Historical Blindness?

[Silvanus]

I don't know how the film is weighted, because I haven't seen it.

It would be a shame if the filmmakers excluded that aspect of his life, though. It was a pretty significant element of his story. There's no reason its inclusion would have to eclipse his codebreaking or any other aspect of his life.

 

[Callate]

It's hard not to feel the sniping about "Imitation Game" is unfair. The film hardly dodges the matter of Turing's homosexuality; it plays an enormous role in the depictions of his childhood, his ostracisim, and his friendship with another boy at his school, and the depiction of what the chemical castration has done to Turing in the end is horrifying. More to the point, Turing wasn't just a homosexual; he was a homosexual in hiding in a time when being openly gay was, as noted, a criminal offense. Trying to paint a picture of Turing as more "obviously" gay would have been inaccurate, and had to draw upon anecdotes of the man acting that way among his colleagues that didn't exist.

 

[Uncle Comrade]

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".

I agree with you there. I went to see the film expecting it to be the story of Alan Turing building a computer and cracking the Enigma code, and in that respect I was not disappointed. I was glad they mentioned his conviction and suicide, as to have ignored it would've been disrespectful, but that wasn't the aspect of his life I was most interested in watching.

For the producers to then turn around and claim the film was the story of a gay man's struggle against the forces of oppression... yeah, that's just not true.

 

[Fox12]

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

Cost a damn lot of money, though...

Kind of like the Iraq war.

Also, Bob seems particularly bitter about this line up. I suppose I agree, for different reasons. I know Bob would give every single Oscar to Marvel, if they let him, for their amazing work on [superhero movie]: another one. Personally, my panties are in a twist over interstellar. The lukewarm reaction to that film floored me. I haven't seen Selma yet, but outside of that I haven't seen anything that could hold a candle to it. It deserved way more recognition then it got. I guess we'll both have to be disapointed this year.

 

[Swarles]

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.

Was just about to talk about this. Bob just hates movies that the "critics" like. I mean I can understand why he hated Birdman because it was a total takedown of the superhero genre as well as a bit of slap in the face to film critics as well. It's still unwarranted because that film is one of the most fiercely original of the year just from direction alone and it was a hell of a lot more original than Captain America, Guardians, or Thor 2 from last year (That he somehow liked even though it was one of the most boring films of 2013).

Bob has already said he dislikes Boyhood, again just because "critics" like it, and now he calls it simply a gimmick film which is one of the most reductive criticisms I've seen of any film. Simply bringing down Boyhood to it being filmed over 12 years (Like bringing down Birdman to just it being all styled to look like one shot) ignores all of the important themes being discussed using the film and it further shows that Bob doesn't really know anything about film.

And basically completely ignoring Whiplash as nothing but an actor's showcase is bullshit and makes me think he hasn't even seen the film. A fantastic screenplay with great cinematography and directing, I really feel like Bob didn't give a shit when talking about the film at all.

Also I just want to point out that Bob seems to think that "Directed By Wes Anderson" is a lock for a Best Picture nomination and that's complete bullshit. Before Grand Budapest there was not a single Wes Anderson film ever nominated for Best Picture at the Academy Awards, and I believe that the only Oscars Wes has ever been nominated for have been screenplay nominations.

 

[Ralancian]

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.

Okay I've cut out the rest of your post because they were fair points well made and I hate back and fourth's of particular details of each other posts.

However there is a point here Oscar's season and marketing the film came out in UK back in November and was never marketed at the time as civil rights banner movie, sure mentioning that it's about he way gay in interviews and stuff but all the trailers mainly consisted of the building of BOMBE and the importance of Turin's work. This led to some people saying they were cutting out he was gay altogether (clearly and utterly untrue if anyone's seen the movie).

Now they've gone into Oscar season and they need to distinguish it from another film about an equally brilliant but much more well known British-scientist. Probably easier to distinguish it with the gay angle than anything else. Still it's not how it was marketed to me or anyone else.


On a slightly tangential point my argument with people in the UK has long been as I work in the communications interception and computer science industries I pretty much owe my entire livelyhood to Turing's work. Why when a gay man gave me ability to do what I do should he have any less rights than me? How can I say his love is any different to my love for my wife? What we did to him although abhorrent very rarely enters the argument. Surely there's argument that saying this man was utterly brilliant and should have been treated the same regardless of the fact he was different (clearly a message of the movie) is making civil rights movie to some extent? Like I say I've not seen any marketing trying to make it a civil rights movie.

 

[Rellik San]

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.

Okay I've cut out the rest of your post because they were fair points well made and I hate back and fourth's of particular details of each other posts.

However there is a point here Oscar's season and marketing the film came out in UK back in November and was never marketed at the time as civil rights banner movie, sure mentioning that it's about he way gay in interviews and stuff but all the trailers mainly consisted of the building of BOMBE and the importance of Turin's work. This led to some people saying they were cutting out he was gay altogether (clearly and utterly untrue if anyone's seen the movie).

Now they've gone into Oscar season and they need to distinguish it from another film about an equally brilliant but much more well known British-scientist. Probably easier to distinguish it with the gay angle than anything else. Still it's not how it was marketed to me or anyone else.

EDITED FOR BEREVITY:

Here's the British attitude in modern times: "Oh hey, this great man did some great work, too bad the government treated him like shit."

You may notice that there is no mention of his sexuality in that... and that'd because of the prevailing attitude in Britain: "That dudes gay!" "Is he? Good for him... now fuck off I got shit to be getting on with." It's a British adaptation or a British Book about a British Man, and for Britain, the fact he was gay doesn't matter to us. The fact the Government of the time treated him like that does... but the reasoning isn't important, only the action.

Basically Bob... in his infinite wisdom here... just ignored important cultural context.

For the producers to then turn around and claim the film was the story of a gay man's struggle against the forces of oppression... yeah, that's just not true.

To be fair to the films producers, that's probably more to do with the marketing firm dealing with it in the US.

 

[Ralancian]

You may notice that there is no mention of his sexuality in that... and that'd because of the prevailing attitude in Britain: "That dudes gay!" "Is he? Good for him... now fuck off I got shit to be getting on with." It's a British adaptation or a British Book about a British Man, and for Britain, the fact he was gay doesn't matter to us. The fact the Government of the time treated him like that does... but the reasoning isn't important, only the action.

This a very good point my grandparents don't understand at all how a man can love another man and marry but they live with that fact it doesn't effect them so why cause a fuss?

My parents have always found the idea of gay people with bemused befuddlement with even a childlike sillyness to it at times. But overall they see no problem with it.

People from my generation usually have at least one friend who is LGBT so very much have attitude of so what but trying to make sure they have exactly the same rights of us.

Of course I come from a very liberal background/area I'm sure it's different in other parts of the country.

 

[Ralancian]

Basically Bob... in his infinite wisdom here... just ignored important cultural context.

Ah but Bob is a master of other cultures and the context it is to them. Who could forget him saying that The World's End was about the EU when almost exactly zero British people in the comments read it that way? As clearly he'd never been to a 'spoons before.

Sorry for double post not sure if it's allowed on this forum.