys legacy but all too eager to throw LBJ under the bus for the sake of Kings.

The impression I got from that 'Big Gay Lie' article cited as evidence of The Imitation Game sweeping Turing's sexuality under the rug is that the authour wouldn't have been happy with any concession the film took. To say the film glossed over that aspect of Turing's life is ludicrous, but the fact that it chose to focus on his work on Enigma while keeping his adult sex life in the background is a minor problem at worst.

The film definitely doesn't try to hide anything about his sexuality, and the message that homosexuals were treated horribly back in those days is made pretty clear. So, if the HRC want to use that film to campaign for gay rights, they're welcome to it. Why are we even upset that they are?

That said, there are some pretty shocking historical inaccuracies apart from that. From what I've heard, the big stuff is that the film overdoes the importance of Joan Clarke (Keira Knightley's character), Turing never worked with the Soviet spy, and the commanding officer was actually supportive of Turing and his work, as opposed to being Tywin Lannister in all but name.

BroJing:
Bobs point about relegating LBJs contribution seems a little disengenious when put up against how much he is opposed to Eastwood sanding off the edges of Chris Kyle.

I don't agree with Kyles politics either, but you can either alter history in cinema to make a point or you can't, Bob seems annoyed by Fox News appropriating Kyle for Bush/Cheneys legacy but all too eager to throw LBJ under the bus for the sake of Kings.

The thing is, Kyle is the main character of his movie, not part of the supporting cast. I think that's kind of a big distinction.

MovieBob:
But the swatting at Selma feels puzzlingly nitpicky - the complaints coming down to people demanding to know why a supporting character in the story isn't the star.

You be wrong Bob. Selma all but ignored Ralph David Abernathy, King's right-hand man who stood alongside him every step of the way. Every time King entered the White House Abernathy came with him, except in Selma where King always visited Johnson alone. Not only that, but there's suspicions that Abernathy was left out of Selma (and many of the history books) because in his 1989 autobiography he made a passing reference to King spending the night with another woman before he passed away.

People aren't merely mad at Selma because LBJ was portrayed inaccurately; they are mad because one of King's closest friends and right-hand man had all of his accomplishments completely ignored and overwritten.

BroJing:
Bobs point about relegating LBJs contribution seems a little disingenuous when put up against how much he is opposed to Eastwood sanding off the edges of Chris Kyle.

This, as well.

Surprise, Bob attempted to say something (no doubt profound at least in his mind) and failed.

Dragonlayer:
I haven't seen Selma so I'm not sure how it depicts LBJ but is it fair to say that *if* it has indulged in "mere" narrative simplification, it's an acceptable sacrifice for sake of drama? In any historical work, let alone one as seemingly sensitive as American race relations, the tiniest change for the sake of narrative can turn any figure into a complete bastard and send the wrong message.

I have seen Selma and I can say that it certainly doesn't make LBJ look like a bastard. Everyone knew that LBJ could be a stubborn mule of a man even toward people he liked and supported. No one really knows exactly what was said between King and Johnson during their various meetings. The film sets up early the "conflict" between King and LBJ, where Johnson wanted King's support on the War on Poverty, and didn't believe he had the political capital with the Voting Rights Act and wanted to wait, whereas King wanted to move forward while they wanted momentum. LBJ was famously a 'bastard' to people who didn't want to do things his way, so is the interaction believable? Absolutely? Did they actually happen? Maybe, maybe not.

The real narrative design was to make LBJ somewhat of a "redeemed figure" and example of southern pride without all the racism. Not to try and spoil the ending, but near the ending LBJ "comes to his senses" when he realizes that he might be unintentionally on the same side as George McGovern. Keep in mind that this is the same movie that doesn't actually use any of King's actual words and speeches, the idea of them making up some interactions between King and Johnson shouldn't be considered out in right field. So, Johnson isn't portrayed as anything wildly different from the truth, he was in support of the Civil Rights movement fully along with other progressive initiatives, but the refusal of King to actively support the War on Poverty because he felt Voting Rights was more important bruised his ego a bit, and it took the media firestorm of Selma for him to finally push for Voting Rights.

deathbydeath:
People aren't merely mad at Selma because LBJ was portrayed inaccurately; they are mad because one of King's closest friends and right-hand man had all of his accomplishments completely ignored and overwritten.

I don't know if you've seen the movie, but that seems like a hyperbolic characterization. It doesn't pull the camera away and focus on Abernathy for very long, but all of King's inner circle are seen surrounding him and supporting him and providing important dialogue. It certainly doesn't minimize their contributions, in fact one of the movie's themes is that it took more than just King to get things done. Putting him in the oval office with King might cause movie-making awkwardness, you have to give him lines or he just stands there, and then what lines do you give him? His presence could have been handled better, I think that's fair, but I don't think he was the victim of historical erasing.

