His sexuality is something contained that is expressed in the film but not shown explicitly. There is no heterosexuality expressed in the film. So what we show in his behavior is sadly true to his story. He had to suppress his sexuality, make it private, make it something secret. When he talks about his sexuality in the film it shows his complete honesty, guilelessness, innocence. He was aware of the risks but at the same time wasn’t willing to cave in to the intolerance and potential permutations of confessing such a thing. Some people own him as martyr or as standard-bearer for a cause. I think he was just very true to himself, which is a form of martyrdom, but he didn’t make a political statement out of it.”
— Benedict Cumberbatch explaining to NME why the sexual orientation of WWII codebreaker Alan Turing, who was eventually chemically castrated for being gay, doesn’t figure into his new biopic The Imitation Game
Alton
I’ll reserve judgment til I see the film, but it seems to me they’re missing an opportunity to illustrate the part of Turing’s life that led directly to oppression and death. He WAS a martyr, Benedict, whether people choose to look at him that way or not. We don’t need to see him having sex to show that, but his homosexuality MUST be suitably acknowledged if you’re going to tell his story in any meaningful way.
Trippy
Or in other words: “Doing gay stuff on screen is icky, and I just told the producers ‘no fucking way’.”
stadacona
Turing liked to suck dick in public toilets – that is on public record. This actor and the film producers are cowards.
QJ201
….but he didn’t make a political statement out of it…BECAUSE YOU COULDN’T IN THE 1950s
idiot actor apologizing for gay man not being “all political” in a time when it was impossible to do so
Cam
And the film industry once again continues their long long long history of neutering any facts about gays.
BJ McFrisky
This guy is famous for his innovations in computer science, not for whomever he courted in his bed. Admittedly, to include that in his biography is necessary, but not the accomplishment he’ll be remembered for.
@stadacona: You want the “cowardly” filmmakers to depict explicit toilet-sex? Newsflash: There are websites for that, and they cost less than a movie theater ticket.
Trippy
@BJ McFrisky:
Agreed that the primary focus of the film should be to educate the public on his extraordinary contributions to the field of computer science, but from my understanding, the POV of the film is also to demonstrate how horribly he was treated in 1950’s Britain for being a homosexual regardless of his academic achievements.
For anyone under the age of 40, this film offered a chance to see just how intensely homophobic England was at that time (as were most countries). The man was chemically castrated for god’s sake. If done correctly, the filmmaker could have demonstrated (tastefully) the extremes a man like Turling had to go to to find companionship from others like him. In need not be “explicit,” but showing Turling in back alleys and public restrooms (assuming that’s what he did) could have illustrated how desperate some gay men were for physical contact and how great the risk was even to attempt it. It would have been a telling reminder of how far we’ve come in such a short time… and how far we still have to go for total acceptance.
Of course, there’s no law that says this film has to be the only film about Turling’s life. Others are free to make their own. After all, there were two Capote films a few years ago, so there’s no reason to close the book on Turling’s unique experience. I’ve not seen the film, so I am reserving judgment for now, but it would be a shame to discover that the filmmakers deliberately scrubbed that part of his life just because they deemed his choices at that time to be distasteful. We’ll just have to watch it and see for ourselves.
vive
Benedict Cumberbatch is full of bullshit.
Biopics generally depict the important things that are known about the lives of their subjects, public AND PRIVATE, and ESPECIALLY events that in this case led directly to the torture and death of the subject. So saying that they don’t depict it because he couldn’t be open about it is a homophobic erasure, an insult to gay people that needs a damn of a better explanation than that.
vive
“…but he didn’t make a political statement out of it…BECAUSE YOU COULDN’T IN THE 1950s.”
Um hello Benedict, anybody home? Turing’s life, trial, torture, and death WERE a political statement.
demented
@vive: It’s only a political statement if you do it deliberately. He didn’t. It may be significant (and is!), but I don’t think Turing experienced all that just to make a statement.
KwisatzHaderach
It’s telling that Cumberbund can’t even bring himself to say the word GAY. Oh, but, “there is no heterosexuality expressed in the film.” How does one manage that exactly?! If Keira Knightley’s character is shown pining for an unresponsive Turing, that’s an expression of heterosexuality!
Cam
@BJ McFrisky: said…”This guy is famous for his innovations in computer science, not for whomever he courted in his bed. Admittedly, to include that in his biography is necessary, but not the accomplishment he’ll be remembered for.”
__________________-
And once again BJ’s default is to defend anybody who is opposed to gays being depicted, gays being out etc….
