That said, Benedict Cumberbatch was incredible. He is really setting himself up as the go-to guy for any anti-social genius type of character. It would be unfortunate if he ends up being typecast as that guy and never gets any other kind of role, though, as good as he is at it. I think I may be becoming convinced he's more than just that.
It's actually very interesting what Cumberbatch did with the part. He started out with a kind of Sherlock level of human interaction and descended into a kind of Frankenstein's monster thing like he did in the National Theatre Live presentation of Frankenstein. It's too bad Alan Turing wasn't actually like that. Eccentric, yes, but he wasn't unfriendly and without the ability to operate in a social setting as the movie showed him to be.
Keira Knightley was also quite good. Well, she was mostly what you'd expect of Keira Knightley, but it was good. She was a good foil to Cumberbatch's portrayal of Turing, which is to say that her character was not quite accurate, either. Joan Clarke was probably quite a bit more socially awkward than she was in the movie but, then, in the movie, it's Joan who mediates between Turing and his team and enables him to work with them, so she had to be socially savvy for that work.
The other actors I really liked were Mark Strong and Matthew Goode. Strong played Stewart Menzies, a person that Turing probably never actually had any contact with, but he was a great movie character and added a bit of a spy edge to everything. Goode played Hugh Alexander, a chess champion who was on Turing's team. Even while I was watching the movie I didn't buy that Alexander was really as charismatic and charming as Goode played him to be, but he was fun to watch in the role.
Of course, the most interesting thing about the movie to me is not the movie at all; it's that the British government kept all of this secret, everything that Turing did during WWII, stuff which helped to end the war, for 50 years. 50 years! And, then, what they allowed to happen to him after the war was just... horrendous. And he was only posthumously pardoned in 2013. It's kind of unbelievable.
The main thing is, though, if you like those little electronic gadgets that you carry around everywhere and use all the time, you have Turing to thank for them. It was what he did during the war that lead to computers. Thinking machines were his thing. In fact, computers were originally called Turing machines.
Basically, I'd say to see the movie; it's worth it for Cumberbatch's performance alone, accurate or not. He might even deserve the best actor Oscar for it, though I haven't decided that for sure, yet. However, once you've seen it, check up on your Turing facts. It's all really quite fascinating.
Not really accurate? Sounds like The Monuments Men. Good introduction to the story, go look up what really happened on your own.
ReplyDeleteAlex: I never did a fact check on Monuments Men. Not a specific one, at any rate. I just went into it knowing it was mostly wrong.
DeleteI do like BC, think he's an incredible actor. I can handle a bit of poetic licence as long as it isn't so far from the truth that the reality is lost! x
ReplyDeleteSuzanne: I think he might be a great actor, but I'm not completely sure, yet. He's really good at this one type of role; I'm worried he may never get to do anything else.
DeleteIt sounds like one of those that would be better to watch as a documentary so it isn't all Hollywood-ized.
ReplyDeletePat: Except then you wouldn't get Cumberbatch's performance.
DeleteWhat Alex said. I'll watch this because I like Benderdict Humptydumpt and I like the premise, but I don't expect it to be accurate. Hollywood taught me that years ago. I am fascinated by the true story, though, and Turing's thinking machines are a big part of my current solo novel.
ReplyDeleteABftS: That's cool! That you're using Turing's machines, that is.
DeleteI've been wanting to see this movie, mostly because I am rather obsessed with Benedict Cumberbatch. (sad, but true) It'll be a two-hour drive for me to get to a theater actually showing it, but it sounds as though it could be worth the trip.
ReplyDeleteM.J.: Wait, aren't you in Florida now?
DeleteI don't think I would drive two hours to see anything other than, like, Star Wars or a Marvel movie.
I may go and see this film if I get bored, but it's not at the top of my list. I saw that movie about Julian Assange in which Cumberbatch played the title role and wasn't impressed. But by your review, I suppose he's playing Turing much better? I'm a little more intrigued about it than I was.
ReplyDeleteMichael: I haven't seen that one. I need to remember to rent it.
DeleteIt always annoys me when they change stories like that. Not that the movie isn't good, I'm sure. Most of the story sounds quite fascinating, though. I'll have to check it out.
ReplyDeleteJeanne: The fascinating thing was really his idea. No one had done that before and no one really understood what he was trying to do.
DeleteI don't know. Biographies have a a real uphill battle with me. I think the last one I saw was "A Beautiful Mind," and I'd read the book first. Turing's story is interesting and all, but not high enough on my list of interests to rate watching a movie.
ReplyDeleteAbout Benedict getting typecast: I was trying to find the link to share with you but I couldn't. I read an interesting article about Reese Witherspoon in "Wild." The gist of the article was that megastars get thrust into a role that Hollywood finds very marketable: Witherspoon, for example, as "Legally Blonde," and they make a bunch of movies in that mold, because it's almost like a brand: "Tom Hanks Is A Loveable Everyman!" is as easy a sell as "McDonald's: I'm Lovin' It." Then, the megastar plays a role against type and either wins an Oscar or almost does. Hanks got one for Forrest Gump and Philadelphia (I think?), Reese Witherspoon will probably get nominated for "Wild," etc.
The thesis was pretty solid. I always thought that celebs hit it big when they landed a role that they could play really well -- like Jennifer Aniston being Rachel, or Bill Murray playing pretty much only Bill Murray. But the author suggested it wasn't so much that as just studios saying "We're going to make [say] Steve Carell be a wacky leading man," and then pushing him into that role -- only to have him then get Oscar mentions when he plays against type in that new movie.
It's sometimes scary to realize how much marketing determines what we think. But also: if Cumberbatch becomes the Turing guy for movies, he'll do really well for a while and then break the mold and get an Oscar, so don't cry for him.
For another day: my discussion of whether it would be acceptable to be "Gilligan," meaning if you could do something that would typecast you or otherwise mark you forever, so that you'd be set for life but never really taken seriously as an artist/creative type again, would you?
Briane: Oh, I'm not crying for him. I realize he'll do very well and all of that. Some actors, though, don't recover from that. From being identified as a particular character.
DeleteSpeaking of Steve Carell, I wouldn't be surprised to see him get nominated for Foxcatcher for just that reason.
Piers Anthony says he can no longer sell anything that isn't Xanth, and he's not particularly happy with that and how his writing has been stifled. I wonder if he would choose to go back and not write that series.
My parents saw the movie and said it was really good. It's not my type so... I'll probably not see it.
ReplyDeleteTammy: Is it not your type because your parents liked it?
DeleteI'm looking forward to this. Thanks for the heads-up. :-D
ReplyDeleteAnna from Shout with Emaginette
Anna: Sure :)
ReplyDeleteI'm really looking forward to seeing this one, too, but I agree... I hope he gets to do some different roles. They even costume design him the same in every role (he's naturally blond!)
ReplyDeleteAlex H: huh, I didn't know he's blond. I do think I saw a picture of him with blond hair at some point, though, and thought he looked weird. heh
DeleteThe subject matter alone sets it apart as more interesting and insightful than the average movie memoir – and combined with the performances of Cumberbatch and Co., it’s definitely a winner.
ReplyDeleteThomas: Actually, since seeing it a second time (because a friend needed someone to see it with), I have downgraded it. The second half of the movie is completely boring after a first movie and almost completely inaccurate.
Delete