This whole "its inaccurate" nonsense... - The Imitation Game (2014) Discussion

[–] louiseculmer 9 years ago

well, i find it frustrating that turing is portrayed as committing treason, not once but twice. first, by covering for a soviet spy, and secondly by blabbing the whole story of Bletchley park to a policeman. That is highly insulting to Turing's memory, I think.

reply

[–] Who-Are-Those-Guys 9 years ago

Turings mind worked differently to the average person. He didn't understand sarcasm, certain conversational styles, he was differently tweaked to me, and more than likely you, and definitely the vast majority of the world.

There's every chance he wouldn't have recognised either as an act of treason, and I doubt the majority of the viewers of this film would do either. As for insulting his memory, its only since his pardon and subsequent publicity surrounding not least the release of this film that he's getting anything approaching the appreciation he, and the rest of Bletchley Park, so richly deserves. This film will educate and inspire far more than it will irritate.

Man, I've got vision and the rest of the World wears bi focals

reply

[–] benbrae76 9 years ago

"This film will educate and inspire far more than it will irritate."

If so then it will be educating people with innacurate history, and inspire people to believe in inaccuracy. Not everyone will be bright or enthused enough to check out the real facts and they will just believe that this movie is the truth, when indeed there's very little truth in it.

reply

[–] Who-Are-Those-Guys 9 years ago

Very little truth? Really?

I don't understand how clearly lucid, intelligent people cant see it for what it is. Its a film, based on pivotal episode in the war, focussing on a leading protagonist.

The dilemmas associated with the decisions over how to act over the information they received took place. They weren't dilemmas that Turing had, but does that really matter?

He was no traitor and wasn't portrayed as one. He told Menzies of the spy, albeit when he thought Joan was in danger, but he did what he thought was right.

The people on here disparaging the movie know about Turing, the Enigma codes, Bletchley, because they read books and drew conclusions of their own when details were hard to come by, and its to their credit. Now, with this film, the rest of the world can form an opinion. You may quibble with details, but surely that's a good thing?

Man, I've got vision and the rest of the World wears bi focals

reply

[–] shepherd-26 9 years ago

I agree with you. Alan Turing and his team did break the Enigma code and help save many lives. That is the take-away from the movie, and that is important for people to know. I watched it in the theater 4 times before getting the DVD. Even though I knew it didn't happen exactly the way it was portrayed, I always got a big lump in my throat when they finally succeeded in breaking the code after so many failed attempts. It was moving.

The movie worked for me. If it doesn't work for some folks, that's ok too.

Que sera sera

reply

[–] kovesp 9 years ago

No actually they didn't. The Enigma was broken by Maian Rejewski and his team at the Polish Cipher Bureau some years earlier. Turing and his team extended this work to apply it to the enhanced Enigma introduced at the start of the war. Even the machine created by Turing (this was not a computer, and certainly had nothing of the features of Turing's theoretical construct which alter came to be called the Turing machine) was called the "Bombe" because it was an extension of the Polish machine used to break Engima, the "Bomba".

If you are going to make a fantasy movie which has almost no basis in historical fact, don't claim that it is based on a real story, and don't insult Turing by appropriating his name.

reply

[–] benbrae76 9 years ago

I have to disagree with you. Many many people still believe that movies such as 'The Great Escape', 'Bridge on the River Kwai', 'The Heroes of Telemark' and yes even 'U571', depict the truth of events as they happened.
What puzzles me is why so much so-called artistic licence is needed when any of these historical events are turned into movies. Admittedly a certain leeway must be given for dramatic purposes, but the crux of the truth could and should still be retained, especially when the true events hold up just as well as the fiction, and in most cases even better than the fictitious drivel we're given, which often but wrongly claims (as in TIG) to be based on truth.

reply

[–] louiseculmer 9 years ago

That's what always puzzles me about films like this one. Why isn't the truth deemed exciting enough?

reply

[–] greg-233 9 years ago

The ironic thing is, if it wasn't for Turing, we probably wouldn't have message boards like this, where people squabble about the historical accuracy of a film, or lack thereof.