Here is a thought. in the Biopic of Stephen Hawking that is coming out they spent plenty of time demonstrating that he is heterosexual and funny, but HE isn’t known for whom he courted in bed either. Interesting how that doesn’t seem to be an issue as long as the person is hetrosexual.
BJ McFrisky
@Cam: Won’t read or respond to your comments, never will.
demented
@KwisatzHaderach: It’s an expression of HER heterosexuality, not his. I don’t think it would occur to people to deny that there is ANY heterosexuality anywhere in the movie, especially when he is only responsible for his depiction of Turing. Hell, he may not even know how prominent it will be, unless he’s involved in post-production editing.
And since Cumberbatch once married a same-sex couple, I don’t think he’s opposed to LBGTA_____ people.
DustRahne
All he is saying is that we don’t need to see him having sex because it is not essential to the story. Turing being gay is a part of the movie but adding a sex scene “just because” is pandering. I don’t need to see every gay character in a movie having sex.
Cam
@BJ McFrisky: said….”@Cam: Won’t read or respond to your comments, never will.”
_____________
Because you can’t. Every time you’ve tried your motive was exposed.
Again, in this case you defended the anti-gay scrubbing of his homosexuality by screaming that he wasn’t famous for whom he bedded. I pointed out quite clearly that Stephen Hawking isn’t famous for that either but it was presented center stage in the movie about his life.
You have no response to that, so of course you can’t respond. At least now you are finally admitting that. But it is also quite interesting that once again, after defending anything that is anti-gay you are completely unable to defend your position. Some things never change.
AtticusBennett
unlike most folks commenting on this, I’VE actually seen the film – saw the screening at the Toronto Film festival after it won the People’s Choice Award
and he’s right, the timeline of the story – the events it focuses on, any “love/romance” angle would have been a distraction from what the film is actually ABOUT. but just because there’s no sex scene doesn’t mean that his homosexuality is glossed over. it’s not. it’s right there, up on the screen, and it’s not just about him being a homosexual – it’s about his LOVE for another man. and how that love lasted and lasted and lasted. and terrified him. and was a source of both great strength and great terror – it’s utterly heartbreaking as it unfolds onscreen.
usually i get rather tired of “acceptable for straight audiences” films about gay people (seen here)
http://littlekiwilovesbauhaus.blogspot.ca/2008/09/shortbus-and-state-of-queer-cinema.html
is there another film that could be made detailing, perhaps, the love affairs of alan turing? possibly. why not, eh? but this film is about righting an egregious wrong – the persecution, for being gay, of a man who quite literally saved the world.
his being gay is no mere footnote: it’s who he was. he saved the world and the world in turn hounded him, targeted him, and drove him to kill himself.
i repeat: I HAVE SEEN THIS FILM – and while it does not include a sex scene of any sort, it rather explicitly shows LOVE between two males. on screen. love. L O V E – love.
so yes. there’s love between men on screen in this film, just not acts of sex. which are, however, talked about.
vive
@demented: “It’s only a political statement if you do it deliberately. He didn’t. It may be significant (and is!), but I don’t think Turing experienced all that just to make a statement.”
Of course not deliberately, but the facts of his life ARE political.
NG22
@Cam: I agree with you entirely. It’s immature to refuse to read your responses, especially since you usually have thoughtful comments.
More generally, I agree with all those who call for a more accurate representation of Turing’s life. I don’t need to see a penetration shot of Benedict’s Cumberbutt (though it might be nice), but I want to get an idea of how Turing expressed his sexuality.
It need not be salacious, but it should be informative. I think his sexual expression is pertinent to telling his story, considering that it ended so tragically. And it ended *because* of his sexuality. If Turing wasn’t virginal or non-sexual, don’t depict him as such. Going for accuracy is always best.
vive
@AtticusBennett, thank you for the description.
“Usually i get rather tired of “acceptable for straight audiences” films about gay people.”
I think it is more of a problem of “what conservative gay people think are acceptable portrayals of gay people for straight audiences,” and these days there are so MANY conservative gay people, who think for example that showing furtive tearoom sex will scare the breeders (think of the children!) and thus set back the cause of gay assimilation or whatever their political goals may be.
demented
@DustRahne: Exactly. It feels like commentors are insisting, “It’s not a REAL gay character unless we see him having graphic sex scenes!” which is not true at all. We don’t have to see graphic sex scenes to be assured of a hetero character’s sexuality, or to see it indicated, so why the reverse?