Did Bob even watch The Imitation Game? I very much doubt it. The film is very much split into three parts

1) Him coming to terms with his sexuality as young boy whilst at school
2) Him trying to hide it during the war years partially though having a non-sexual relationship and engagement with woman (did happen).
3) The investigation into gross-indecency, conviction, chemical castration and suicide.

The film does not gloss over these fact's but put more to the forefront his world changing work in computers. Let us not forget Turing defined what a computer is and was instrumental into some of the first built. His work made it possible for me to write this and other to write back. His work specifically is also estimated to have shorted WW2 by 2-3 years.

The film doesn't bring his sexuality to the forefront because it is making a big deal about him hiding it whilst doing world-changing work. It's also because it doesn't make a massive deal about him being gay as it's trying to tell that story even more so.

The story of Alan Turing should not be about a gay man who was persecuted.

The story of Alan Turing should of been about a man fundamental in ushering the digital age who happen to be gay. The film is a complete sucker punch when you actually realise what we did to him (if you didn't know already, many don't) and leaves a vile taste in your mouth at the thought we'd do it to a human being especially one so accomplished because he was different.

The film should be applauded and whilst there are a few misteps it clearly didn't hide the fact he was gay (you'd know if you watched it) but clearly for some people unless he spent the entire movie in bed with men not doing anything else it wouldn;t of been good enough. Even if it would of offered absolutely nothing to the film.

Say yeah Bob worst internet movie critic with biggest following.

The biggest problem with the imitation game was that it made turing an almost non-function aspbergs/autistic person, rather than reflecting reality (in that he may have been on the spectrum, but he was on the 'can function talking to people and making jokes end'.

On the gay rights end: I think what people have a problem with is that in relaity Turing was fairly openly gay during the war, or at least regularly propositioned men he liked. It would've been easy to show.

vid87:

Dragonlayer:

I haven't seen Selma so I'm not sure how it depicts LBJ but is it fair to say that *if* it has indulged in "mere" narrative simplification, it's an acceptable sacrifice for sake of drama? In any historical work, let alone one as seemingly sensitive as American race relations, the tiniest change for the sake of narrative can turn any figure into a complete bastard and send the wrong message.

I haven't either but, judging from the descriptions of all three, it sounds like the least egregious change even if it's still technically disrespectful.

The last line quote of the article feels like an (not deliberately intended) oxymoron as the truths being altered usually ARE the good story - it should really read, "Never let the truth get in the way of a safe bet."

I suppose so: I mean the film is only what, 2 hours at most? Not a lot of time even with already complex events and situations condensed for the audience.

Surprise, surprise, Bob's silly superhero movies were completely ignored by the Academy (cheer up Bob, Guardians is up for a couple of FX awards) and, grrr, he doesn't like the Best Picture nominees (while completely ignoring Whiplash, by the way).

Bob, you have your Top 5 or Top 10 every year. You chose your own Best Picture - Guardians, followed by Captain America - and copletely ignored amazingly original movies like Boyhood, Birdman and Whiplash (in favor of the same old tripe Marvel vomits every year). Now it's the Academy's turn to choose the movies it likes, and ignore the ones you do. And you're mad about it.

So mad you wrote an article.

SonOfVoorhees:
The Imitation Game wasnt a film about him being gay or how he got treated because of it. So why would they put that stuff in it? Be the same if the movie was all about how he was treated because he was gay yet left out all his computer achievements.

Turing's unfair treatment is seen as having been swept under the rug, so a lot of people were hoping a high-profile movie starring a famous and well liked actor would be more up-front about it, and they were disappointed that it didn't.

Plus, like Bob said, the studio seems to be trying to win pro-gay brownie points off the movie even though it sidestepped the issue of Turing's sexuality.

I am sorry, but Selma is not transcendent. It is pedestrian.

Remember back when we got two movies about Truman Capote writing In Cold Blood? There was the excellent Capote starring the late Phillip Seymour Hoffman and the still good but not as good Infamous featuring Toby Jones. Capote is clearly the superior film for reasons I can't quite but my finger on. Thinking on it now, I think it's because Infamous bogged itself down with unnecessary details. An example is Capote ended with the killers being taken away to be executed. Infamous showed us the execution, including that it took the first about an hour to die before the other got his chance. That's a nice detail, but it's an unnecessary detail. The writer for Capote left it out because he realized that there was no wait to make waiting for forty five minutes work in film without grinding everything to a halt and that it's not important to the story. What was important was the relationship Capote had developed with these murderers. Writing a story is about choices because it is making a piece of art out of the events of life. You have to decide what to keep to give your story the most resonance and what to leave out so it does not hurt your story and lessen its impact.

