Sasha Stone has been around the Oscar scene since 1999. Almost everything on this website is her fault.
Better late than never! Barbie was placed in Adapted at the Oscars but is in the Original Screenplay category here,...
Read moreThe Academy should take a bow this morning for bringing back the Oscars, restoring them to their former glory in...
Read moreThe Golden Globes went off well enough this past year that CBS has signed a five-year deal with the Globes...
Read more
Just saw it the other day and thought it was fantastic. I was riveted throughout, historical inaccuracies and all. I just sat down in a dark theater to watch a movie. I was intrigued, stirred, and moved. So it did the job for me. Best movie of the year? Um, no. But Id def. be behind nominations for Cumberbatch, Knightley, Editing, Production Design, and Score – if not more.
The Imitation Game was ok. I saw it at TIFF and was a little underwhelmed. I don’t get the hype, but then again, these PR machines oiled and maintained by Weinstein adds a lot of luster when something is quite dull.
What if the dramatic license is creating the historical inaccuracy? A biopic that deals in real-life people and their reputations has some responsibility to be historically correct. So when ”The Imitation Game” presents Alan Turing as being the very FIRST person to crack the Enigma Code (when he wasn’t) and did it by creating a machine by himself (which he didn’t), it makes me wonder: How much of the rest of the movie is fictionalized? Yes, Turing was a brilliant man whose contributions DID help hasten the end of World War II, but I imagine even he would feel a little embarrassed at being credited with things he didn’t do alone. For the record, Andrew Hodges, the author of the Turing biography that ”Imitation Game” is based on, said he was ”alarmed by the inaccuracies” in the screenplay BEFORE they started shooting. And Keira Knightley, who plays Turing’s onetime fiancee, admits that her movie has ”a lot of inaccuracies,” but rationalized it by saying, ”It is a drama, so ultimately you have to go for the drama.”
I think that people here confuse historical innacuracy with dramatic licence. it’s a film not a documentary. What it is important is the person at the center of it. I am so glad I saw this movie (which I love btw) and I am so glad that I have discovered the person of Turing and the brilliant man he was. And apparently I am not the only one…
Historical inaccuracy rarely irks me while I’m watching a film. It can enormously affect my opinion of the film afterwards, though.
The Imitation Game didn’t need to take all that dramatic licence to make me dislike it. Why did they bother?!
Corvo, that’s fantastic!! I like to joke that it can take me 3 hours to watch 60 Minutes. Haha! I wonder how long it would take me to watch all 325 minutes of the directors cut of Nymphomaniac?? Oy!! Haha!!!
—
Bryce, I think you’re right on the idea of having more exposition of the Enigma machine. If Interstellar was too explainative, The Imitation Game wasn’t enough.
Al, I agree. I’m not saying IMITATION GAME has to necessarily be longer in order to be “better”, that’s just what I would have preferred in this case. But the film could still have been, at once, subtler in its drama and more visually forthcoming/dexterous in its scientific exposition (which is lacking as it is) even when enigma remained the main focus — I mean, after all, LINCOLN is predominantly about the passage of the 13th amendment. I’m just a big fan of scope when it comes to this kind of movies, or as DuVernay puts it, “cradle-to-grave”…or very nearly that.
ditto, Bob
Let me know when Robert Caro or someone comparable is the one making the fuss, until then I’m not even clicking. Sadly for whoever is orchestrating, this is a 24-hour thing, at most.
@Al Robinson
You should watch Nymphomaniac director’s cut, 325 minutes long. Looks like your cup of tea.
Two days ago I saw a Norwegian thriller called “Naboer” and it lasted 70 minutes.
Anyway, I just watched “Pride” and I’m shocked that such a brilliant film is being so overlooked. It has great performances (Bill Nighy and Imelda Staunton are just class), it is well written, it’s a nice story. And it is British. But no, of course we’ll just have to settle with the boring, flat, predictable biopics on Turing and Hawking…
Harvey is back in action !!
Haha! Nope. I was wrong. The Adventures of Milo and Otis, the USA cut was only 76 minutes.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0097050/?ref_=ttspec_spec_tt
BTW Nick, I think probably the shortest movie I’ve ever seen is Garfield 2, aka Garfield: A Tale of Two Kitties. It’s shorter than Ida by 2 minutes. 🙂
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0455499/?ref_=nv_sr_4
Nick, I haven’t yet. But I’m gonna read an article that Robin Write wrote that’s likely gonna convince me to see it. Yeah, 80 minutes is nice and doable.