The main focus of the movie is his work and a small portion of his life. Exactly how does a sex scene work in breaking the Enigma Code?
Saint Law
@BJ McFrisky: “Won’t read or respond to your comments, never will.”
Responds shitbag, after reading them.
KwisatzHaderach
@demented:
No one was asking for explicit sex scenes, just that he not be portrayed as some neutered (which is ironic, given what happened to him), asexual math genius. Atticus states that this is not the case. So fine. If only Cumberbatch had spoken as plainly…
Recommended Reading: Covering by Kenji Yoshino
Cam
@KwisatzHaderach:
I think you have a valid comment. Cumberpatch is so inarticulate that he ends up harming his own cause.
AtticusBennett
having seen the film, i just don’t see how adding a scene, perhaps, of Turing having a tryst with a rent boy (of sorts) would have added anything – and i’m usually one decrying the desexualized neutering of gay characters in cinema.
he’s not portrayed as asexual, so rest assured that even though there are no sex scenes, his homosexuality is addressed, discussed and explicitly made apparent in the film – best of all, it shows him being aware of his homosexuality while still a young boy.
again – the film does not downplay Turing’s homosexuality at all
Cam
@AtticusBennett:
Perhaps you should have done the publicity for the film rather than Cumberpatch, you seem to be able to clearly address the issue he couldn’t.
AxelDC
This is so 1990s. We have gay characters, but they are only gay in theory, not in practice. The audience does not actually want to see some man-on-man action. Even a kiss is considered too risqué.
If you are going to make a movie about Alan Turing, treat him as a real life human being and not another “good fairy”.
AxelDC
@AtticusBennett: Did you not see Christopher and his Kind (2011) with Matt Smith? They showed Isherwood’s love affairs, which may him into a real person and not just man who calls himself gay. They even had the Doctor himself making out naked with men on camera.
If you are going to make a film about a man who was destroyed for his homosexuality, why act like you are ashamed that he was gay? Stephen Fry was not so shy in Wilde (1997).
Billy Budd
Cumberbatch has the wrong attitude towards the material. Turing was a genius who was given the worst possible treatment from society because of his inclinations, and reportedly commited suicide BECAUSE of it. How can you NOT portray this in the movie?
Chris
The one person to have seen the movies says that Turing’s homosexuality is dealt with, just no explicit sex scene. Okay, I think I’ll wait to see the movie and then comment. No passes; but this is one time that I should see what I’m not talking about before commenting. [Not that it’s stopped me before, mind you…]
mik
The book was boring – Cumberbatch is boring so therefore the movie will be boring
vive
@AtticusBennett, there are certain conventions of the biopic genre, though. I would say that in most cases a straight protagonist would be, say, shown kissing or in bed with a lover or wife. Since you are the one commenter her who has seen it, you’re probBly in the best position to judge, but I’d say that if this film breaks the biopic conventions, there had better be a good explanation for it.
vive
*here
*probably
Damn iPad.
Kieran
Most modern films have no interest in sex scenes and nudity so I guess we shouldn’t be surprised by this.
Sex usually bores film audiences anyway and gay sex would just make straight audiences uncomfortable. Totally understandable.
Billy Budd
I am not complaining about the lack of SEX. I am complaining about the film not showing his love relationships and the fact that he died because he was gay.
AtticusBennett
@AxelDC: i have seen it, and if you go to the blog link of mine that i posted you’ll see i do indeed have very little time for “toned down for insecure straight audiences” portrayals of gay characters, especially historical ones, in film.
that said, having seen The Imitation Game, the structure of the film works – an addition of a sex scene would have actually felt exploitative – just as i find the romances and sex scenes involving heterosexual characters often a distraction from what their film is supposed to be about. the film’s structure, flashbacks and flashfowards, and detailing of his life as a schoolboy, his begin gay is right there, front and centre, on the screen. like i said, i have a real problem with films and tv shows neutering their gay characters – but The Imitation Game *works*. At no point did i ever feel gay audiences, and Turing himself, were being robbed of something by not showing him engaging in sex with a man.
AtticusBennett
@Billy Budd: then you’re complaining about nothing as his “love relationship” with another man is right there on the screen – it’s totally shown – as is his suicide and the factors that drove him to it. so really, you have nothing to complain about since what you’re complaining about “not being shown” IS IN FACT SHOWN.
inbama
@Cam: While I’ll probably see “The Theory of Everything” for wonderful Eddie Redmayne, the romantic focus sure looks cloying for a film about a man of ideas.
