4 ms·

TLDR; Real life doesn't make for a movie anyone wants to watch, so the director added a bit of extra drama and rearranged a few things to make for a coherent st

by revicon 12y ago

TLDR; Real life doesn't make for a movie anyone wants to watch, so the director added a bit of extra drama and rearranged a few things to make for a coherent story.

vilhelm_s 12y ago
From Scott Aaronson's review (http://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=2096 http://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=2096): > The fabrications were especially frustrating to me, because we know it’s possible to bring Alan Turing’s story to life in a way that fully honors the true science and history. We know that, because Hugh Whitemore’s 1986 play Breaking the Code did it. The producers of The Imitation Game would’ve done better just to junk their script, and remake Breaking the Code into a Hollywood blockbuster. (Note that there is a 1996 BBC adaptation of Breaking the Code, with Derek Jacobi as Turing.)
- ghaff 12y ago
  I saw Breaking the Code on stage a few years ago and it was pretty good. That said, I don't disagree with the parent either. I can think of a couple of historical plays I've seen during the past couple of years that would probably have benefited by being a bit less literal--i.e. they were rather linear and included characters and events that didn't really contribute to the narrative flow.
- simi_ 12y ago
  Whoa, the whole thing is on Youtube! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S23yie-779k https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S23yie-779k
  - fineline 12y ago
    Thanks, added to my watch list. My Mum directed a theatre production of this years ago, and it's still one of the most memorable plays I've seen, be interesting to see the Beeb version.
klmr 12y ago
> Real life doesn't make for a movie anyone wants to watch Except that this is simply patently untrue in this case. The allegation here is precisely that the film makers were too lazy to fully exploit what real life gave them, and instead resorted to Hollywood stock. And the director didn’t just “rearrange a few things”, he completely mis-represents, at the same time, Turing’s (as well as others’) character, the nature of his work, and the historical progression. After that there’s not much left.

by revicon 12y ago

TLDR; Real life doesn't make for a movie anyone wants to watch, so the director added a bit of extra drama and rearranged a few things to make for a coherent story.

vilhelm_s 12y ago

From Scott Aaronson's review (http://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=2096 http://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=2096): > The fabrications were especially frustrating to me, because we know it’s possible to bring Alan Turing’s story to life in a way that fully honors the true science and history. We know that, because Hugh Whitemore’s 1986 play Breaking the Code did it. The producers of The Imitation Game would’ve done better just to junk their script, and remake Breaking the Code into a Hollywood blockbuster. (Note that there is a 1996 BBC adaptation of Breaking the Code, with Derek Jacobi as Turing.)

ghaff 12y ago
I saw Breaking the Code on stage a few years ago and it was pretty good. That said, I don't disagree with the parent either. I can think of a couple of historical plays I've seen during the past couple of years that would probably have benefited by being a bit less literal--i.e. they were rather linear and included characters and events that didn't really contribute to the narrative flow.
simi_ 12y ago
Whoa, the whole thing is on Youtube! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S23yie-779k https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S23yie-779k
- fineline 12y ago
  Thanks, added to my watch list. My Mum directed a theatre production of this years ago, and it's still one of the most memorable plays I've seen, be interesting to see the Beeb version.

klmr 12y ago

> Real life doesn't make for a movie anyone wants to watch Except that this is simply patently untrue in this case. The allegation here is precisely that the film makers were too lazy to fully exploit what real life gave them, and instead resorted to Hollywood stock. And the director didn’t just “rearrange a few things”, he completely mis-represents, at the same time, Turing’s (as well as others’) character, the nature of his work, and the historical progression. After that there’s not much left.