The Imitation Game movie review: decoding Alan Turing

Get new reviews via email or app by becoming a paid Substack subscriber or paid Patreon patron.

The Imitation Game green light

A marvelous combination of thrilling intellectual adventure and sensitive portrait of a man ahead of his time both personally and professionally.
I’m “biast” (pro): love Benedict Cumberbatch, fascinated by Alan Turing

I’m “biast” (con): nothing

I have not read the source material

(what is this about? see my critic’s minifesto)

Here’s the thing about Alan Turing. It’s a pretty huge thing. He basically won World War II by breaking unbreakable German communication codes that allowed the Allies to eavesdrop on everything the Nazis were saying. (Winston Churchill himself said that Turing’s was the greatest single contribution to the war effort.) He shortened the war by several years and saved probably millions of lives in Europe, on both sides. For all practical purposes, he invented the computer. (Not to dismiss all the many people who contributed to the development of computing, but he, at least, built and programmed the first digital computer and made it do something really, really important: break that supposedly unbreakable code.) Turing, perhaps more than any other individual, is responsible, along multiple vectors, for the way the world is today.

And as thanks for all that, the British government treated him like shit. Because he was gay.

*blood pressure rising*

To say that The Imitation Game is a fury-inducing experience is an understatement. Oh, the film, as a film, is marvelous, a combination of thrilling intellectual adventure and a sensitive and wholly engaging portrait of a man ahead of his time both personally and professionally. It’s the hypocrisy and the bigotry and the shortsightedness that the film depicts that is infuriating. And what the film implies is even more enraging.

If you didn’t know that Turing was gay, it’s not a spoiler for me to reveal this to you now. (Though why something so basic and fundamental to a person’s identity might be considered spoileriffic is part of our ongoing cultural homophobia that we haven’t quite gotten over yet even today. As is the fact that this information about Turing, and that the film is entirely sympathetic to him, might turn off some potential audiences.) The film opens in the early 1950s, when Turing (Benedict Cumberbatch: The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug, The Fifth Estate) is being interrogated by a policeman (Rory Kinnear: Cuban Fury, Skyfall) after an arrest for “indecency.” The reason for the interrogation goes a bit beyond merely something Turing had done with his naughty bits, and ends up requiring that he tell the cop what he did during the war. What he really did, which remained an official secret until into the 1970s; some of his work has only been declassified in the 21st century.

And so the bulk of the film consists of flashbacks to Turing’s tenure at Bletchley Park, the U.K. codebreaking facility during WWII, where he clashed with almost all the other men he was assigned to work with. Pretty much the only colleague he does get along with initially is Joan Clarke (Keira Knightley: Laggies, Jack Ryan: Shadow Recruit), and likely because they are the odd people out. Turing’s homosexuality was a secret, but he was quite obviously what we today would deem Asperger’s with a side of OCD, but even his odd behavior might have been cope-able if he weren’t also so damn outspoken with his arrogant superiority. (There’s a lot of Sherlock in Cumberbatch’s Turing, and obviously the actor is very good at being simultaneously somehow both charming and exasperating. But it will be nice to see him play a different sort of character eventually.) And Joan was, well, a woman, and lady mathematicians and cryptographers were simply not a thing (even though, clearly, they were).

There’s a bit of flashbacky stuff, too, to teenaged Turing’s (Alex Lawther) school relationship with a fellow student (Jack Bannon: Fury) that was plainly emotionally passionate if physically chaste. But mostly this is all about one of the most brainily exciting things maybe ever: cracking the German Enigma code machine. Director Morten Tyldum (Headhunters) finds a lot of genuine suspense and more than a bit of wit in guys (and gal) scribbling on paper and arguing about puzzles, and in Turing futzing with his machine — it’s not yet called a computer — with all its fiddly knobs and dials. Seriously, the hair on my arms stood up in the scene which all those whirling dials stopped amidst their calculations, indicating that it had — maybe — broken the code.