I liked the film, and I plan to read the biography by Andrew Hodges, which I bought for my father last Christmas. He's a military history buff who is also given to nitpicking the accuracy of historical dramas. Even when watching documentaries, he'll point out when they're showing the wrong footage, the wrong aircraft for that time period, etc, etc. Like the OP was saying in this thread, it can get a bit annoying.

reply

[–] benbrae76 9 years ago

In the picking out of goofs and anachronisms etc , I confess to be somewhat like your father. That said, I don't normally do it to excess, but there are so many errors in this movie to make it absurd.

The movie in itself isn't bad, and yes it is just a drama, but it is supposed to based on fact and on Hodges's book, but oh dear, it's so far from either. When I go to a restaurant to buy steak, I don't expect to be served up chicken instead. I expected so much from this movie, and got so little. I got chicken instead of steak. And a pot boiler at that.

reply

[–] kovesp 9 years ago

"If it wasn't for Turing, we probably wouldn't have message boards like this".

Since the war was essentially won by the USSR (80-90% of German casualties were on the Eastern front) and as the movies correctly says (a refreshing deviation from most of the rest of it) Ultra was almost never shared with the Soviets ... how do you figure that? The overemphasis on the role of Ultra is just another part of the cold-war mythology that attempts to devalue the role of the Soviet Union in the war.

reply

[–] labandierra 9 years ago

I believe he was referring to Turing's contributions in computer science and algorithms theory, not his war efforts, which got largely ignored in the film. This film basically reduced Turing to someone who broke German code, which, I believe is a gross injustice to his memory.

reply

[–] tb-sch 9 years ago

Because movies have a certain pace and a shape. There are conventions which make a movie readable. You can notice this when watching asian movies, which follow different conventions and often even though technically executed correctly do not have the impact on a western audience a western movie has.
Also a movie is a visual medium. A good movie will still work to some degree if you don't understand a word, as the main story is told visually.

Unfortunatly history does not care to much for following such a dramaturgy, sticking to a limited number of protagonists and plot points and therefore ephasis has to be changed according to the needs of the movie, which else won't work.

reply

[–] victorpontif 8 years ago

No.

This is why society and culture are *beep*

reply

[–] tb-sch 8 years ago

Sounds like you did some pretty deep thinking there, mate.

reply

[–] glen-493-944508 9 years ago

The major motivation for making this film was to use it as a pro-homosexuality propaganda piece. Period. Including the assertion that Truing committed suicide because of the chemical castration. When the reality is that he had ceased taking those drugs some time before his death. And though his death was ruled a suicide, it is entirely likely it was an accident.

reply

[–] shepherd-26 9 years ago

The major motivation for making this film was to use it as a pro-homosexuality propaganda piece.

Well, I thought the motivation for making the movie was to tell the story of Alan Turing, and I think they did it well. To each his own I guess.

reply

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]

[–] glen-493-944508 9 years ago

It isn't just my opinion. There are clear signs of this given the emphasis on Turing's sexuality, and the narrative. This wasn't a film about Turing, so much as a homosexuality agenda film using Turing's story as it's vehicle. Albeit well made, and well acted. Truthfully, I would probably watch Cumberbatch read the phone book.

reply

[–] palisade-1 9 years ago

Including the assertion that Truing committed suicide because of the chemical castration. When the reality is that he had ceased taking those drugs some time before his death. And though his death was ruled a suicide, it is entirely likely it was an accident.

Well, you can speculate about motives if you wish. That is not an empirical exercise. However, the cause of death is unclear. It could have been suicide, it could have been an accident, it could have been something else...why does the post-mortem coroner's report say "death appeared to be due to violence"?? He noted the presence of cyanide in the room, but did that indicate someone other than Turing administered the cyanide? What is this "violence?" A puzzle.

As for whether he had motive for suicide, that too is debatable. He clearly had other plans on the go, had theatre tickets to an upcoming performance, if it was a suicide it was sudden and possibly impulsive. But, the chemical castration treatment could have been a motive. While the actual shots had been terminated a year earlier, the effects are not necessarily reversible. They may diminish over time.....or not. Turing joked about growing breasts, etc. but he did not find it at all funny that he was impacted cognitively by the hormones. He found he was less able to concentrate, found it difficult to get work done, noticed his thinking was foggy and scattered, and this bothered him a great deal. He could not be certain it was a passing problem.

