The Imitation Game

Dir: Morten Tyldum

2014

**

Morten Tyldum's hugely successful 2014 hit; The Imitation Game, is the story of Alan Turing, the inventor of the computer and a key player in the victory of the second world war. This film is 'loosely' based on his life story. This is where the film looses me somewhat. Alan Turing, a fascinating character who achieved something hugely important in his short life and who was treated appallingly my the British government of which he served, deserves utmost respect and dignity. Indeed, the film's intention seems to be to act as the antidote to the vilification Turing received soon after the War when he was arrested and charged for Homosexuality (something that was illegal at the time) and for him to be finally recognised for his achievements, most notably, being an integral part of the end of World War II, but it doesn't really do this truthfully. Graham Moore's grossly over-hyped script paints Turing as an eternal victim. He really wasn't. Those that knew Turing, colleagues and friends, have described a different man over the years and those still alive who knew those depicted in the film have since come forward to protest the films historical inaccuracies. Turing didn't suffer from Asperger syndrome, he was very sociable and had a good sense of humour. Turing didn't name the first computer after his childhood friend Christopher, it was actually named Victory. Other members of the code breaking team have also been misrepresented in this way, Joan Clarke was not recruited after solving a crossword puzzle, Peter Hilton didn't have a Brother on a ship that the team failed to save and Turing never even met the spy John Cairncross. When challenged on this, Moore responded that; "When you use the language of "fact checking" to talk about a film, I think you're sort of fundamentally misunderstanding how art works. You don't fact check Monet's Water Lilies. That's not what water lilies look like, that's what the sensation of experiencing water lilies feel like. That's the goal of the piece". This bothers me quite a bit. Fact is not abstract. Creative licence is okay in certain circumstances but not when they approach slander. I understand that the film is about a hero being stripped of his dignity due to hate and ignorance, sadly this is still an important issue, and it is right that it gets the coverage Turing and the other 49,000 homosexuals arrested deserve, but Turing's achievements and who he was shouldn't be distorted in the process. The true story is strong enough as it is, to over emphasise and fictionalise an important historical event will never help a cause as it is untrustworthy. You cannot rewrite history for the sake of 'Art', especially in an instance such as this. Moore states that Turing has been a hero of his since he was 16 so I'm sure he knows the facts. The fact is, that Turing was not in a state of deterioration before he died, far from it, he actually had many ideas in mind and projects in hand and had filed many patents days before his death. Many of his friends said he was in a cheerful mood and he had finished his course of Chemical castration a whole year before he was found dead. His death is highly suspicious, he was known to be careless when storing laboratory chemicals and many friends spoke of his then project (Electroplating) whereby the use of cyanide was prevalent. This is touched on early on in the film but suicide (the actual verdict of his death) feels forcefully pushed for greater effect. The whole film feels overcooked in this way. It's not clever, it's typical Hollywood rewriting history for emotional manipulation so it will win awards and make lots of money. The overall film is acted well and directed beautifully but has little integrity. I find Moore's comparison with Monet's Water Lilies to be quite obstinate and arrogant, although strangely accurate. I wonder if he realises Monet suffered from Cataracts when he painted them?