Turing explains to the cop about his “imitation game” — what we call today the Turing Test, which is about whether a computer can convince you it’s a human being and not merely programmed to ape one — implying that maybe Turing himself might be mistaken for a computer. And of course this is based on a book the title of which implies that Turing was the actual enigma. But he isn’t. He was brilliant, he was complicated, he was a pain in the ass, but he was completely recognizably human, and there’s nothing in this film — hooray! — that suggests otherwise. Which ties in beautifully with the key realization that helps Turing and his team in their codebreaking: it has to do with how the Germans who are creating their messages for encoding are human beings, too, with their own irrational habits and arrogances. (And that was a moment, when Turing is struck by the human thing that will enable them to break the code, of electrified arm hair, too.)

What I’m saying is this: The Imitation Game is like a historical science fiction movie — it certainly would have seemed like science fiction to anyone at the time, even though it was true — that never forgets that it is people, with all their flaws and quirks and stubborn humanity, who are doing the science.

But that isn’t always a good thing.

So, back to the film’s unspoken implication. How Turing was punished in the 1950s for his “indecency” resulted in his work being cut short, when he was still a young man. Even if we want to have no sympathy whatsoever for Turing and his personal life (though I have no sympathy for anyone who feels that way), it’s easy to see, from a selfish perspective, that we cannot even calculate what we lost as a society when we decided that the likes of Alan Turing were “indecent,” and that his work was not worth nurturing. Would we have had desktop computers in the 60s and AI in the 80s and some other wonder only he could have conceived of today? We’ll never know. And we should be ashamed of that.


See also my #WhereAreTheWomen rating of The Imitation Game for its representation of girls and women.

share and enjoy
             
If you’re tempted to post a comment that resembles anything on the film review comment bingo card, please reconsider.
If you haven’t commented here before, your first comment will be held for MaryAnn’s approval. This is an anti-spam, anti-troll, anti-abuse measure. If your comment is not spam, trollish, or abusive, it will be approved, and all your future comments will post immediately. (Further comments may still be deleted if spammy, trollish, or abusive, and continued such behavior will get your account deleted and banned.)
If you’re logged in here to comment via Facebook and you’re having problems, please see this post.
PLEASE NOTE: The many many Disqus comments that were missing have mostly been restored! I continue to work with Disqus to resolve the lingering issues and will update you asap.
subscribe
notify of
35 Comments
oldest
newest most voted
Inline Feedbacks
view all comments
Kathy_A
Kathy_A
Wed, Nov 12, 2014 9:40pm

Have you seen Cumberbatch playing the young Stephen Hawking? I saw it on the Science Channel (it’s also on YouTube), and he was just excellent in the role. It’s another brainy-and-knows-it role, but he’s also soooo vulnerable as well.

MaryAnn Johanson
reply to  Kathy_A
Wed, Nov 12, 2014 11:12pm

No, I need to see that.

Ed
Ed
Wed, Nov 12, 2014 10:00pm

I don’t think it’s right to say Turing was persecuted by the British government. I don’t think you can blame the police or the courts either.
No, the blame must lie with the parliament which passed the unjust law that he broke – and so ultimately with the electorate. Because I have little doubt that the majority of the population at the time supported that law and would have voted for it given the chance.

This does make me wonder if there are laws or policies which currently enjoy widespread support which people will look back upon with horror and disgust 50 years from now.

MaryAnn Johanson
reply to  Ed
Wed, Nov 12, 2014 11:12pm

I’m sure there are.

Dr. Rocketscience
Dr. Rocketscience
reply to  Ed
Thu, Nov 13, 2014 4:43pm

so ultimately with the electorate.

I am often exasperated at how many people living in modern democracies want to blame “the Governement”, as if it were some mysterious, uncontrollable other, and not a direct reflection of the entire population.

This does make me wonder if there are laws or policies which currently enjoy widespread support which people will look back upon with horror and disgust 50 years from now.

It’s not a question of “if”. It’s a question of “which ones”.

MaryAnn Johanson
reply to  Dr. Rocketscience
Thu, Nov 13, 2014 10:45pm

Well, the government is (supposedly) charged with carrying out the will of the electorate, but we see how often it does not do that. It often picks and choses whom it will punish and which crimes (or in this case, “crime”) it will overlook. It wouldn’t have been fair to all the other poor saps who were charged under “indecency” laws, but someone could have stepped in and ensured that Turing was not punished as he was. If only for purely selfish reasons.