Turing's death could have been an accident. Or something else. There are unexplained issues. Since cyanide kills almost instantly, how did Turing administer it to himself and then manage to get into bed in a relaxed position, where he was found? It appeared some at least of the cyanide was inhaled -- where was the implement for effecting this? The apple on the bedside was never tested for cyanide, but would not likely have contained the amount of cyanide necessary to produce the indicators in the body. It appeared to be both ingested AND inhaled. Did someone knock Turing out ("violence") and then administer cyanide?

The coroner has long gone and cannot clarify what he meant, and a full autopsy was not performed. The empirical data are conflicting and inconclusive.

One thing I thought very strange was the fact Turing had gone to a fair of some kind with friends two weeks before, and while there went in to a fortune-teller's tent. When he came out, his friend said he was white as a sheet and very upset and frightened. He would not talk about it. One would not expect a man of science to be superstitious, but....another puzzle.

reply

[–] p2c2e 9 years ago

Spoken like someone who does not understand dramatic structure, pacing, or the purpose of characters.

It's kind of silly not to let a work of fiction (whether it is based on actual events or not) be a work of fiction. You all sound like people who moan about movies based on books changing things.

reply

[–] louiseculmer 9 years ago

We have different ideas about what is silly. I personally think it is silly to portray important historical events entirely differently from how they actually happened. And I especially think it is unfair to show Turing engaged in treasonable activity, when he is not inown to have done any such thing.

reply

[–] siargao 9 years ago

Many many people still believe that movies such as 'The Great Escape' etc depict the truth of events

Then they are the fools, not the film makers.

If I want to be entertained I visit the movies and it is all over within two hours.

If I want to understand the history of a particular event I visit a library and read for a couple of days (to interpret for the younger readers - that is the time it takes for about a million tweets or FaceBoof OMGs about Justin Bieber's latest eyebrow metal).

People who believe they are watching a historically accurate documentary when they sit to enjoy 'The Great Escape' are dim witted, too lazy to inquire and too ignorant to know where to start. The education departments of schools across the Western World guaranteed a dumb generation to follow when they ceased having Ancient History and Modern History as compulsory studies.

reply

[–] louiseculmer 9 years ago

there is no reason why a film can't be entertaining and historically accurate. this film does a disservice to Turing by showing him doing things that were actually treason at the time. They have no business doing that.

reply

[–] Bush_Pilot 9 years ago

For siargao...... Just so you know.... we are talking here of needless inaccuracies, not depth or thoroughness.

reply

[–] blair_r 9 years ago

WHAT?!?!!? So hes not gay then ?!

reply

[–] undomiel152003-1 9 years ago

Sorry to say this and not be politically correct, but, it only speaks of how stupid some people are to believe everything they are spoon fed and not investigate on their own. It is not Hollywood's fault.

Quit ya moanin

reply

[–] louiseculmer 9 years ago

it wouldn't be too difficult for the film makers to make stories about real people reasonably accurate and still be interesting.

reply

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]

[–] [deleted] 7 years ago

This ^

Although it could be said about a lot of other movies "based" on true events, which maybe even more distort the facts in a more damaging way.

And most of the people will not look up the facts and will think it is the truth.

Pain and Gain comes to mind, they made the whole incident a comedy, and they made the murderers funny and sympatetic whilst making the victims not as sympatetic and kind of jerks like they had it coming.

I remember reading that the survivor of the murder attempt was complaining about how he was portrayed in the movie.

And I liked that movie, it was fun to watch. But when I read about the true crime it was based on it was a very different and sinister story.

reply

[–] Tin_ear 9 years ago

I'm not sure about the sarcasm part (as this article thoroughly notes: http://www.slate.com/blogs/browbeat/2014/12/03/the_imitation_game_fact_vs_fiction_how_true_the_new_movie_is_to_alan_turing.html).

