Historical Blindness?

[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.

 

[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.

 

[Grace_Omega]

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.

 

[Deacon Cole]

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.

 

[Evonisia]

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.

 

[God of Path]

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.

 

[God of Path]

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:

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...

 

[Zombie Badger]

a

 

[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:

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.

 

[God of Path]

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.

 

[DerangedHobo]

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.

 

[Silent Protagonist]

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.

 

[Dark Knifer]

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.

 

[AwesomeHatMan]

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"

 

[hermes]

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.

 

[hermes]

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 now that they saw that "tragedy of being gay" gives them a better chance to winning the Oscars than "tragedy of being the inventor of computers", that is exactly what they are trying to make it...

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/02/03/the-imitation-game-s-big-gay-lie.html

 

[Wulfram77]

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

"Nothing of Importance happened today" - King George III

That's a myth. Probably based Louis XVI's writing "Rien" in his hunting log that is sometimes misleadingly referred to as a diary on the day of the storming of the Bastille

 

[Uncle Comrade]

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.

So you think the film should've been; "Alan Turing was a gay man in a time when that was illegal and was treated horribly because of it. Oh, and he also built a machine that cracked the German codes, drastically shortening the war and paving the way for the development of computer technology as we know it, but that's not important to our story"?

Don't get me wrong, the persecution he suffered was a horrific injustice, but I don't think it should be the sole focus. I strongly suspect Turing himself would rather be remembered for his work in the fields of mathematics, cryptography and computer science than as a tragic victim of prejudice.

 

[hermes]

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.

So you think the film should've been; "Alan Turing was a gay man in a time when that was illegal and was treated horribly because of it. Oh, and he also built a machine that cracked the German codes, drastically shortening the war and paving the way for the development of computer technology as we know it, but that's not important to our story"?

Don't get me wrong, the persecution he suffered was a horrific injustice, but I don't think it should be the sole focus. I strongly suspect Turing himself would rather be remembered for his work in the fields of mathematics, cryptography and computer science than as a tragic victim of prejudice.

I would rather it had its fair share of both issues. I think his life work was important, but if they just focus on it (and leave his most controversial side out), it wouldn't be a biopic, it would be a movie about the GS&CS.

The movie is over 2 hours long, I think it is a naivete to believe it has to be about ONE thing, much like thinking his life was all about this ONE thing. Look at "The Theory of Everything"... despite putting a lot of focus into Hawking's work and family life, they never squinted at showing the process of his condition.

But regardless of that, I would much rather have the producers be a lot less hypocrite about their work. I have been familiar with Turing's life long before it was a Cumberbatch movie; and the movie portrait, while entertaining, was as safe as those biopics get. If they consciously avoided some aspects of Turing's life to focus on matters they thought were less controversial but more important, now they don't get to call those "important" to get the support of a minority during awards seasons. I am not asking his persecution and homosexuality to be the sole focus of the movie, but I don't think the producers get to make it a sidenote and then sell it as if it was the main focus of "their story".

 

[beastro]

or a Caesar movie were they don't even show him turn into Emperor.

Umm, what?

He was only Dictator.

Maybe you're thinking of Augustus...