Change Your Image
mj_wardlaw
Reviews
Breaking the Code (1996)
Far better than The Imitation Game
It all goes to show the power of Hollywoodification and some star glitz. I have just come here from submitting a review of Moore's "The Imitation Game", which I thought a fairly pathetic excuse of a historical drama, with some scenes at the level of adolescent petulance. Yet this movie currently enjoys an overall reviewer rating of 8.0, greater than the 7.3 provided by a mere 10 users to "Breaking the Code".
Well let me set the record straight that Breaking the Code may have been "just" a TV movie, and it may not have had an all-star cast, and it may not have contained ludicrous histrionics obviously fabricated by a facile writer, and it may not have been pushed upon the world with the full power of Hollywood's promotional machine. But for all that, it is a far, far better drama. It portrays Turing credibly, it describes how Enigma was broken in a simplified, but sensible way, it shows with sensitivity the effect on Turing of prosecution for homosexuality.
The Imitation Game has 719 user reviews, Breaking the Code has 11, including mine (shaking head with disgust).
The Imitation Game (2014)
Disappointing dramatisation
I had high expectations of this film, having already read Graham Moore's fine historical novel "The Last Days of Darkness". This was an ambitious, and in my view largely successful, to tell the story of the rivalry between Westinghouse and Edison for the control of the electric power industry.
Regrettably, Moore's success as a novelist has not carried across into screen writing. He had first rate raw material: what could be more fascinating than how the British broke the German codes in WW2? And did it with such subtlety that the Germans were never aware of it.
Let me be clear that I would not criticise a writer for simplifying events, merging characters or telescoping events. These are necessary to condense messy reality into a drama that can be absorbed in two hours or so.
I do have problems when a writer completely mis-characterises the protagonist as a socially dysfunctional victim of autism/Asperger's when Turing in fact was not like that at all. Turing did not get engaged to Joan Ckarke. Hugh Alexander did not threaten to destroy a computer called Christopher with a hammer, not least because the computer was not called Christopher. Commander Denniston was not a prickly martinet.
These dramatic fabrications pile up to the point that the film simply loses credibility in the eyes of those with respect for historical authenticity. I am surprised that many reviews have been taken in by the Hollywood sheen and have failed totally to register obviously crass histrionics and stereotyped characters.
The acting was top class, the concept was simply amateurish.
No Highway in the Sky (1951)
A mixed success of adaptation
On the plus side, the film captures well the spirit of adventure and headlong advance in aviation of the early 1950's, as seen in experimental jet aircraft screaming over the Royal Aircraft Establishment only a few years after the era of Spitfires and Hurricanes.
It also deserves credit for dramatising an arcane technical matter, aircraft fatigue. This film was made before the Comet disasters, and the public probably had little knowledge of the subject.
The biggest problem, in my view, is casting James Stewart as Dr Theo Honey (the "boffin" whose research forms the core of the plot). He just is not right for a character who in the book is described (on first acquaintance by Dr Scott) as "an ugly little man with a face like a frog". The film character is simply a cartoon cut-out of a scatterbrained intellectual with absolutely no scruples regarding the real-world implications of his research. Whereas in the book, Norway builds up Mr Honey's character much more subtly: Honey is all too acutely aware of the implications of his research, he tragically lacks the "front" to convince others of what his work means.
I thought the pilot, Captain Samuelson, was likewise coarsely drawn in the film relative to the book.
On the other hand, Marlene Dietrich cast as Monica Teasdale is pretty much spot-on. Jack Hawkins is fine as Scott, except he is Dr Scott in the book (i.e. a "normal" scientist) but Mr Scott in the film. I assume the writers were concerned a British audience at that time would have considered anyone with a PhD to be eccentric.
So, overall a flawed effort, and a pity as some of the cast were well placed, and the film was about engineering and technology, topics all too rarely tackled by cinema (unless Star Wars counts?)
Citizen X (1995)
Excellent drama, but not the whole truth
This is a compelling drama. I agree with comments praising Stephen Rae, Donald Sutherland and Geoffrey DeMunn for their performances. I would add further commend the atmospheric music by Randy Edelman. It is one of the few films I can watch repeatedly and not get tired of it.
But, it is not the whole truth. Yes, there was a serial killer Chikatilo, and yes he was hunted down with a relentless determination by Burakov with the help of Fetisov. But these real men and their methods were not the characters portrayed by Rea and Sutherland. Burakov was a man of the Soviet system who believed in it and applied its methods in his work. These methods included "obtaining confessions from suspects". It was this fixation with obtaining confessions under duress that was one reason the police wasted years chasing false leads. It would not have generated sympathy in Western audiences to have shown this story - so the reality was changed to fit the fable of a lonely hero fighting a bungling system.
Read Robert Cullen's "The Killer Departmen" for the full (real) story. Watch the film for a first-class detective yarn in exotic circumstance.