The film actually makes him unnecessarily weird and overly-genius, in part because that's the only way they think we will accept a legendary mathematician/computer innovator.

I kind of agree with the other guy, who said that it twists the truth for cinematic reasons, but the way they do it is by making him an autistic like Rain Man, which there is no evidence he was. He didn't name the machine after his first and only true friend, at very least because he didn't "invent" it all by himself, it wasn't really his. The final scenes sort of exaggerate his pathetic life and tragedy. I know, it's a movie, it is allowed to take liberties, but it felt forced and cliched, and when you look it up it was ultimately not real, so it was actually a weird choice.

reply

[–] teodormihai1997 9 years ago

https://media.giphy.com/media/5xtDarmwsuR9sDRObyU/giphy.gif

Ma-HAUUUUAAAHAGGHHH the French... champagne has always been celebrated for its excellence.

reply

[–] maelzoid 9 years ago

The problem I have with this film is the sheer volume of untruths it uses. Having read Andrew Hodges' book upon which this film was based I was startled at the amount of artistic license taken. If, as you say, a film should entertain, inform and educate, then it utterly fails with the last two. And having some idea of the truth, I found the liberties taken so frustrating that it affected how I enjoyed the entertainment side of the film.

Although a bit of time-line juggling and some invented characters are to be expected, what really annoys me about this is the representation of Turing himself - apparently the filmmaker's aim was to capture his 'spirit', but I think they made a mockery of him.

In the film Turing covered up a for a Soviet spy (treason) - not recorded in real life.

In the film Turing confessed all to an interviewing policeman (treason) - not in real life.

In the film Turing appeared to be somewhere on the autistic spectrum with his robotic responses and weird obsessions - not in real life.

In the film Turing spent his last days mooning over his computer, called Christopher, whom he seemed to think embodied his dead boyhood friend - not in real life.

In the film Turing suffered so physically and mentally from his hormone treatment that it drove him to suicide - not recorded in real life.

In the film Turing worked alone, deeming his colleagues not clever enough to help with the making of his machine - not in real life.

In the film Turing was a fastidious and smart dresser - not in real life. This might seem like a minor point, but it just goes to show that the filmmakers are more interested in a caricature of the 'mad professor' than the man himself.

Ultimately, I think the filmmakers insulted Turing's memory greatly. And the idea that Cumberbach is considered as giving a good performance when he was so far from the person he was portraying is a joke.

reply

[–] Bush_Pilot 9 years ago

The most insulting 'poetic license' in my opinion was the film stating that the cryptographers actually decided life and death when in fact there was an Ultra committee specifically formed to decide what 'secrets' were allowed to be acted on and could be covered in other ways as far as where the knowledge came from. Thank God we did not have to depend on these intellectual types to decide these things. I doubt they would have wanted to be burdened with that task either.

reply

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]

[–] puschit-1 9 years ago

As time goes on and the survivors of WWII decrease every year, anything that keeps the actions of these people in the public domain has to be welcomed. Many fans of Cumberbatch or Knightley or interested in Oscar winning films will come to this knowing little or nothing of the subject matter, and go away moved and aware of what those at Bletchley achieved.

Well, and that's EXACTLY the problem. Those people know next to nothing about the subject and they are serverd a potpourri of true facts, half-knowledge and outright lies. Yes, this isn't a documentation and yes, it says in the beginning "basing on a true story". HOWEVER, nobody outside history buffs will ever bother to do reasearch on it's own, popular media like this movie is slowly replacing documentation. Yes, on the one hand it's "better than nothing" but on the other hand, spreading false information like this is only accelerating the process you describe.
See, somebody that knows next to nothing of the subject has absolutely no way to distinguish facts from fiction presented in this movie. Was the real Turing gay or was it just added because prosecution of homosexuals is the hot topic of the year? That person has only two options: "Save" everything to a part of the brain that treats everything as pure fiction that can't be trusted or assume that most of it is true. Humans almost always tend to do the latter. And since they still don't know which parts are true, subconciously they assume all of them are, especially if they heat the same thing again from other sources.

