Yes, IMO this glossy-looking criticism is just one more of a long list of subtle insults and digs the critics seem at pain to invent when talking about TIG: polished, solid, neat, safe, mild, glossy, classic, traditional, conventional, sentimental, sanitized  - you can add whatever you want. Even the good pronunciation has been frown at. (Well, they are all academics, what kind of English should they speak? cockney?)

And btw I read a very interesting article about the costumes and learnt that Mark Strong was wearing an authentic suit from the 1940s!

After some reviews called historical facts included in the film fictitious this made me think. In my opinion the problem is that Alan's life and character were so extraordinary and eccentric that people actually think they cannot be true. This becomes even clearer when you look at some things they did not put in the film. Like:

- Alan buying silver bullions worth 250 pounds at the outbreak of war and burying them in a wood. When searching for the place later he could not find them anymore. The silver is probably still in the earth somewhere around Bletchley Park. 

- His obsession with Disney’s “Snowwhite and the Seven Dwarves” which he watched in Cambridge. He compulsively sang the song about the poisoned apple: “Dip the apple in the brew, let the Sleeping Death seep through.” Well. We all know how he died.

- And last not least the fact that he himself marched into a police station to explain about the burglary into his home while his lover was waiting outside. They soon became suspicious and Alan openly and without any shame admitted having had a sexual relationship with Arnold Murray. And then he even went on to declare that he thought the law about homosexuality was going to be amended soon. 

I am sure, the more facts they had put in, the harsher some critics would have been. 
 

Last edited by SusiGo (January 23, 2015 8:25 am)

Yes, I agree. And I have no idea where this tendency comes from. And, moreover, the things that are made up can be explained but to understand this would of course require a bit of independent thinking. 

It is sad but I suspect that regarding Alan's treatment by the authorities they probably thought: If we make him go to the police and offer himself on a silver tray people will say, well, it was his own fault, he knew about this law, he should have stayed in his closet and everything would have been fine. And this would have been a terrible reaction to the treatment he received. And completely against the purpose of the film. 

Well, I have read Andrew Hodges' book, Copeland's book and watched both earlier films about him. And I think he may have kept a stiff upper lip, saying, "It isn't exactly Cricket", but if you read about the side effects of the hormone treatment today - and this was 70 years ago - they are horrible: breast growth, increased weight, extreme mood swings, depression, loss of libido. We can be sure that Turing experienced all this. 

The suicide has never definitely been proven but it is assumed that he left some doubt in order to protect his mother. She always believed in an accident but it is highly unlikely that an experienced scientist would have been so careless to eat cyanide (which was found around his mouth). 

And what is more (and which the film does not mention, probably because it would have been too much) is that he would never again have been given clearance to work on secret projects, that the state did not trust him, that he was observed and spied on, that a Norwegian friend who wanted to visit him was sent back by the authorities before he even met Alan. I think even without the hormone effects this might be enough to drive a man to take his own life. 
 

Last edited by SusiGo (January 23, 2015 10:30 am)

For me it doesn't even really matter how bad the effects of that treatment actually were. The idea alone that you can 'cure' a human being from homosexuality by such a treatment, and to give you the choice between that or two years in prison... well. This alone must drive you mad. You're treated as a criminal, you know that society considers you to be a criminal for something you can't do anything about, for something that is part of your being... that's outrageous enough.

Vhanja wrote:

I have read that Alan's treatment wasn't at all as bad as it was portrayed in the movie. That it didn't affect him physically nor mentally as bad as is shown, and that it isn't clear if he committed sucidie or if it was an accident.

Then again, my source is Wikipedia, so I have no idea what the truth really is. 

You know that anybody can join wikipedia with comments? Strong  hormonotherapy always has visible effects on body and soul. And if you are forced to do it, it's certainly even worse. It's impossible to "cure" how a human "is".
 

Last edited by gently69 (January 23, 2015 10:45 am)

I'm sure, the UK is not the only place where that had been done.

Vhanja wrote:

To rephrase then: I am unable to wrap my head around any civilised country doing this to another living being as late as the 60s.

 
There are still places in the world where being gay is illegal even today.  It seems there will always be crimes against humanity.

No matter how 'bad' the treatment was or wasn't... the mere fact that they did it to him is a crime.

It makes me so sick to know stuff like that went on. And like tonnaree said... there's still countries in the world where being gay is illegal; some places you can even get setenced to death for it. 

being LGBT this scares me, angers me and fills me with sorrow. 

 

My love for Stephen Fry is endless!