Ultimately, it *is* all of us who are at fault, yes. But in this instance, the public did not know how much it owed to Turing. But someone(s) in a position to help him did.

Ed
Ed
reply to  MaryAnn Johanson
Fri, Nov 14, 2014 12:23am

But punishing the great war hero and mathematical genius Turing for being gay isn’t a greater injustice than a similar sentence handed out to some other gay person who’s completely average and unremarkable.

If you think – and it may well be true – that the public would want to punish the average person but not the war hero for commuting exactly the same act then that only makes it worse in my eyes. Not only in the wrong, but also deeply hypocritical about it.

Tonio Kruger
Tonio Kruger
reply to  Ed
Fri, Nov 14, 2014 7:12pm

A writer once argued that the most damnable thing about segregation was not the way the great Louis Armstrong was treated as a second-class citizen but rather that such treatment was given to anyone.

I would like to think that is the argument you are attempting to make and it is a legitimate one.

Then again I can’t help but notice that Englishmen like Guy Burgess and Anthony Blunt — who actually betrayed their country by spying for the Soviet Union — did not receive the same punishment as Turing. Of course, Burgess escaped punishment by defecting to the Soviet Union and Blunt allegedly drank himself to death after he was exposed in the late 1970s but still I can’t help sensing a dark irony there — especially since neither one of them nor their partners in crime ever had to worry about chemical castration like poor Turing.

As for equal treatment being given to war heroes, many blacks and Mexican-Americans who fought in World War II would have loved to have been given the same treatment as their fellow soldiers. But they weren’t. Especially on the home front.

Indeed, one Mexican-American war hero was actually killed by a white club owner for demanding equal treatment after he had returned to the States. But that is a story for another day.

MaryAnn Johanson
reply to  Tonio Kruger
Sat, Nov 15, 2014 10:26am

And of course, now there’s a huge scandal happening in the UK regarding how powerful (white) men have been protecting one another in possibly vast pedophile rings. Having sex with children is, I believe, against the law, and yet somehow some people are protected. (Some Asian men have been convicted and are now in prison for grooming girls, though.)

Constable
Constable
reply to  MaryAnn Johanson
Mon, Nov 24, 2014 9:58pm

At least the internet makes it harder for such “people” to hide, though they can communicate easier because of it.

It has been brought to the Canadian news media’s attention that First Nations women have been “disappearing” near some of the more remote reserves, they are believed to be taken primarily while walking home from business in the city. The police has done little to investigate these kidnappings, some communities are fed up with what they describe as “an obviously corrupt” law enforcement.

David
David
reply to  MaryAnn Johanson
Wed, Jan 21, 2015 1:12am

There are two separate scandals that are ongoing about large scale sex abuse being covered up by the government. The first, concerned a pedophile ring that mostly targeted young boys and saw it’s height during the 70s and 80s and is only now being investigated. Over 2000 boys are believed to have been victimized.

The second involves Muslim rape gangs that the police refused to investigate for fear of making the Muslim community look bad or being accused of bigotry. The Rotherham scandal in which over 1400 girls were raped with the collusion of the local police and social workers. That’s just the most prominent example; the actual numbers of victims across the UK is much higher. Muslim rape gangs and the police refusing to investigate them are a problem all over Europe.

In both cases the police refused to take these situations seriously for political reasons.

barrem01
barrem01
reply to  Tonio Kruger
Thu, Apr 16, 2015 5:00pm

Burgess and Blunt were both gay.
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/so-whats-new-about-gay-spies-1253692.html

so perhaps chemical castration was a worry for them. But your point is well taken: the dehumanization of discrimination is no less a crime when the victim is an average person.

CB
CB
reply to  Ed
Tue, Jan 13, 2015 5:58pm

The reason Turing’s treatment is more appalling than the typical application of those insane laws is not because it is, due to Turing’s status as war hero, a greater injustice. Because you’re right, it isn’t.