There are inaccuaries that are "harmless" and can be forgiven in order to make a better movie. For example it was ridiculous that the team was able to create a map with every ship of both sides some hours after breaking the code the first time (even with enough time, how would they know about the positions of the british and american ships!?). However, it was a good scene to demonstrate a) how useful breaking the code is and b) how difficult it is to use that knowledge wisely. More importantly, this scene doesn't do any harm to any person, group of people, nation or ideology.
Barely mentioning the polish efforts (and successes!) in breaking Enigma on the other hand? Portraying Denniston as a cardboard villain that actively tried to arrest Turing? Things like this not only overdramatize, they do harm to actual persons.

reply

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Avwillfan89 9 years ago

I'm also sick and tired of this film being bashed for not being historically accurate. If you look at the history of films being based on true stories, you'll find that absolutely none of the films are 100 percent accurate.

There are just some events in life or history that simply cannot be adapted on screen that way, either because it wouldn't make sense, appear too goofy, or because people just don't know what actually happened. So they make up a scenario with the personality of character, told by close friends or relatives, or documented in another, and put them in a scene, to illustrate how that person acted with others.

The accusations about him being a traitor are ludicrous. Tell me, if you were gay at a time where you could go to prison for it, and a spy threatens to report you to authorities if you disclose them, would you have told anyone? I certainly wouldn't have.

And Turing does end up telling Menzies about it when he threatens Joan Clarke, which shows him as a very brave man who cares for his loved ones. Menzies is the real traitor, because he put the spy John Cairncross at Bletchley in the first place.

Yes, there were certain things I wish they would have focused more on, such as Turing's work AFTER the war, on the very first computers and the Turing Test, and focus less on the relationship between Turing and Joan. But in telling the overall story of Alan Turing, I can honestly say that the filmmakers couldn't have done a better job.

This film moved me so much that it haunted me for days. It's a beautiful, heartbreaking, informative movie about a brilliant genius and war hero who was done a horrific and disgusting injustice.

But if people want only facts, just read the book Alan Turing: The Enigma for more information. I also really loved the book, an amazing and sympathetic portrayal of Turing, but there was too many details on the mathematics and engineering, and at times, it wasn't really entertaining. This film is an entertaining version of that story.

reply

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Avwillfan89 9 years ago

Well I think you're wrong. The point of the film was to bring Alan Turing's story to wider audience and celebrate him for the hero he was never hailed as. To turn a story as complicated as the life of Alan Turing and the codebreaking years during the second world war into a film that's easily accessible to wide audience is brilliant and incredible. Graham Moore's script topped the blacklist of the best unproduced screenplays ever written, and went on to win the Oscar for Best Adapted Screenplay.

Not all people can like a craft, but that's what art is. You like it, or you don't. But if it makes you feel something, then it's a success. And I thoroughly enjoyed this film.

reply

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]

[–] louiseculmer 9 years ago

but it isn't alan turing's story. that's the annoying part. The real,story of Alan turing is quite different. and I don't see why they couldn't have used the real story and not made a lot of stuff up.

reply

[–] markfilipak 9 years ago

Avwillfan89 wrote:
"Not all people can like a craft, but that's what art is. You like it, or you don't. But if it makes you feel something, then it's a success."

How does one achieve greatness in art? Most people would say that great art illuminates the truth in a new way, so that viewers attain insights otherwise unavailable.

You can't illuminate the truth by lying. You don't provide insight by turning your subject's life into a cliche.

Yes, I expect celebrated films to be great art. These film makers spend millions of dollars and months of labor. I expect excellence, always.
_____
I don't have a dog. And furthermore, my dog doesn't bite. And furthermore, you provoked him.

reply

[–] benbrae76 9 years ago

The accusations about him being a traitor are ludicrous. Tell me, if you were gay at a time where you could go to prison for it, and a spy threatens to report you to authorities if you disclose them, would you have told anyone? I certainly wouldn't have.

And Turing does end up telling Menzies about when he threatens Joan Clarke, which shows him as a very brave man who cares for his loved ones. Menzies is the real traitor, because he put the spy John Cairncross at Bletchley in the first place.