Billy Budd
@AtticusBennett: OK, thank you for the information. I don’t care about the sex. I only care about the truth.
rcblue73
To share a bit of personal experience, I had security clearances some years ago and it was like walking on eggshells because there was no clear policy then about being gay. Plus, in the defense industry many of my co-workers were fundamentalist Christians who had extreme social views even about things like women wearing makeup. Not much fun at all so I can imagine how things were back in the 1950s. On a related note, I wrote a series of books featuring a gay main character. Recently decided to publish the books but first sent out a sampling from one of the books to a number of different people in an attempt to gauge reaction. First off, I found a lot of people don’t care to read books anymore, they’d rather wait for the movie. (That’ll be a long wait.) I found the reaction to the sampling itself interesting. The book in question is much like a mainstream political/sci-fi genre instead that main characters and many other characters are gay. Apparently, many readers will only accept gay characters if the story is porn or a simplistic romance story. A serious, political element of the story also bothered readers, I guess gay characters can’t be involved with serious political issues. The straight women who read it said they had no interest in gay characters except for man on man sex scenes; my mystery – whodunit series doesn’t feature any sex scenes. (There are plenty of sex stories all over the ‘net if that’s what someone is looking for.) The reaction to the sampling was very enlightening so I can imagine what attitudes someone producing a movie about a gay character would run into.
vive
@rcblue73, Interesting. Gay mystery/whodunit has been done very successfully by writers such as Josh Lanyon who has some romance but little sex in his/her stories (and a number of female M/M writers who sometimes collaborate with him/her), so there is a definite market for it.
ClarkK
It’s not just BS – it’s a total fabrication, totally hiding a major part of his life that lead to his early death. It also hides a major (but common) crime by governments against gays.
Turning was one of the greatest and most important figures of the 20th Century, although no one knows his name.
He was the man most responsible for the invention of the computer (back in the 1940’s). He practically invented modern mathematics.
He also was the most important person for winning “the War in the Atlantic”, by breaking the German submarine code (“Enigma”). He could not ship supplies, arms and troops to England and the rest of Europe because German torpedoes and controlled the Atlantic. His breaking the code allowed the US to destroy that sub fleet.
Because his work was top secret and for the British military, he never got an recognition. But because he was gay, he lost his job and security clearance (after the government no longer needed him, of course), was prosecuted for being gay, and forced into chemical castration to avoid prison. He died two later, probably from suicide, before he was 42 years old.
The British government did not apologize for their enormous crime until 2009. Arguably the greatest men of the last Century – where are the high schools and space stations named for him? Where is his Nobel Prize?
If you want to see an honest and excellent but low budget movie about him, rent “Breaking the Code”, a 1996 BBC movie.
And boycott this lying piece of crap.
AtticusBennett
@ClarkK: have you seen it? i have. doesn’t sound like you have. what, SPECIFICALLY, do insist the film is “lying” about?
as one who has ACTUALLY SEEN THE FILM – know what else it does? make it rather clear that were Turing not gay, and needing (mild spoiler alert) to communicate with someone else in secret (re: code) – his passion for code breaking and such might never have been tapped.
i’ve seen the film. it boldly addresses his homosexuality, his arrest, his chemical castration, and his suicide. it’s right there, on the screen. what is it you feel the film is lying about?
Brian
Tired of straight people pretending that straight attraction is “normal” while same-sex (or bisexual) attraction is “a political statement.” We shouldn’t let them get away with this ridiculousness. It’s veiled bigotry. I’m a lot less interested in this actor’s work now.
Brian
@AtticusBennett: You’re very proud of having seen the film, yet you describe his lovers as “rent boys.” He had actual boyfriends — one at a time, for years a time. Perhaps you should rely less on your couple of hours in the theater, and instead, actually consider reality and the world we inhabit. Your comments are factually inaccurate and strangely condescending. The movie and the article (and the man’s actual life) have nothing to do with paid prostitutes, so you need a new angle for your argument.
