Major liberties taken with some of Turing's real life story doesn't bother, but take on his homosexuality does perhaps slightly

Rating: 6/10 (12 January 2015)

Creating a screenplay based on the biography of Alan Turing, was by no means an easy feat. Had it only been about cracking Nazi Germany's 'Enigma' code, screenwriter Graham Moore, would probably be at a loss to make the whole thing work dramatically. But wisely Moore includes flashbacks to Turing's early days at an English boarding school as well as flash forwards over his tragic fall from grace regarding his then-banned homosexual lifestyle.
Nonetheless, it's instructive to ask how accurate 'The Imitation Game' is as Slate Magazine asks in an article of the same name. Is it true, as Dana Stevens states in Slate, "The Imitation Game doesn't do right by the complex and often unlovable man it purports to be about." Stevens read Andrew Hodges' biography of Turing and noted how Turing's true story differed in major ways from the way in which he was depicted in the film.
Stevens "discovered that The Imitation Game takes major liberties with its source material, injecting conflict where none existed, inventing entirely fictional characters, rearranging the chronology of events, and misrepresenting the very nature of Turing's work at Bletchley Park." Should we conclude that Turing's story was substantially compromised due to what Stevens terms, 'major liberties' taken? The question should be re-framed: if major liberties weren't taken, could the screenwriter have made it work at all?
One of Stevens' big objections is that the Bombe, the big ticking machine Turing is supposed to have invented himself, actually was created by a Polish scientist. What's more, Turing collaborated with another scientist on the machine's design (which is not even mentioned in the film). This seems like a minor point as the film is about Turing and playing with the biographical facts in such a way, hardly seems like much of a sin.
Of more concern is Stevens' charge that Cumberbatch's depiction of Turing as narcissistic and detached has "more in common with the actor's title character in Sherlock than with the Turing of Hodges' biography." Stevens indicates that the real Turing was "very approachable" and the men at Bletchley Park, were very fond of him. Turing was eccentric to a certain degree and adding in a degree of narcissism, didn't detract from the drama, in my opinion, but may have added to it.
Stevens concedes that were a good number of real incidents incorporated into the film (the young Turing being nailed under the floorboards by bullies, as well as a romantic interest in a boy at the boarding school). Stevens quibbles that there is no mention in Hodges' biography about Turing's obsession with separating the peas and the carrots.
While Stevens takes issue with the depiction of Commander Deniston as a rigid naval officer who at one point attempts to fire Turing, he concedes that the made-up conflict between the two men is a "stand in for a real-life power struggle between the military brass and the cryptologists." Stevens notes that, "Turing's colleagues there recalled that Turing "was always impatient of pompousness or officialdom of any kind," which made him ill-suited for work in a military context, and Hodges writes that he "had little time for Denniston."
Turing's note to Churchill which got the project additional funding and put him in a charge, never happened. But Hugh Alexander, one of the principals there, along with a few colleagues, did write to Churchill successfully requesting more staff and resources in 1941.
As far as Hugh Alexander, Turing's rival in the film, Stevens notes that Alexander didn't work with Turing until a year went by and there was none of that conflict between them as depicted in the film. Alexander was a diplomat, which contrasted with Turing's lack of ability in that department. Still, creating a rivalry between the two, seems within the purview of standard dramatic license. The same goes for Turing's relationship with Joan Clarke, the only female mathematician who is part of the team. Clarke did accept Turing's homosexuality but of course the violent argument between them never happened. Still I would argue, creating an argument for dramatic purpose, does not detract from the narrative's overall effect.
One point in the film which never took place and seems a bit forced is when one of the team's members, Peter, begs Turing to save his brother, who is on a supply ship, about to be torpedoed by the Germans. This is after Turing and the team have cracked Enigma but refuse to save the brother, as alerting the ship, may tip off the Germans. In a film like this, the narrative depends on invented dramatic moments, and again, this is another necessary, albeit forced, example.
'The Imitation Game' still has been the subject of some legitimate criticism. Amy Nicholson finds the treatment of Turing's homosexuality to be sanitized: "Despite its brusque lead, The Imitation Game is too mannerly to ask Cumberbatch to act on Turing's feelings. There's no flirtation, kissing, nothing that even hints that Turing ever felt the jolt of sexual electricity that would prod him to, at 39, sleep with the 19-year-old hustler who burgled his house and got him arrested. (That, too, happens off screen.) Turing is kept tweedy and neutered, as closeted in celluloid as he was in real life... The plotting goes for surprise over struggle. Tyldum has robbed his own film of emotional depth — this Turing is as simple as Morse code. Rather than a complex human portrait, this is an assemblage of triumphs, tragedies and tics."
Gregory Ellwood also echos Nicholson's criticism: "In effect, much of Turing's gay life is completely washed over. He says he had numerous affairs/lovers, but the film pushes the central relationship between his one-time fiancé Clarke as the most prominent."
Despite the historical liberties, screenwriter Moore has done a reasonably good job in telling Turing's heroic story. One only wishes Moore dealt with Turing's homosexuality in a more straightforward manner.