Let me start this review off by saying that the movie is mostly good. Cumberbatch has been able to show his acting skills and Knightley is great in her supporting role. The historical inaccuracies, however, are unforgivable.
It is completely understandable that a movie based on a true story has to, in part, fictionalise some events, in order to be more exciting or moving. But what the filmmakers failed to understand, in this case, is just how extraordinary Turing's life was. Does one really need to distort the life of the man who created modern computer science as we know it and who was one of the most impactful people in the second world war?
This movie is filled with inaccuracies from beginning to end. For example, Joan Clark wasn't hired with a crossword on a newspaper, the machine was never called "Christopher", Turing never hid his sexual orientation and there never was any reciprocal love with his friend Christopher Morcom. Many others can be found on the IMDb page. Most of these mistakes are relatively minor by themselves, but the sheer number of them feels manipulative in the extreme.
The most blatant one, however, is the depiction of Turing as lacking social skills. In fact, most people who had the opportunity of working with him regarded him as a sociable man with a good sense of humour. Why did they have to portray him according to the typical Hollywoodian cliché of the mathematician? If, for any reason, a filmmaker believes that a socially inept protagonist is more compelling, then they should tell a fictional story, instead of abusing an actual lived experience to push a stereotypical image.
I will give "The Imitation Game" credit for telling an important story and, if you want to see a well-crafted drama set during the second world war, watch this movie, by all means. But if you'd like to discover more about Turing's life, please just read more about him. To think that Turing's impact hasn't been recognised for decades and what made him known to a wide audience is a woefully inaccurate movie is saddening. Sorry Alan, you deserved better.
It is completely understandable that a movie based on a true story has to, in part, fictionalise some events, in order to be more exciting or moving. But what the filmmakers failed to understand, in this case, is just how extraordinary Turing's life was. Does one really need to distort the life of the man who created modern computer science as we know it and who was one of the most impactful people in the second world war?
This movie is filled with inaccuracies from beginning to end. For example, Joan Clark wasn't hired with a crossword on a newspaper, the machine was never called "Christopher", Turing never hid his sexual orientation and there never was any reciprocal love with his friend Christopher Morcom. Many others can be found on the IMDb page. Most of these mistakes are relatively minor by themselves, but the sheer number of them feels manipulative in the extreme.
The most blatant one, however, is the depiction of Turing as lacking social skills. In fact, most people who had the opportunity of working with him regarded him as a sociable man with a good sense of humour. Why did they have to portray him according to the typical Hollywoodian cliché of the mathematician? If, for any reason, a filmmaker believes that a socially inept protagonist is more compelling, then they should tell a fictional story, instead of abusing an actual lived experience to push a stereotypical image.
I will give "The Imitation Game" credit for telling an important story and, if you want to see a well-crafted drama set during the second world war, watch this movie, by all means. But if you'd like to discover more about Turing's life, please just read more about him. To think that Turing's impact hasn't been recognised for decades and what made him known to a wide audience is a woefully inaccurate movie is saddening. Sorry Alan, you deserved better.