rcblue73
@vive: Josh Lanyon, like James Buchanan and others, is a pen name. No problem with pen names, however, much of m/m writings are by straight women now who are into role playing and romance fantasy. I’ve been lectured by women that the genre is now strictly a ‘by women for women’ place now where writings by actual gay men, like my own writing, are not welcome. I’ve had contact with women writers of male on male fiction. One said while reading about two men getting it on was a turn on for her, she refused to read fiction written by men, that she couldn’t stand reading something that had a “male voice’. She liked reading m/m romances though, as long as it was written with a ‘female voice’. There were a couple of women who let me know that while they liked to read about men getting it on, they absolutely despised gay issues, reading me the riot act about things from marriage to rights, to whatever – that reading about gay issues would hold as much interest for them as reading about black activists or World War II. The concept of same sex marriage took one woman right over the edge, oh dear, she didn’t like that all. Then there was another woman who wrote that all she needed to be gay was to break out her strap on dildo. Kind of simplistic, along the lines of all that someone needs to be black is to put on black face or a put a rubber band on your face to become Asian. In general, they reminded me of straight guys I’ve known who hate lesbians but get off on the idea of watching two women get it on. A while back, a woman author wanted me to do a collaboration with her, and I offered her some assistance, but it quickly turned into a thing where she wanted me to become part of her role playing and started writing me that gay men could be flipped and forced to change, that she felt I was the ideal male from her fan fiction type writing. Very big, “oh dear”. When I didn’t respond in kind she began to threaten that she could ruin me all over the web. Ugh.
So when I publish my books I also expect a lot of issues regarding hetero-centrism and a lot of flack from straight women who regard the gay genre as their own personal property where homosexuals are allowed only to entertain heterosexuals.
vive
@rcblue73, you raise some good points and obviously have some (negative) experience in the slash world. I know Josh Lanyon is a pen name, which is why I referred to the person as him/her. But if a “male voice” is such a bad thing in M/M fiction, why do Josh Lanyon and others choose to use male pen names? I know a narrative voice is not the same as the pen name, but still.
Also, Josh Lanyon, who is probably the biggest in the field, has a sufficiently “male voice” for me to have found his/her stories satisfying, as well as those of a couple of the female (pen name) authors in his/her circle. I’m a gay man on the very left of the political spectrum who normally enjoys quite political authors like Stephen Greco, Samuel Delaney, Bruce Benderson, Tim Dean, Sarah Schulman, etc., so I consider this escapist fluff, but in a good way. True, Lanyon’s books are not political in the angry activist sense, but in my opinion they don’t perpetrate the sins you list, though I’m sure there are other authors who do. As for gay marriage, etc., this is escapist literature, and it would bother (and bore) me also to be preached at regarding gay marriage in a book of this genre. Mystery readers want to get away from the daily grind, including politics, and that is what you have to give them if you want to sell. Finally, the books ARE political in the matter of fact acceptance of gay relationships as unremarkable – in a way their politics can be called “post-gay,” not a politics I agree with much, but nevertheless a politics.
But there seems to be a number of gay male fantasy/SF writers who get published in a yearly collection of short stories (called Wilde Stories or some such). Maybe you could get a start in that literary circle.
I do share your depression regarding the state of gay literature in general, though. There are just not enough good gay literature. Publishers are to blame, certainly, but the biggest blame needs to fall where it belongs – on gay men themselves.
vive
*There IS just not enough good gay literature.
AtticusBennett
@Brian: the ‘rent boy’ i spoke of is what led to his arrest.
the biopic “MILK” didn’t include Harvey’s other boyfriends – including the one he was seeing at the time of his assassination. this is the difference between biopics, which are made to function as cinema with their narrative devices (i.e., characters being altered, of people being turned into a composite character) and a documentary – which is pretty much dedicated to sticking to established facts and not cinematic license. the film “RAY” (the ray charles story) did the same thing – compressed multiple people into one composite character, and eliminating other elements in order to further the storytelling – it’s simply how cinema works.
could they have included a scene of him with a boyfriend or regular lover? yes. possibly. i have no idea how that would have affected the specific narrative structure of this specific film as it stands.
look – i’m as tired as anyone about the neutering of gay characters in cinema, yet having seen the film, and it’s bold and blatant message of how a bigoted world punished the man responsible for saving it. my point? this film will do a tremendous amount of good. and it works as terrifically entertaining cinema.
jmmartin
The BBC version of Turing’s tragic life was far better than this one, which I haven’t even seen. This Cumberbund guy doesn’t even look a thing like Alan.
vive
@AtticusBennett, since the rent boy incident is what led to his arrest, how is it even possible that they left it out of the film? It seems incoherent and puritanical at best, homophobic at worst.
AtticusBennett
@vive: define “left it out” – the only way it’s “left out” is if you demanded to see him having sex with the rent boy. you don’t see that. you do hear him talk about being with him, sexually, and the incident is totally addressed onscreen. there’s just no seen of them having sex.