Selma was more like Infamous than Capote. It's hard to say where it went wrong because there wasn't another, superior Martin Luther King Jr movie this year to compare. But I suspect it bogs itself down with unnecessary details. Unnecessary details make a story less focused and less satisfying. Oh look. Dr King is taking out the garbage. Just like a real human being would. Oh, and he can't find the bags because he's always away and doesn't know where they are kept in his own kitchen. I get it. But I didn't feel it. It felt like actors on a set in a scene meant to humanize the character in the most ham-fisted way.

But, Selma is a work by a relatively inexperienced director (her IMBD page doesn't have many feature film directing credits) and it is the first time they've made a dramatic movie about MLK. So we have our first MLK movie and it's pretty good. I can't wait until we get our first great one.

K12:
I haven't seen Imitation Game but it's ridiculous that a film about Alan Turing doesn't feature his suicide or the events that drove him to it.

That's like "Lincoln" having no assassination or "Cool Runnings" were the Jamaicans win the gold... that was a weird second example.

The Imitation Game uses a framing device of the police arresting Turing for using a male prostitute, and then at the end there's a brief segment where Turing is revisited by The Woman of the story, drug addled and upset before the final segment says "he died by the way, he was honoured decades later".

It's basically just noting it without any depths, but I think the film was probably better for including those ten to fifteen minutes of the running time.

mrverbal:
The biggest problem with the imitation game was that it made turing[sp] an almost non-function aspbergs[sp]/autistic person, rather than reflecting reality (in that he may have been on the spectrum, but he was on the 'can function talking to people and making jokes end'.

Quite to the contrary, I feel Cumberbatch gave a startlingly accurate portrayal of what it's like to have (what's commonly called) Asperger's. In fact, his portrayal grasped many of the most common issues associated with autism spectrum disorders (ASD), the extremely concrete thinking, the inability to read others, etc. The fact that typical ASD characteristics are laid so naked before the audience may be what makes it seem as though Turing was "almost non-functional," but as a person with Asperger's I can assure you that what was shown in the film is not at all inconsistent with someone who "can function talking to people and making jokes." All things must be dramatized, but I think this perhaps belies a fundamental misunderstanding of autism spectrum disorders. ALL are categorized by the same deficit in Theory of Mind, what typically accounts for major differences is the degree of intelligence inherent in a given person. The spectrum does not range from "has some theory of mind" to "has none," or from "can function well in society" to "is tremendously impaired." The spectrum instead exists because of the wide variety of cognitive capacity within humans in general. One end of the spectrum, thus, is more accurately represented by "is developmentally disabled (i.e. mentally retarded)," while the other is "is a genius." However, both ends of the spectrum are equally characterized by the same deficit in Theory of Mind.

K12:
I haven't seen Imitation Game but it's ridiculous that a film about Alan Turing doesn't feature his suicide or the events that drove him to it.

That's like "Lincoln" having no assassination or "Cool Runnings" were the Jamaicans win the gold... that was a weird second example.

Perhaps it might behoove one to watch a film before making so brash an accusation. See:

Ralancian:
The film is very much split into three parts

1) Him coming to terms with his sexuality as young boy whilst at school
2) Him trying to hide it during the war years partially though having a non-sexual relationship and engagement with woman (did happen).
3) The investigation into gross-indecency, conviction, chemical castration and suicide.

The film does not gloss over these fact's but put more to the forefront his world changing work in computers. Let us not forget Turing defined what a computer is and was instrumental into some of the first built. His work made it possible for me to write this and other to write back. His work specifically is also estimated to have shorted WW2 by 2-3 years.

The film doesn't bring his sexuality to the forefront because it is making a big deal about him hiding it whilst doing world-changing work. It's also because it doesn't make a massive deal about him being gay as it's trying to tell that story even more so.

The story of Alan Turing should not be about a gay man who was persecuted.

The story of Alan Turing should of been about a man fundamental in ushering the digital age who happen to be gay. The film is a complete sucker punch when you actually realise what we did to him (if you didn't know already, many don't) and leaves a vile taste in your mouth at the thought we'd do it to a human being especially one so accomplished because he was different.

The film should be applauded and whilst there are a few misteps it clearly didn't hide the fact he was gay...

a

God of Path:

K12:
I haven't seen Imitation Game but it's ridiculous that a film about Alan Turing doesn't feature his suicide or the events that drove him to it.

