Well. I'd say TIG is not responsible for the fact that Mrs. Hassan doesn't seem to be capable of watching "The Theory of Everything" on one day and "The Imitation Game" on the next day without drawing comparisons where there most likely aren't any. It's totally okay if she likes TToE/Redmayne better than TIG/Cumberbatch, but please, dear woman, since you seem to think that you're a very, very important journalist who should be first in line at the press red carpet - do your job the way it's supposed to be done! Goodness gracious me!

MartaSt wrote:

I'm so damn sick to see that most people focus only on that aspect of his life like it was the most important thing. God damn it, he did so many things that changed our reality, he helped to win II World War, he was father of modern computers, he was pioneer in thinking about intelligence , he did some important researches in biology and most people still care only about him being a gay? I think that's absurd, I'll never understand this way of thinking. Why can't people focus on important stuff?

I came to think the other day that it is perhaps just a matter of different levels of awareness, depending on one's age, one's culture etc. I can remember very well times where people used to say the same you said now but unlike you in order to avoid a discussion about homosexuality since they considered it inappropriate.
So then gay and lesbian people insisted on naming the facts instead of being silenced.
Nowadays the situation seems split - while only few people want to neglect the issue, some (perhaps still) want to focus on it and then there are those who take the achievements for granted and want to move on.
My 2 cents 
 

Last edited by Harriet (September 10, 2014 8:28 pm)

Well, I think it is a subject worth talking about but it depends on the way in which you do this. It is one thing to discuss Turing's terrible situation, his being made a security risk after having done so much for his country, his being forced to live a closeted life and not being able to be open about his sexuality. 
But one should not reduce him to his sexuality by asking why we do not see him having sex on screen or why he is not played by a gay actor. 

SusiGo wrote:

But one should not reduce him to his sexuality by asking why we do not see him having sex on screen or why he is not played by a gay actor. 

 
Exactly my thoughts.

SolarSystem wrote:

And I still can't decide which of those two questions I find more ridiculous. Really, they're both so stupid. The second one shows that the questioner hasn't got the slightest clue about acting. And the first one... hell, I can't begin to put into words what I'm thinking about that one.

Well, to ask intelligent questions you have to have some class yourself, you have to be literate, to have a huge knowledge about culture and in the case of Alan Turing, to be well up in the fields of history and the sciences Alan was involved in. It takes a lot of brainwork and some time to achieve that level.

While concentrating on sex and similar cheap sensationalism doesn´t cost you such effort. And it wins you some points with general public which is also mostly ignorant about all that scientific stuff, but which undestands bed affairs just marvelously - since every stupid Billyboy can have sex.

And so the journalists will continue to fall to the levels of such imbecilic Billyboys instead of striving for the higher goals and will continue to ask stupid questions about sexual orientations, Cumberbitches and similar unoriginal inanities instead of broadening the horizonts of their readers and bringing the new, thoughtful and interesting information to them. 
 

Harriet wrote:

nakahara wrote:

Well, to ask intelligent questions you have to have some class yourself, you have to be literate, to have a huge knowledge about culture and in the case of Alan Turing, to be well up in the fields of history and the sciences Alan was involved in. It takes a lot of brainwork and some time to achieve that level. 

Well, one doesn't have to be literate or educated to be intelligent and esteeming
 

Of course, but it helps when you are a reporter. You have less problems to formulate questions and to come up with interesting themes if you read on the regular basis, study and educate yourself.
 

MartaSt wrote:

SusiGo wrote:

But one should not reduce him to his sexuality by asking why we do not see him having sex on screen or why he is not played by a gay actor. 

 
Exactly my thoughts.

Very true.

The main reason we need to know about Turning's sexuality is because of what was done to him after the war.  If he had been able to go on and lead a quiet normal life it would not have been as relevant to the story.

Comment from those who know nothing about him or indeeed anything about acting.

Yes, her complaints sound pretty nonsensical.

It seems to me she has some issues with Benedict - because when the reporter starts to pick on such inconsequential things as accents and an actors eductation (!), it´s pretty obvious she is pulling at straws and that she has nothing really important to say about the movie itself, she is just finding some way how to diss the main star of it.

 

nakahara wrote:

Yes, her complaints sound pretty nonsensical.

It seems to me she has some issues with Benedict - because when the reporter starts to pick on such inconsequential things as accents and an actors eductation (!), it´s pretty obvious she is pulling at straws and that she has nothing really important to say about the movie itself, she is just finding some way how to diss the main star of it.

 

As I said, it may be the same BBC reporter who asked the gay actor question and got a dismissive answer by Morten Tyldum. This might explain her evaluation of the film.