The Imitation Game – Thoughts

By | | , , , , , ,
Benedict Cumberbatch in The Imitation Game Photograph: Allstar/Black Bear Pictures/Sportsphoto Ltd.

(Photograph: Allstar/Black Bear Pictures/Sportsphoto Ltd.)

Since this time I don’t think I’ll be getting the call from the folks at Screen Junkies to talk about this one, I’ll do a quick post on my thoughts while they are still fresh. (There are no real spoilers in what follows, but if like me you like to know as little as possible about a film before going to see it, forming your own opinion before having to see the film filtered through those of others, do wait until you’ve seen it before reading beyond the second paragraph.)

I enjoyed the film very much. As a piece of human drama, it was a great story to tell, and frankly it does fill me with dismay that few people seem to know the story, so I am glad it is getting mainstream attention. It was done extremely well, in terms of standard things like all the acting performances (more or less), photography, and the overall tone of the direction. Given the subject matter – its social and historical importance – this was a beyond the ordinary human drama well told. I enjoyed it.

But. BUT…

But it missed an opportunity to not just be “beyond the ordinary” but truly exceptional and ground breaking. All we needed was about 5 or so minutes of extra screen time to achieve this. I’m talking about the ironic fact that Interstellar, which is I remind you a science fiction film (which many scientists have panned for the apparent crime of daring to mix their favourite scientific concepts with emotional drama) did a better job than The Imitation Game (a film with emotional drama with a true scientific story that is sky to the story at its core) in portraying a spectrum of non-cliched scientist characters and also trusting its audience and slightly unpacking some of the core ideas. I’ve no problem with a portrayal of Turing’s characteristics in the chosen way, if that is how he was (and even if they exaggerated it a bit for dramatic effect – I didn’t know the guy, so can’t comment), but we never actually see any of the other mathematicians (who are also top of their game!) do anything at all that shows what a mathematician really does (I’m sorry, but crossword puzzles are a good analogy, but really not enough), so an opportunity was missed to show that not all scientists are the usual socially maladjusted types that people see in movies. (They have a spectrum of characteristics -and even genders- but because we don’t see them really do any science, it does not really help with that perennial portrayal issue.) [Update 4th Jan ’15: And yes, there are several factual things that were mangled a lot for dramatic effect, and I mostly don’t mind – one hopes that film-goers notice that this is not documentary, and as such don’t use it as a primary source, but instead a springboard to learn more…. but there are one or two that really mis-represent his character to the core, like the blackmail thing, and that’s an unfortunate step too far.]

My biggest gripe was that the screenplay, an excellent piece of work in so many respects, does not even try to explain how Turing’s machine works. Even slightly. It might as well have been a magical box he made using his Wizardly ways, and no Muggle (whether in the film or in the audience) can possibly understand it. There was a perfect opportunity to do so – we never ever see Turing explain to his colleagues what he is doing and what his machine does! That was the opportunity, and we would also have seen a nice example of how scientists communicate with each other, and maybe how they actually think (which I happen to believe is accessible to all, and not a special group of savants).

After resenting him for the first part of the film, his colleagues are magically converted to his cause by (it would appear) one of: (1) gifts of apples and a brilliantly awkwardly told joke or (2) gratitude for him introducing them to a pretty woman (also a mathematician) (3) despair that nothing else is working. It would have been stronger writing and more convincing for us to have seen him explain how the machine works and see them change their minds for reasons that real scientists would have changed their minds: the power of the argument itself. On the other hand, to the credit of the screenwriters, they did get across the sense of why the machine was necessary, and (kind of) what it was doing… It is the how that they missed out on in big way… and the unique opportunity to show how mathematicians and scientists work and think when you have an audience sitting there all primed and ready to go since they really understand the stakes (which were also explained very well).

That all being said, I still think it was a really good film as a piece of entertainment, and well worth seeing. I just wish it had broken new ground in the science part of the storytelling. It would have not have taken much. To my scientist colleagues and to science fans, let me repeat what I said about Interstellar: Yes, it is easy to find things to pick apart, but let’s be careful not to condemn a whole effort because it might have not done a perfect job). Overall isn’t it wonderful to see a cluster of high profile films out there (in several genres) that are exposing broad audiences to scientific ideas, and showing how they can play a central role in human drama? Let’s support those efforts (even the flawed ones), and so encourage filmmakers (and those who fund filmmaking) to do more of this And so let’s encourage audiences to go and see them!

-cvj

Bookmark the permalink.

28 Responses to The Imitation Game – Thoughts

  1. Pingback: Pre-Oscar Bash: Hurrah for Science at the Movies? - Asymptotia

  2. Philip Shane says:
    February 21, 2015 at 7:26 am

    Agreed on all counts.

  3. David Newhoff says:
    January 20, 2015 at 8:03 am

    Truth be told, Clifford, I have bigger problems with this film than I think you do. This is exactly the kind of biopic I want to see made in the world, but the market will only have use for one Alan Turing movie, so I want it to be brilliant. I wanted to love this film instead of liking it. What you say about the other mathematicians and about the bit of thinking behind the machine that might have been revealed is symptomatic I think of a general failure to decide what this film was about. It’s a bit of war, a bit of human drama, a bit of gay rights, but it was the filmic equivalent of what actors call “indicating.” As such, it becomes an exceptionally well done dramatization but one that fails, in my opinion, to achieve any real intimacy. I’ll spare you my opus on these matters, but I think a real opportunity was lost to do something brilliant rather than just good.

  4. Clifford says:
    January 20, 2015 at 7:31 am

    Hi David,

    Thanks for the thoughts too. Sometimes it is all the more frustrating overall when a film comes so close to doing a good job in this regard and then falls short of the mark for want of what seems like just a tiny bit of extra effort compared to what they’ve already invested in… Sigh. When it is a big noisy blockbuster explosion-fest with pretty much everything wrong, but 100 times more expensive, I can’t bring myself to care as much.

    Cheers,

    -cvj

  5. David Newhoff says:
    January 19, 2015 at 8:59 am

    Oops. I left out “machine would not work” in that comment. Very sorry.

  6. David Newhoff says:
    January 19, 2015 at 8:57 am

    I finally got around to see this yesterday, while I also liked many things about it, I have some criticisms including the one you mention about the “how” of Turing’s machine. We already know, because it is standard screenplay structure, that there will be a period during the first half of Act II when the machine; and we could well expect that some minor character would say something that would provide our hero with the catalytic afflatus writ large on his agape jaw. Cut to dramatic sequence, everybody running, problem solved! But you’re exactly right that this perfectly valid narrative structure is less interesting because we the audience were not quite clued into how Turing expected the machine to work, which then sets us up for the dramatic tweak needed for success. Absent those details, we are less drawn into this world rather than merely riding along a familiar path common to many movies. Thanks for your insights, Clifford.

  7. Pingback: Shtetl-Optimized » Blog Archive » The Turing movie