This is pure fantasy. For starters it wasn't illegal to be gay. The act of sodomy was.

There's no evidence that Cairncross even met Turing at the time the Bombe was being built. In 1942 and 1943 Cairncross worked in Bletchley Park, but in Hut 3. Turing worked in Huts 15 and 8, besides which Turing was probably in the US when Cairncross was in Bletchley. From November 1942, Turing worked with US Navy cryptanalysts on naval Enigma and bombe construction in Washington; he also visited their Computing Machine Laboratory in Dayton, Ohio.

There is no historical basis whatsoever for any blackmail on Turing by Cairncross, and none at all provided by the movie. The probability is that it's all just pure fiction. Just like the rest of the movie.

reply

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]

[–] louiseculmer 8 years ago

the point is there is no evidence that turing was ever blackmailed, so to imply that he was, and that he went along with it, even for a short while, is a slur on turing's memory. Likewise to suggest that he blabbed everything to a policeman.

And there are numerous other inaccuracies in this annoying film. Apparently the filmmakers thought it wouldn't be exciting enough to tell the real story, which i find quite baffling.

I'm amazed that you think they couldn't have done a better job. i can hardly see how they could have done a worse job.

reply

[–] shepherd-26 9 years ago

that keeps coming up. Its frustrating to keep reading.

Well, all of these arguments about how much truth is really in TIG are just a waste of bandwidth because neither side is going to convince the other. There are reasonable people on both sides of this issue. Some, like me, think TIG is a great movie even if parts of it are for dramatic effect and did not happen as portrayed in the movie. Others think it is a terrible movie because it isn't 100% truthful, or even 90% truthful.

People have opinions. I respect those on both sides.

On the other hand, I have no respect for people like beetlebrain and nakedgirl who don't add anything to the discussion.

reply

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]

[–] benbrae76 9 years ago

That is what is called "tempting fate", Shep. Don't encourage them. :-)

To get back to TIG. At least no one can deny it's controversial, and has indeed caused controversy on many fronts. Including whether or not includes cameras. :-)

reply

[–] timebeetlebrannigan679 9 years ago

They dent harve camerays like this in the 70s.

reply

[–] benbrae76 9 years ago

Really? Well who cares?

reply

[–] timebeetlebrannigan679 9 years ago

Factualy inaccuracy checkers.

reply

[–] benbrae76 9 years ago

The OP stated "A films prime aims must be to entertain, to inform, to educate." Presumably "As time goes on and the survivors of WWII decrease every year,..." which he also stated. OK I agree, but educate with films like TIG which is almost completely devoid of facts? That's some educating.

reply

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]

[–] benbrae76 9 years ago

Just getting back to the so-called blackmail.

How on earth would it have benefited Cairncross to blackmail Turing? Turing had nothing whatever to do with the actual decoding of the messages. His job was to simply to make the messages decodable by his Bombe machine. He wouldn't have either seen, or have any influence on, the end result. So even if Turing and Cairncross had worked together on the Bombe, which they didn't, any information from that vicinity would have been of little value to the Russians. It follows that Turing would never have discovered that Cairncross was a Soviet spy, and Cairncross would have had no reason to blackmail Turing. The whole episode is ludicrous.

reply

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]

[–] shepherd-26 9 years ago

He wouldn't have either seen, or have any influence on, the end result.

Ben, of course Turing and Cairncross worked in different locations and had no interaction with each other (that we are aware of), we know that.

But Turing and the other cryptanalysts would have seen plenty of decrypted intercepts as part of their regular duties. The bombes required cribs, and good ones, and the only way to build good cribs is to see the translation of past decrypts. I would imagine that a very large part of what the cryptanalysts did each day was to pore over old decrypt translations looking for good cribs they could use currently. Then they would look at current unencrypted intercepts and build menus for the bombes based on those cribs.

Once the bombes determined the correct daily key, I'm sure another hut would have been charged with using the Typex machines and actually decrypting that day's intercepts, and Turing would not have been involved in that. But Turing and his crew would have seen plenty of translated intercepts every day, I would imagine, because that's where the cribs were to be found and the better the crib, the sooner the bombe would find the daily key.