That's like "Lincoln" having no assassination or "Cool Runnings" were the Jamaicans win the gold... that was a weird second example.

Perhaps it might behoove one to watch a film before making so brash an accusation. See:

Ralancian:
The film is very much split into three parts

1) Him coming to terms with his sexuality as young boy whilst at school
2) Him trying to hide it during the war years partially though having a non-sexual relationship and engagement with woman (did happen).
3) The investigation into gross-indecency, conviction, chemical castration and suicide.

The film does not gloss over these fact's but put more to the forefront his world changing work in computers. Let us not forget Turing defined what a computer is and was instrumental into some of the first built. His work made it possible for me to write this and other to write back. His work specifically is also estimated to have shorted WW2 by 2-3 years.

The film doesn't bring his sexuality to the forefront because it is making a big deal about him hiding it whilst doing world-changing work. It's also because it doesn't make a massive deal about him being gay as it's trying to tell that story even more so.

The story of Alan Turing should not be about a gay man who was persecuted.

The story of Alan Turing should of been about a man fundamental in ushering the digital age who happen to be gay. The film is a complete sucker punch when you actually realise what we did to him (if you didn't know already, many don't) and leaves a vile taste in your mouth at the thought we'd do it to a human being especially one so accomplished because he was different.

The film should be applauded and whilst there are a few misteps it clearly didn't hide the fact he was gay...

I wasn't under the impression that the film completely hid his sexuality (I would probably refuse to see it at all if I did think that) but just that it didn't show his suicide or what caused it.

I'm glad that it does have some of persecution he suffered in the story but I still think it's weird that it doesn't have a scene with him killing himself.

I completely disagree that Alan Turing's story shouldn't be about a persecuted gay man. His persecution and suicide is such a fundamental part about the story of his life that I think it should be a significant focus of the story, not the main focus or only focus but a big part of it none the less.

I haven't seen it so I can't say if and how much I feel it missteps here but not having his suicide in it is a bad sign. I can't think of a single good reason either narratively or historically to not include his suicide.

K12:

I wasn't under the impression that the film completely hid his sexuality (I would probably refuse to see it at all if I did think that) but just that it didn't show his suicide or what caused it.

I'm glad that it does have some of persecution he suffered in the story but I still think it's weird that it doesn't have a scene with him killing himself.

I completely disagree that Alan Turing's story shouldn't be about a persecuted gay man. His persecution and suicide is such a fundamental part about the story of his life that I think it should be a significant focus of the story, not the main focus or only focus but a big part of it none the less.

I haven't seen it so I can't say if and how much I feel it missteps here but not having his suicide in it is a bad sign. I can't think of a single good reason either narratively or historically to not include his suicide.

Very nice reply! Having seen the film, all I can add is that I thought the film covered Turing's persecution for being homosexual (and subsequent likely suicide) enough that it had a lasting impact, though it is completely true that film could have been more explicit in showing these things on screen. For what it matters, it did feel like a sucker punch when the film showed how distraught Turing was while taking his court-ordered hormone 'therapy,' and it is notable that this is effectively the note upon which the film concludes.

SonOfVoorhees:
The Imitation Game wasnt a film about him being gay or how he got treated because of it. So why would they put that stuff in it? Be the same if the movie was all about how he was treated because he was gay yet left out all his computer achievements.

While being gay certainly isn't the bulk of someone's personality and lifestyle (unless the individual makes it that way), being persecuted for being a homosexual then being chemically castrated and then killing yourself because of it is kinda integral to his story. I mean, what the fuck? You make a 'biopic' about someone (a practice I find abhorrent from the word go without the person's explicit consent) and then you just gloss over it? Fuck that. It's a limp dick thing to do.

The film was (presumably) about his life, his suicide and what arguably drove him to that suicide isn't a fact you sweep under the rug.

Of the movies mentioned I've only seen the imitation game. I found the controversy surrounding it to be surprising because I had the exact opposite impression of the film. It seemed to me like Turing's homosexuality took center stage while the invention of one of the earliest if not THE earliest computer, possibly the most important, paradigm shifting technological advancement in recent human history, seemed to be swept under the rug. The whole movie was framed around his arrest for using a male prostitute, most of the drama during the war portion of the film seemed to be Turing hiding the fact that he was homosexual, and the childhood portion completely revolved around Turing developing his first homosexual love. The text dump at the end of the movie gave the history of homosexual persecution in the UK, several statistics on that, and heavily suggested Turing's suicide was the caused by the resulting hormone treatment and then spent only one or two lines going "by the way the thing he made was a computer but whatever." I liked the movie overall but was a bit annoyed that it seemed too concerned with scoring "progressive points" by focusing so much on Turing's homosexuality and the fact a woman was involved in the project. It was quite a shock to hear the cries of "not gay enough" become the seemingly dominate criticism of the movie.

