BBC Sherlock Fan Forum - Serving Sherlockians since February 2012 » The Imitation Game

ancientsgate · October 29, 2014 12:27 am

People were held up for ridicule and even punishment (and god knows, there are loads of different forms of "punishment") for their actions, back in the day. Look what used to happen to unwed mothers, especially unwed mothers who were minors; have you seen that movie, Philomena? Look at the scorn heaped on alcoholic men who didn't provide for their families. Women who dared to have affairs, especially with married men. Teenagers who smoked, drank, hung around the streets with their hooligan friends and flunked out of school. There was a time, and it wasn't so long ago, when to be "different" (and again, god knows, there are loads of different forms of "different") was to be shunned, ostracized, gossiped about, and all but tarred and feathered and run out of town on a rail. Homosexuals were treated like pariahs, but so were others who were considered outside the mainstream.

besleybean · October 29, 2014 6:46 am

Yes, again ctiticism largely coming from the same place, based upon the same ideology.

nakahara · October 29, 2014 8:20 am

Well, up to the year 1973, homosexuality was seen as mental illness and treated accordingly.
(The scientific discoveries which revealed that you are born with your sexual orientation came around that time and led to the discarding of homosexuality from the list of illnessess.)
So, the people believed that homosexual are suffering from "an illness" - and yet they criminally prosecuted them for being ill?
That not just goes against law principles, that goes against common sense.

SusiGo · October 29, 2014 8:30 am

I would like to correct myself. Curable in this context does not mean to cure in order to help someone getting better but to keep the "criminal" from repeating his acts. The express aim was to keep these men from acting out on their sexuality by making them impotent. A cure in those times would have meant to make them heterosexual, I suppose.

gently69 · October 29, 2014 8:37 am

I don't have to think about that all. It makes me incredibly sad and angry.

ancientsgate · October 29, 2014 11:03 am

nakahara wrote:
Well, up to the year 1973, homosexuality was seen as mental illness and treated accordingly.
(The scientific discoveries which revealed that you are born with your sexual orientation came around that time and led to the discarding of homosexuality from the list of illnessess.) So, the people believed that homosexual are suffering from "an illness" - and yet they criminally prosecuted them for being ill? That not just goes against law principles, that goes against common sense.

They weren't criminally prosectued for being homosexual; they were criminally prosectued for *acting on* their orientation. If they'd married someone of the opposite gender, had children and never approached someone of the same gender, they could have taken their orientation right along through their lives, and no one would have persecuted them. It was the sexual acts that were criminal, not the orientation or whether or not it was an illness.

Are we ready to start a new thread to discuss this, or shall we just continue here? Just wondering.

ancientsgate · October 29, 2014 11:07 am

SusiGo wrote:
I would like to correct myself. Curable in this context does not mean to cure in order to help someone getting better but to keep the "criminal" from repeating his acts. The express aim was to keep these men from acting out on their sexuality by making them impotent. A cure in those times would have meant to make them heterosexual, I suppose.

Right. It was the ACTS that were criminal, not the orientation, whether or not it was considered an illness or just a strange preference.

Men of either orientation have always been perceived as not being able to think with their big heads when their little heads demanded their way, after all. This is true of some men, but I would wager, not most. Look at the practices of some parts of Islam, where women are covered from head to foot, in order to protect them from the unbridled lust of men to whom they are not related. Everyone knows men can't control themselves, right? Sigh. What a crock.

nakahara · October 29, 2014 11:35 am

ancientsgate wrote:
nakahara wrote:
Well, up to the year 1973, homosexuality was seen as mental illness and treated accordingly.
(The scientific discoveries which revealed that you are born with your sexual orientation came around that time and led to the discarding of homosexuality from the list of illnessess.) So, the people believed that homosexual are suffering from "an illness" - and yet they criminally prosecuted them for being ill? That not just goes against law principles, that goes against common sense.
They weren't criminally prosectued for being homosexual; they were criminally prosectued for *acting on* their orientation. If they'd married someone of the opposite gender, had children and never approached someone of the same gender, they could have taken their orientation right along through their lives, and no one would have persecuted them. It was the sexual acts that were criminal, not the orientation or whether or not it was an illness.

That´s exactly what I was getting at.
Mentally ill people usually aren´t deemed culpable for the acts they do under the influence of their illness.
Yet homosexuals being caught in the act with treir own sex were treated as mentally ill and criminals at the same time.
Not that the medical practices with the purpose of "curing them from homosexuality" were that much better, but still - as a patient, you can have at least a shred of your dignity intact. As a criminal forcibly hauled either to prison or to some medical facility where some wackos as good as castrate you, you have none of that.

SusiGo · October 31, 2014 2:10 pm

Here is an amazing new clip - Behind the scenes:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2iDviuAMOyM

MartaSt · October 31, 2014 2:47 pm

Wonderful. Benedict's sad eyes during some scenes are killing me. And only one month and 5 days to wait

Although when I saw how they translated the title into polish - "The Game of secrets" instead of "The Imitation Game" - I wanted to emigrate

tonnaree · October 31, 2014 4:31 pm

They pushed back the release date a week in the US. *sniffle*

MartaSt · October 31, 2014 4:50 pm

*hugs warmly*

besleybean · October 31, 2014 6:06 pm

My pal's booked us tickets!

Last edited by besleybean (October 31, 2014 6:07 pm)

tonnaree · October 31, 2014 7:05 pm

It's going to be a good winter. I am excited about so many movies coming out. Not just TIG but the Battle of the Five Armies. Hunger Games - Mockingjay. Intersteller. My film nerd cup runith way over.

Sherli Bakerst · November 1, 2014 12:35 am

Here is a very favorable article from The New York Times today about the making of the movie:
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/02/movies/the-imitation-game-dramatizes-the-story-of-alan-turing.html?emc=edit_fm_20141031&nl=movies&nlid=38562632&_r=0

This Is The Phantom Lady · November 1, 2014 2:22 pm

Thank you for that Behind The Scenes clip! That was amazing!

It is so hard having to wait till the end of January... but at least it is still coming. I have been cheated before.

I told my best friend (have sort of turned her into a CumberCookie too) about this film and she really wanted to see it. When I told her more about Turing she almost cried... I told her about it on the train and realized there were some people listening to me.
In a way I felt a bit proud to share a bit about him... because his name should be known, and for the right reasons!

besleybean · November 1, 2014 5:10 pm

Quite so.

gently69 · November 3, 2014 8:58 am

The game is on.

SusiGo · November 3, 2014 8:59 am

Lovely! I want to go to London.

nakahara · November 3, 2014 9:01 am

Me too. (sighs)