Tobe, I think the film does a good job of highlighting the issue, but it's not quite the same as a royal pardon for all of them. 

It's difficult to discuss the rest without spoilers.  Actually the only reason there are spoilers is because things have been added that are fictional!   But I'll use a spoiler tag, as I know not everybody has seen it, and maybe talk some more in the spoilered thread.

The review is right in that they do show an incident where Turing is blackmailed, and I agree with the reviewer that it's a touchy subject because of the tendency to view gay men as a security risk at that time, and particularly because it appears to be fictional.  I'm not an expert and maybe the writer has access to other information - although the credits say the film is based on Andrew Hodges, and the article says he claims that it never happened.   Anyway, in the film, it does look as if Turing is thinking about revealing the spy, although he puts the phone down ... and then when he finds that somebody else may be incriminated if he doesn't reveal him, he's about to do so, when he finds that the spy is a plant.   Storywise, the spy also plays a part in making Turing's sexuality explicit. 

As I've said, I'm not completely averse to facts being changed to suit the story and know that it's standard practice in biopics.  I suppose this adds drama and tension, and another view of Turing's character ... but I would probably personally prefer that it was left out if it wasn't true.  I think there could have been other ways to make it clear that Turing was gay.

On the other hand, the scene where Alan is told of Christopher's death is wonderful (an astounding performance by Alex Lawther) and I don't think it's so important the facts were changed slightly here.

Last edited by Liberty (November 21, 2014 10:51 pm)

I saw it this afternoon, Tobe!  Sorry, for being confusing (I didn't make that clear at all, did I?)

And yes, the review said that the "justice" part was one that the film got right.   It's just that there are issues around the pardon (not the film) being limited to Turing.   It's as if, by pardoning one person, the UK is saying that what all those men did was still wrong, but that in Turing's case, his contribution to the country outweighs his wrongdoing.  A bit like the Camden garotter .   It's too late for Turing to benefit from it, but other people who were convicted and still alive could benefit.  So it's not a simple issue - I have mixed feelings and agree with the reviewers comments that it was controversial at the time.

Well, my point is partly just that the reviewer is correct in saying that it the pardon was controversial.  It was welcomed, but it also served to highlight the injustice.  It doesn't somehow make things OK, or help Turing or for any of those men (some of them still alive with a criminal record).  I'm glad that was mentioned at the end of the film.  Benedict Cumberbatch also implies something similar when he talks about Turing.  There was nothing wrong with what Turing did - it's not up to the Queen or the government to declare him innocent.  It shouldn't have been a crime in the first place, and perhaps all the convictions should be overturned.  The government does not have a great record on gay rights (I did put this more strongly, but I've edited because I'm aware that the UK is so much better than some countries, and that huge progress has been made.  But we have a lot to be ashamed of, in the quite recent past.  You don't have to go back even as far as Turing).

Some of the changes do work very well (like the one I've spoilered).   I can see how making more of Turing's relationship with Joan helped to make the film work (by letting us see him through her eyes, and showing key conversations with her).   I do think it's dangerous ground though to claim that Turing was blackmailed AND then to speculate about how he would have reacted and imply that he really was a security risk due to his sexuality, just for the sake of a better story.  There is a disclaimer at the end, but we're not told which parts are fictional and which aren't.  To be honest, I don't feel it was necessary and I would have loved the film without it.   And if I hadn't read this review beforehand I would probably have gone away believing it as fact. 

Last edited by Liberty (November 21, 2014 10:47 pm)

It's offensive to me that he was given a pardon...he'd done nothing wrong!

To be honest, I'd guess that most people didn't know that that bit wasn't true.  Even though I've read the book, I think I'd just have accepted it as fact after seeing the film. 

I suppose we almost all have our pressure points and are susceptible to blackmail, so I wouldn't think Turing was a terrible person if he had been too.   If it had really happened, I would be happy for it to be in the film.   But inventing it and putting it means that we're being told for a fact (in the film) that Turing succumbed to blackmail and would cover for a spy/traitor, AND that the government was probably right to see gay men as a security risk (because of their susceptibility to blackmail!). 

That IS an important issue (in fact, it was the goverment creating the security risk by having sex between men be illegal), but it wasn't Turing's issue (as far as we know), so I don't think it was the right place to explore it.  I don't want to spoiler, but the film doesn't show anything of Turing's sexuality (beyond his first, chaste love) and so the spy and the blackmail, are a way of making it clear that he was gay and practicing, so that the confession to Joan doesn't come out of the blue.  I don't know if that was why that was added - I would love an explanation, as it does seem a controversial thing to invent.  I'm even wondered if maybe it did happen and THAT's why it was added?  And then it worries me that I'm questioning it!  The fact that Benedict (and the film) is so good makes this worse, because you find yourself being drawn into believing it.

Last edited by Liberty (November 25, 2014 11:27 am)

1. As I mentioned, if I hadn't read that the blackmail was invented before seeing the film, I would have believed it.

2. But in reality (I assume) he wasn't a risk just because he was gay - there was no evidence that he was being blackmailed.  (By adding in the blackmail, the film is showing that it was right that he was monitored in this way.  And obviously during the war, in such a high security environment, they have a point).  Although I take your point - modern audiences might not be aware of this and perhaps the blackmail was added to show why gay men were seen as a risk.  And it does add to the drama/story/entertainment aspect. I would rather it had been done differently, though. 

In the film, yes, the situation is resolved (I mentioned some of the story in the bit I put in spoiler tags further up), and

there was no need to expose the spy - MI6 were using him to feed selected information to the Soviets, which it looks may well have been true

.   But we're still left thinking that Turing succumbed to blackmail, and in fact may well have continued to cover for a traitor

whom he had no idea was a plant, if he hadn't thought that Joan was at risk

. 

There's another article in the Telegraph here about the people involved.   It does have spoilers (e.g. if you don't know who the spy is, and want to watch the film as a "thriller"). 
 

Last edited by Liberty (November 25, 2014 1:17 pm)