At least that's my take on it.

reply

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]

[–] benbrae76 9 years ago

Cairncross worked in Hut 3 i.e. intelligence: translation and analysis of Army and Air Force decrypts. But he didn't begin there until 1942. It's impossible to state categorically that Cairncross didn't smuggle Enigma decrypts out to send to his Soviet handlers etc, but not from where Turing was working. Their paths may have crossed, but then I think most likely only very briefly, with nothing relative to blackmail.

Turing worked for a short while in Hut 15 and then in Hut 8 which was solely responsible for the cryptanalysis of Naval Enigma (which would at that time have been of very little use to the Soviets, the Atlantic not being a theatre within their sphere of operations or of power of influence).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bletchley_Park#Additional_buildings

The question is Shep, how close were the codebreakers of each hut in relation to those of other huts? Bletchley was by the very nature of the work, a very tight ship. (I'm thinking here on a possible and factual blackmail angle, that would induce Graham Moore to include such an implausible scenario.)

reply

[–] shepherd-26 9 years ago

how close were the codebreakers of each hut in relation to those of other huts?

I don't know the answer to that, but I imagine the Bletchley website has diagrams of where all the huts were, and what went on within each.

I would imagine also that the occupants of each hut pretty much kept to themselves and didn't discuss their jobs with people from other huts, although cryptanalysts from all huts might have wanted to compare notes from time to time so that they could do their jobs better.

I doubt that Graham Moore is privy to information linking Turing and Cairncross in any conceivable way. I imagine Moore heard about a spy and thought it might be good drama to link him up with Turing, so he did it. I agree with you, it's very unlikely to have happened in real life, much like the bar scene with the "revelation."

reply

[–] benbrae76 9 years ago

The link immediately below is a disclaimer by the ex-wife of Cairncross.
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/widow-notorious-scots-spy-rubbishes-4676391

She may have been mixed up by the hut number that Cairncross worked in, or maybe I have it wrong. She does say he stole enigma decrypts, but probably means Tunny. Any views?

I imagine the Bletchley website has diagrams of where all the huts were, and what went on within each.

I've put these up before, but I can do it again.

The list and functions of Huts and Blocks at Bletchley Park:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bletchley_Park#Additional_buildings

Flow of information:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bletchley_Park#/media/File:Information_Flow_Bletchley_Park_Enigma_Messages.png

A layout diagram is not so easy to find. If you can find a better one than these below, please post it.

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=Layout+of+Bletchley+in+WWII&biw=1440&bih=791&site=webhp&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ved=0CDIQsARqFQoTCJrB5u_NnMcCFeNq2wodFhIGUQ&dpr=1#tbm=isch&tbs=rimg%3ACVnXwkPqpCEFIjhPy5_1M6uGxdoN5VJo1YAXZgfgphPDjKW9wl5FAelXgqVDpMdn5HZEPLxJvAV4udMr5erUzAnh9DyoSCU_1Ln8zq4bF2EfyJcl4foWuqKhIJg3lUmjVgBdkRIKpmPmF_1ixkqEgmB-CmE8OMpbxH81U0Lf_1-AICoSCXCXkUB6VeCpERcZ8GbYxYvwKhIJUOkx2fkdkQ8Rh2RGCzMPN4EqEgkvEm8BXi50yhE5ZPArA7a48SoSCfl6tTMCeH0PEaopjO3pokQd&q=Layout%20of%20Bletchley%20in%20WWII&imgrc=cJeRQHpV4Kl6KM%3A

