The Imitation Game-- Hollywood Not Pushing Back

[Boom_70]

The Imitation Game is a very good movie about the British code breakers of WWII. Much like
American Sniper they played loose with the facts yet few are questioning it.

The Imitation Game fact vs. fiction: How true the new movie is to Alan Turing’s real-life story.

Any theories?

 

[User 11148]

Ever read about WWII-era (and later) cryptology? If Hollywood at al. aren't pushing back, it's probably because it's awfully dangerous to criticize that about which you don't have the barest fraction of a clue.

 

[Boom_70]

Ever read about WWII-era (and later) cryptology? If Hollywood at al. aren't pushing back, it's probably because it's awfully dangerous to criticize that about which you don't have the barest fraction of a clue.

Yeah that too but think there is other reasons.

 

[SnarkShark]

Why do people get mad when movies aren't 100 percent accurate? They're movies. ****ing entertainment. Who cares?

 

[MisterCreosote]

Because liberals.

 

[heyabbott]

Why do people get mad when movies aren't 100 percent accurate? They're movies. ****ing entertainment. Who cares?

12 Years a Slave was just hyberpole and mischaracterizations?

 

[SnarkShark]

12 Years a Slave was just hyberpole and mischaracterizations?

Was it? I don't really care.

 

[Dick Whitman]

Why do people get mad when movies aren't 100 percent accurate? They're movies. ****ing entertainment. Who cares?

I don't know that people necessarily get mad. Maybe some do.

But when you watch a movie purporting to be based upon actual events, it seems fair to point out where the film veers from reality.

 

[Dick Whitman]

As I understand it, "12 Years a Slave" was pretty faithful to the source material, which itself was pretty faithful to actual events.

 

[Boom_70]

I don't know that people necessarily get mad. Maybe some do.

But when you watch a movie purporting to be based upon actual events, it seems fair to point out where the film veers from reality.

Yup that pretty much covers it.

 

[LongTimeListener]

It's bothersome for two reasons: 1) The true story is usually compelling enough anyway; and 2) these movies have become a vehicle for teaching history, which means it's being taught wrong.

I'm one of the people who, immediately after watching a movie "based on a true story," seeks out the fact-vs.-fiction writeup so I know how to sort it out. The only thing that bothers me anymore is the demonizing of people for cinematic purposes. Was it necessary in "Selma" to paint LBJ as anti-progress and an enemy of king? Or in "The Express" to assign West Virginia fans the most racist caricature, when Ernie Davis never even played a game at West Virginia? Or to have Hurricane Carter unjustly lose to Joey Giardello (who is portrayed as the beneficiary of a fix) when every account of the fight from that era agreed that Giardello destroyed Carter?

I understand condensing characters and eliminating extraneous storylines. I don't understand making stuff up to make real people look bad.

 

[Dick Whitman]

The portrayal of Dan Devine as the bad guy in "Rudy" is another that comes to mind.

I once talked to Art Howe's son about his dad's portrayal in "Moneyball." Let's just say he was not a Michael Lewis fan. I can't imagine what he thought of the movie.

 

[MisterCreosote]

As I understand it, "12 Years a Slave" was pretty faithful to the source material, which itself was pretty faithful to actual events.

The movie contains scenes that directly contradict passages in Northup's account, and some scenes that are just made up.

The source material has been called into question, too. I can't get too worked up about either Northup's book or the movie, because the basic reflection of slavery - that it was horrific and despicable - will always remain the same.

 

[Dick Whitman]

The movie contains scenes that directly contradict passages in Northup's account, and some scenes that are just made up.

The source material has been called into question, too. I can't get too worked up about either Northup's book or the movie, because the basic reflection of slavery - that it was horrific and despicable - will always remain the same.

OK, cool. I just found an article or two a couple weeks ago during the Chris Kyle discussion that made it sound like it was pretty fact-based. I'll take your word. Sounds like you're up on it.

 

[Boom_70]

If it's a Weinstein Production you can assume it's virtual history. Like the work but always make it a point afterwards
to review how far they veered off.

 

[MisterCreosote]

OK, cool. I just found an article or two a couple weeks ago during the Chris Kyle discussion that made it sound like it was pretty fact-based. I'll take your word. Sounds like you're up on it.

With Northup, the liberties taken in the movie were more a matter of degree than complete omission or contradiction.

Example: The slave who was stabbed by the trader on the ship in the movie actually died of smallpox on the ship.

 

[amraeder]

It's bothersome for two reasons: 1) The true story is usually compelling enough anyway; and 2) these movies have become a vehicle for teaching history, which means it's being taught wrong.

I'm one of the people who, immediately after watching a movie "based on a true story," seeks out the fact-vs.-fiction writeup so I know how to sort it out. The only thing that bothers me anymore is the demonizing of people for cinematic purposes. Was it necessary in "Selma" to paint LBJ as anti-progress and an enemy of king? Or in "The Express" to assign West Virginia fans the most racist caricature, when Ernie Davis never even played a game at West Virginia? Or to have Hurricane Carter unjustly lose to Joey Giardello (who is portrayed as the beneficiary of a fix) when every account of the fight from that era agreed that Giardello destroyed Carter?

I understand condensing characters and eliminating extraneous storylines. I don't understand making stuff up to make real people look bad.

Tangentially related to your second point: When I was a Texas History teacher, I think I was the only one in our district that didn't show the movie The Alamo to my kids. When standardized test time rolled around, the essay question was on the Alamo. My kids did significantly better, mostly because the other kids talked about what they remembered from the movie, which wasn't always accurate, while my kids only had the info taught in class to draw from, which was, fortunately, a hell of a lot more accurate.

 

[LongTimeListener]

That doesn't surprise me at all, amraeder. It scares the hell out of me, but it doesn't surprise me.

 

[Boom_70]

A generation or two thinks that Clay Shaw was responsible for the murder of JFK

 

[MisterCreosote]

Anyone who teaches, or learns, history based on Hollywood movies probably can't be helped anyway.