The reason it is so appalling is because here is a nearly perfect case to try to open someone’s eyes as to what an injustice it is. Someone who thinks of the homosexual as nothing but a useless degenerate criminal pervert who deserves punishment, yet here is one who isn’t just not-a-useless-degenerate but a key architect of victory over the Nazis. How can that not give someone pause, and have them reflect on their prejudices and the outcomes of their “justice”?

Yet, that’s exactly what didn’t happen. The eyes and minds remained as closed as ever. It shows more than how unjust the law was, it shows how locked and rigid the thinking of those who supported the law was, how beyond any potential for enlightenment. That’s why.

Tonio Kruger
Tonio Kruger
reply to  Dr. Rocketscience
Fri, Nov 14, 2014 7:31pm

George Wallace initially campaigned for office on an anti-Klan platform only to be defeated. It was not until he started appealing to white racists that he got popular enough to win elections. And many Southern white politicos who campaigned in the same era faced the same dilemma. It was not until the 1970s that things began to change and even then it’s not like old-time politicos like Jesse Helms got replaced by the likes of Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton overnight.

Indeed, many politicians throughout history have faced the same dilemma. In order to change popular prejudices, you have to have political power. But in order to achieve political power, you have to appeal to popular prejudices. And of course, many politicos don’t even try to change such prejudices, finding it easier to pander to them than to try and change them.

I would like to think that times are changing but it could just be that the prejudices that modern-day politicos pander to have changed and I have not yet noticed.

RogerBW
RogerBW
Thu, Nov 13, 2014 2:32pm

A relative by marriage recounted the tale of the academic staff at Manchester taking turns to play chess with Turing in the 1950s (he was very bad at it), largely because if they didn’t he would go home and sit in his horrible bedsit in the dark.

Part of the problem was that, because the work he’d done was still classified, he was unable to give any advice to the team at Manchester that was re-inventing the electronic computer and making some of the same mistakes he had made.

Lynn
Lynn
reply to  RogerBW
Sat, Mar 28, 2015 4:00pm

Yeah, I suppose it is entirey likely that if he had lived, his inventions could have been left on the classified shelf until the patents expired.

It’s what happened to Heddy Lamar’s work in what eventually became WiFi.

Adam
Adam
Mon, Nov 17, 2014 9:28am

Excellent review sir! Bravo indeed.

LaSargenta
LaSargenta
reply to  Adam
Mon, Nov 17, 2014 3:43pm

Sir? ~_√

Danielm80
Danielm80
reply to  LaSargenta
Mon, Nov 17, 2014 5:05pm

At first I thought the comment was spam. Now I think it was written by Marcie from Peanuts.

MaryAnn Johanson
reply to  Adam
Mon, Nov 17, 2014 9:35pm

I almost figure this for spam, but what’s the point of a spam comment without a spammy link in it?

I think I just invented a new Internet koan…

RogerBW
RogerBW
reply to  MaryAnn Johanson
Mon, Nov 17, 2014 9:36pm

If a spammer is brutally murdered in his Floridian mansion, but nobody cares, has it truly happened?

adtvtx vafaeead
adtvtx vafaeead
Sat, Nov 29, 2014 11:01pm

I don’t think he single handed defeated the Germans. What happened to him was terrible but it doesn’t make me believe in same sex marriage. Just because Jeffery Dalmer ate people doesn’t mean all white people are cannabals. Just as this movie doesn’t mean that all gay people need more support. Tim Cook gay ceo of Apple is doing just fine.

David
David
Wed, Jan 21, 2015 1:52am

Of all things, this actually reminds me of what the Joker said to Batman in the Dark Knight, “To them you’re just a freak, like me. They need you right now, but when they don’t, they’ll cast you out like a leper.”

One of Turing’s most enduring contributions might be the post WWII situation. The Soviet Union would have defeated Nazi Germany eventually no matter what, but without Turing the Western Allies may never have been able to land in France. This would have led to Hitler and the Nazi leadership continuing to flee west ward with the Red Army in pursuit until all of Europe would find itself under Soviet domination.