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=Layout+of+Bletchley+in+WWII&biw=1440&bih=791&site=webhp&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ved=0CDIQsARqFQoTCJrB5u_NnMcCFeNq2wodFhIGUQ&dpr=1#tbm=isch&tbs=rimg%3ACVnXwkPqpCEFIjhPy5_1M6uGxdoN5VJo1YAXZgfgphPDjKW9wl5FAelXgqVDpMdn5HZEPLxJvAV4udMr5erUzAnh9DyoSCU_1Ln8zq4bF2EfyJcl4foWuqKhIJg3lUmjVgBdkRIKpmPmF_1ixkqEgmB-CmE8OMpbxH81U0Lf_1-AICoSCXCXkUB6VeCpERcZ8GbYxYvwKhIJUOkx2fkdkQ8Rh2RGCzMPN4EqEgkvEm8BXi50yhE5ZPArA7a48SoSCfl6tTMCeH0PEaopjO3pokQd&q=Layout%20of%20Bletchley%20in%20WWII&imgrc=WdfCQ-qkIQVRNM%3A

reply

[–] shepherd-26 9 years ago

She may have been mixed up by the hut number that Cairncross worked in, or maybe I have it wrong. She does say he stole enigma decrypts, but probably means Tunny. Any views?

Ben, I'm not really interested in Cairncross. I think Wikipedia says he passed mostly Tunny intercepts, not Enigma.

A layout diagram is not so easy to find.

Yes, I see. I found those same pictures and none of them, it seems, gives a good relative layout of where the various huts are in relation to each other. And I guess it doesn't matter, we know that Turing and Cairncross worked in different huts, whether they ever met (like maybe in the cafeteria) probably can never be known.

I'd like to visit Bletchley one day, and Liverpool, home of the Beatles (I was a big fan back in the 1960's, I learned to play guitar with Beatles songs).

reply

[–] benbrae76 9 years ago

I'd like to visit Bletchley one day, and Liverpool, home of the Beatles (I was a big fan back in the 1960's, I learned to play guitar with Beatles songs).

Never been to Bletchley either. Been to Liverpool many times, but not to the Cavern nor Abbey Rd. Like you with Cairncross, the Beatles don't really interest me. History of espionage does. :)

reply

[–] louiseculmer 9 years ago

Bletchley is fascinating, there's loads to see there. So is Liverpool. I was there last year and went to the cavern and the Beatles experience, and i did a taxi tour round all the outlying places, Penny Lane, Strawberry Fields, John and Paul's childhood homes etc. ringo's old house is all boarded up, all the houses in that street are going to be demolished, which is a shame.

reply

[–] shepherd-26 9 years ago

Thanks Louise. I hope I can make it to Bletchley while the last few actual ww2 workers are still there.

reply

[–] benbrae76 9 years ago

Just looked up the Bletchley website. I see they have a shop. Wonder if they supply layouts of the park in WWII. Could give them a call I suppose. :)

reply

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]

[–] benbrae76 9 years ago

Apparently there's still quite a lot left to visit. Even a TIG museum.

https://www.bletchleypark.org.uk/content/visit/whattosee.rhtm

reply

[–] louiseculmer 9 years ago

Some of the huts are still there and contain exhibitions of the work that went on there, and films projected onto the walls of people doing things etc. one of the huts has a really fascinating exhibition about carrier pigeons and their role in the war - they did the most amazing things. I had no idea pigeons were such extraordinary birds.

reply

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]

[–] coolaree 9 years ago

Good point OP, about keeping the actions of the people in the public domain.

I don't know about most people, but I enjoyed this movie fine, great acting, and of course afterwards I looked it up and realised all the inaccuracies and entire important characters/groups/technologies left out, and it was a fascinating read.

Anyone who was really fascinated by the film would google it and find out all the real info I reckon and keep that knowledge. Most others will just forget about it and bring it up 5 years later "yeah that was a good movie, Alan Turing was a brilliant, smart man, oh and a homo!", and hey, would they really be wrong...

reply

[–] TheManInOil 9 years ago

I can agree that historical fiction needn't adhere slavishly to the truth, but this movie suffers from the same faults so many supposedly true stories do. It's pandering and simplistic. It reduces all achievements to one person. It even credits him for being the only one willing to let a woman contribute to the war effort. It's absurd.

It's a mollifying story for someone who doesn't want to know the actual facts. But in so being it does a disservice to its subject, who was a man with a complex and worthwhile story.

I didn't hate this movie, but it's light entertainment not to be taken seriously and certainly not to take as an educational source.

reply