Johnny Novgorod:
Surprise, surprise, Bob's silly superhero movies were completely ignored by the Academy (cheer up Bob, Guardians is up for a couple of FX awards) and, grrr, he doesn't like the Best Picture nominees (while completely ignoring Whiplash, by the way).

Bob, you have your Top 5 or Top 10 every year. You chose your own Best Picture - Guardians, followed by Captain America - and copletely ignored amazingly original movies like Boyhood, Birdman and Whiplash (in favor of the same old tripe Marvel vomits every year). Now it's the Academy's turn to choose the movies it likes, and ignore the ones you do. And you're mad about it.

So mad you wrote an article.

Gotta agree with you here.

I haven't seen any of those nominees so I can't speak of their quality but I think its silly for bob to have wrote this article when its basically whining that not everyone who shares the same opinion as him is stupid and has their priorities wrong.

Those movies almost certainly have problems but I'm not super inclined to believe moviebob when every best of list reserves every marvel movie by default. Its just as predictable as the oscars.

May or may not have spent my time on thus thread thinking:
"Hmmm LBJ... I'm pretty sure it isn't Lebron James... ... ...oh Lyndon B Johnson... That makes more sense"

Ralancian:
Did Bob even watch The Imitation Game? I very much doubt it. The film is very much split into three parts

1) Him coming to terms with his sexuality as young boy whilst at school
2) Him trying to hide it during the war years partially though having a non-sexual relationship and engagement with woman (did happen).
3) The investigation into gross-indecency, conviction, chemical castration and suicide.

The film does not gloss over these fact's but put more to the forefront his world changing work in computers. Let us not forget Turing defined what a computer is and was instrumental into some of the first built. His work made it possible for me to write this and other to write back. His work specifically is also estimated to have shorted WW2 by 2-3 years.

The film doesn't bring his sexuality to the forefront because it is making a big deal about him hiding it whilst doing world-changing work. It's also because it doesn't make a massive deal about him being gay as it's trying to tell that story even more so.

The story of Alan Turing should not be about a gay man who was persecuted.

The story of Alan Turing should of been about a man fundamental in ushering the digital age who happen to be gay. The film is a complete sucker punch when you actually realise what we did to him (if you didn't know already, many don't) and leaves a vile taste in your mouth at the thought we'd do it to a human being especially one so accomplished because he was different.

The film should be applauded and whilst there are a few misteps it clearly didn't hide the fact he was gay (you'd know if you watched it) but clearly for some people unless he spent the entire movie in bed with men not doing anything else it wouldn;t of been good enough. Even if it would of offered absolutely nothing to the film.

Say yeah Bob worst internet movie critic with biggest following.

Except the 2nd and 3rd part was mostly non-existent.

He was not shown marring a woman to hide his sexuality but to keep her in the project. That is their motivation and him being gay was put as an "inconvenience" after months of her not realizing it, the real reason for their break up was that he lied to her and told her he only cared about her for her cryptographer skills.

Also, the investigation and the police subplot was not about gross-indecency, only the conviction was. The police officer was just curious about Turing not wanting to be investigated and why his serving files were top secret. He was suspected of being a spy when they discovered he was gay by an offscreen confession. The whole plot of being chemically castrated and pushed to his breaking point is covered in the last 5 minutes (I just saw it), and mostly portrait as the tragedy of a mentally unstable man forcing himself to go on because he didn't wanted to resign to his life work (he even says the reason he choose drugs over a couple years of jail was because he wanted to continue working on his machine).

I think Turing being pushed to suicide by the British government over the charge of "indecency" and then refusing to grant him a pardon posthumously until a few years ago over the charge of being gay, even when he was one of the greatest minds of his time and a war hero, is one of the greatest tragedies of his life. Far more interesting than him having a hard time convincing his colleagues and superiors of the potential of his turing machine. It is like making a Lincoln biopic and not put some focus on the civil war, a Churchill biopic were Wold War 2 was barely mentioned, or a Caesar movie were they don't even show him turn into Emperor.

However, this movie would not be considered something worst than a disappointing "played too safe" biopic if it wasn't because now, on awards season, they are trying to push their marketing by making it sound like the movie was a civil rights banner movie when it clearly wasn't.

 Pages 1 2 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here