Part of it is, I love watching movies, but for some reason unless I’m in a movie theater, I still get distracted by other things around me, especially my laptop computer. If I haven’t seen a movie before, I make sure to at least try to turn my computer off or put it in sleep mode while I’m watching.
http://www.writeoutofla.com/2014/12/simply-ida.html
“BTW, I liked that the movie wasn’t another 2 hour 20 minute movie. I’ve gotten kind of tired of all these movies being a little longer than I feel like committing too.”
Al, have you seen Ida? That one is only 80 minutes long. Possibly the shortest film i’ve ever seen.
”The Imitation Game” … ”which itself has a couple of inaccuracies.” Actually, it has MANY inaccuracies.
(SPOILERS ahead!) The Polish cracked the Enigma Code BEFORE Alan Turing arrived at Bletchley Park. However, Turing developed a new machine that cracked it quicker. However, he didn’t create it alone. He accomplished it with a mathemetician (Gordon Welchman), who’s nowhere in the movie. Turing is blackmailed by a colleague about his sexuality. Didn’t happen. … Turing also never called his code-breaking machine ”Christopher,” after a boyhood crush (it’s a screenplay invention). In the movie, Turing is shocked to find out Christopher has died; in reality, he knew Chris was sick. Etc., etc. Defenders can say, ”It’s not a documentary,” but this ”Imitation” biopic sure wants to convince you that you’re getting the ”true” story.
Selma is threatening. Politically threatening in ways that have nothing to do with the Oscar race. It will be attacked by people who could care less about Oscar… or history, for that matter. Goes with the turf. If people are talking about LBJ instead of voting rights, the bigots win…. so that, in part, is what we will do.
Re: LBJ and King. LBJ challenged King to make him do the right thing. It was a (well documented) understanding between the two men.
If people are talking about LBJ instead of voting rights, the bigots win
Great quote Bob! Gonna use that.
good comments Bryce Forestieri. the Keynes bit especially.
agree about the boy. the edit as he is waiting for Christopher and is suddenly alone which cuts to him alone as an adult was as powerfully cinematic as one could hope.
The best thing about the film, though, was Desplat’s immersive score.
Haha Bryce! Yes, that kid who played the younger version of Turing was terrific. I think that would have been fine to see more scenes of him, but I also think that focusing on the creation of the machine, and it’s connection to his past was just fine the way they played it. If they had added more scenes it might have gotten a bit off course for what it’s main storyline was about.
I had no idea that Turing was a world-class runner. How ironic that both late-year films include running as part of it’s story (the other being Unbroken).
BTW, I liked that the movie wasn’t another 2 hour 20 minute movie. I’ve gotten kind of tired of all these movies being a little longer than I feel like committing too.
Interstellar – 169 min
Boyhood – 165 min
Exodus: Gods and Kings – 150 min
Gone Girl – 149 min
The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies – 144 min
Unbroken – 137 min
—
The Imitation Game – 114 min
Anyways, back on topic: Today, I saw IMITATION GAME, which itself has a couple of inaccuracies I could not care any less about. I liked it OK. I mean, Cumberbatch was very good. The rest of the cast was very good. It just happens to be a very lightweight picture. Neither incredibly complex or very much emotional. It’s a well made second-tier biopic. The stand out for me actually was the kid who played young Turing, I thought those were the best parts of the film. I mean, it’s a biopic for crying out loud, how about fleshing him out a bit more, and I don’t mean gay allocations, but how about a fictional meeting between Turing and fellow queen John Maynard Keynes who backed him to get into school? What did they talk about? Well, make shit up. I don’t really care if it ends up being nearly three hours (did I ever mention I adore Oliver Stone’s NIXON?). It’s a biopic!
p.s. How many more times must I be subjected to that CHAPPIE trailer before movies?
SELMA is a film not a history textbook — and anyways, I’m sure it’s nothing “scandalous” or worth writing another useless What-X-Gets-Wrong-About-Y piece for, in fact probably no artistic piece ever is — so, pass.
Sorry, Ryan. I think I made a mistake when typing my email on the post above. Sorry.
Radich, you logged in right.
just that the spam filter holds onto comments with more than one hyperlink because bad spam is full of hyperlinks.
OT: Since this is a Best Picture post, I think I can post this here? If not, I apologize.
Apparently, “Selma” is being questioned for its accuracy.
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/selma-disappoints-lyndon-b-johnson-760379?utm_source=twitter
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-movie-selma-has-a-glaring-historical-inaccuracy/2014/12/26/70ad3ea2-8aa4-11e4-a085-34e9b9f09a58_story.html
This movie is just screaming for awards.
I thought this was going to be a post about Unbroken. But it wasn’t. But it kinda is.