On the other hand the US was developing the A-bomb which likely would have ended the war before 1946 no matter what happened elsewhere.

Lynn
Lynn
Sat, Mar 28, 2015 4:04pm

There is actually an AI competition held in his name now. I remember watching one held in the 90s where a man was awarded the Most Lifelike AI award because he reacted entirely like a human, but had a memory for minutiae that led people to believe he must be an AI.

R_Rindt
R_Rindt
Sun, Jun 14, 2015 3:57am

Does anyone else notice this peculiar similarity in our movies and television lately? I thought this movie was executed quite flawlessly, however one can’t not notice algorithmic quantifiable nuances in our world TODAY. That being said, even if you have absolutely no idea as to whatI am referring to, let me be exact and clear. We are moving into the year Two Thousand &16. Hilary Clinton is being payed for by the same people that fund Hollywood. DID THIS MOVIE MAKE YOU FEEL LIKE WOMEN WERE STRONGER THAN MEN? I think they are, but I’m not producing movies around reality to stear your thoughts through couersion.

Danielm80
Danielm80
reply to  R_Rindt
Sun, Jun 14, 2015 9:26am

Welcome to the Flick Filosopher site. While you’re here, you might take a look at MaryAnn’s “Where are the Women?” project.

http://www.flickfilosopher.com/2015/06/women-2015-ranking.html

If you read through a few of the entries and still think that Hollywood is run by liberal feminists, then this may not be the website for you. Try this one instead:

http://kathrynvercillo.hubpages.com/hub/What-People-Think-When-You-Type-in-All-Caps

LaSargenta
LaSargenta
reply to  Danielm80
Sun, Jun 14, 2015 11:19am

Wait a sec’, you think H.C. is a Liberal Feminist? Feminist I’ll grant you, but Liberal…no.

Danielm80
Danielm80
reply to  LaSargenta
Sun, Jun 14, 2015 12:01pm

Wherever Hillary is on the political spectrum, there’s a good chance it will shift with the latest polling data.

Bluejay
Bluejay
reply to  Danielm80
Sun, Jun 14, 2015 1:39pm

I wish that some anti-gay-marriage politicians WOULD shift their views based on the latest polling data.

I like it when my elected leaders shift their views to be closer to my own. It’s when they shift their views AWAY from mine that I disapprove. ;-)

LaSargenta
LaSargenta
reply to  Bluejay
Sun, Jun 14, 2015 1:58pm

Actually, all elected leaders ARE supposed to represent their constituents. Problem is, they confuse who gives them money with whom they are constitutionally mandated to represent.

LaSargenta
LaSargenta
reply to  Danielm80
Sun, Jun 14, 2015 1:57pm

Especially if Bernie polls even better.

Danielm80
Danielm80
reply to  LaSargenta
Sun, Jun 14, 2015 3:39pm

Now that we’ve completely derailed the thread…I like this take on Bernie Sanders:

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/14/opinion/bernie-sanders-can-take-heart-from-a-broadway-champ.html?ref=opinion&_r=0

R_Rindt
R_Rindt
reply to  Danielm80
Sun, Jun 14, 2015 2:59pm

Obama has been able to ram more anti American agenda down our throats because he’s black. No one dare call him out on it either, out of fear for being labeled a racist! Feminism is being pushed to get women to stand up and vote for that horrible demon Hillary, mark my word’s, she WILL be the closer for the NWO if Democrats are stupid enough to fall for it. How come the first black president and female president has to suck so bad? Hell I would vote for a black women president if she was for the constitution and didn’t defend child rapest.

MaryAnn Johanson
reply to  R_Rindt
Sun, Jun 14, 2015 6:52pm

Your nonsense is not welcome. Please cease commenting here.

R_Rindt
R_Rindt
reply to  MaryAnn Johanson
Mon, Jun 15, 2015 5:27am

I am sorry for making my comments political. It wasn’t my original intention and for that I am truly sorry. Please watch this interview of Hillary when she was a practicing. lawyer defending and laughing about getting a child rapest off.

Watch “The Hillary Clinton Tapes” on YouTube
https://youtu.be/e2f13f2awK4