Historical Inaccuracies In The Imitation Game – A Film About Alan Turing

Acclaimed for its beautiful narrative and portrayal of the brilliant mathematician Alan Turing but criticised for its lack of historical accuracy, The Imitation Game has divided movie critics since its publication in 2014. The movie is considered to be one of Norwegian director, Morten Tyldum’s greatest works. It stars Benedict Cumberbatch as Alan Turing and the plot follows him and his team’s journey into breaking the Enigma, which was said to be an unbreakable code. The movie also gives insight into Turing’s personal life, in which he struggled to cope with the immense pressure placed unto him, the ethical dilemmas he faced after breaking the code and the fear of being arrested for his ‘crime’ — homosexuality. Like much of history that has been turned into movies, Tyldum took many artistic liberties in order to appeal to his audience and create a compelling plot line. The Imitation Game is largely inaccurate, some of the most major historical inaccuracies include the addition of a villain, Cmdr. Alastair Denniston, the actual breaking of the Enigma code and the fictional storyline in which Turing fails to report a Soviet spy to avoid being outed as a homosexual.

A source of major controversy was the decision to make Cmdr. Denniston the malevolent nemesis of Turing, who would go out of his way in order to get him fired. In the movie Cmdr. Denniston (played by Charles Dance) doubted Turing and his team’s abilities in breaking the code, whereas in reality, he was actually very supportive of the team. Dance’s characterisation of the Commander is largely fictional (slate.com). He is portrayed as being highly authoritative, pessimistic at best, and for the most part, has a thinly veiled resentment towards Turing and his machine. “No, Enigma isn’t difficult, it’s impossible. The Americans, the French, the Russians — the Germans think the Enigma is unbreakable.” In the movie, Denniston takes an immediate dislike towards Turing due to his seemingly narcissistic, egotistical, off-putting personality and it affects the way Denniston treats Turing for the rest of the movie — often causing him to doubt his abilities. In reality, Turing was actually described to be a easily approachable man and his team was actually quite fond of him. In fact, it was Commander Denniston who approached Turing and recruited him on the basis of his work at Cambridge and on computational machines. Unlike in the movie, Denniston never tried to fire Turing, on the contrary, he was often celebrated and hailed as the ‘star of Bletchley Park’. There was however, as portrayed in the movie, a power struggle between the military brass and the cryptologists — this struggle did in fact include Turing and Denniston. There was indeed several minor clashes between the two, with Turing’s colleagues recalling that Turing “was always impatient of pompousness or officialdom of any kind,” and that he reportedly “had little time for Denniston.” (telegraph.co.uk) This implied tension between the two was not as severe as depicted within the movie. The incident in which Turing steps over Denniston and goes straight to Churchhill — effectively placing Turing as head over the Enigma-breaking operation is entirely fictitious. The only letter Turing ever wrote to Churchill was one addressed from him and his colleagues, requesting more staff and resources in 1941, to which Churchill promptly agreed to do. The justification behind this decision to make the Commander the designated antagonist was one that was entirely impersonal. In fact, it was just that. The movie needed an antagonist in order to bring a feeling of pathos towards the characters and make the finale all the more rewarding when the code was finally broken. It is often regarded as an unnecessary sideswipe towards Alistair Denniston’s legacy, and many historians and movie critics agree that it would have been better to have created a character from scratch, as not to taint the memories of those who were actively involved in the war efforts at the time, especially ones who were actually supportive of Turing and his team’s efforts.

Another of the most major inaccuracies in the plot of the movie actually stems from the very basis of its storyline — the way Enigma was actually broken. “What if Cristopher doesn't have to search through all of the settings? What if he only has to search through ones that produce words we already know will already be in the message?”. In that groundbreaking scene, Turing seemingly has an epiphany, realising that the key to breaking Enigma lies in the words ‘hail Hitler’ at the end of every message the Germans send. Though this made for an incredible scene, in reality, Enigma had already been cracked by Polish cryptanalysts, who then proceeded to teach the French and the British their methods. Turing’s innovation was in designing a machine that could break the code faster. The machine, which in the movie was named ‘Cristopher’ after Turing’s childhood friend, was actually called ‘the Bombe’ and was a collaborative effort between him and fellow code-breaker and mathematician, Gordon Welchman, who was not even mentioned in the film. This contradicts with the whole idea of Turing always wanting to work independently, and seemingly thought of himself as being the only ‘true genius’ in his team, always being the figurehead in the whole operation and the one with all of the breakthroughs. In reality, Turing built off of the work of his predecessors, mostly Polish cryptanalysts, who had made a similar machine that used rotors to test different letter combinations in order to decipher different messages from the German Enigma machine. This design and idea was later perfected by a team of British cryptologist, of which Turing was a member of. There were actually four highly intelligent men recruited to lead the UK’s code-breaking efforts, Hugh Alexander, Stuart Milner-Barry, and Gordon Welchman and Alan Turing. This is not to say that Turing’s achievements should by any means be undermined, as he did in fact do an incredible amount for the operation and the movie did accurately depict his brilliance. He was indeed a fellow at Cambridge by age 22 (the movie was off by two years, stating he was admitted at age 24) and he did publish his most influential paper at age 24 (the movie was off by 1 year stating he published it at age 23). Thus, the emphasis placed on Turing’s intellect is not unwarranted and was deserved. As for the decision to hail Turing as the sole hero, it was made for the sake of the fact that the entire movie was made to be a biopic of Alan Turing. The film’s director, Mortem Tyldum says in an interview with the Los Angeles Times, that Turing was “one of the great thinkers of the last century, and he was sort of pushed into the shadows. The importance of making this movie and spreading the legacy of this man [became] so big.” Many believe that Turing’s history and contributions have been buried by his 1952 scandal, where he was tried and convicted of indecency (homosexuality). Thus, Tyldum felt it was important for the spotlight to be on Turing, and as a result the other important people involved in the project were largely overshadowed or even ignored. It was a decision that paid of — in terms of bringing global attention to a man who has since become an icon for the LGBT community, but it was at the expense of many other great people who had contributed just as much as Turing in the efforts to break Enigma.

Lastly, for all the commemorating of Turing’s life and achievements, there was one particular event that seemingly questioned his moral ethics — when he chose not to report a Soviet spy, under the threat that the he (John Cairncross) would reveal his homosexuality to Denniston, their commanding officer. In reality, the two never actually met. Cairncross did in fact work at Bletchley Park, but he never actually worked with Turing and was never suspected to be a Soviet spy. Turing was also never very secretive about his sexuality, becoming more deliberately outspoken and exuberant on his return to Cambridge. Hodge, who wrote Turing’s biography also said that Turing never made any serious denial or defence at his trial for indecency, instead adamantly arguing that he saw no wrong in his actions. For a man who talked about and defended his sexuality this strongly, it is difficult to believe he would leave even the possibility of jeopardising his life’s work by not reporting a Soviet spy — an irony not missed in the movie, as he lost it all anyways when his sexuality was revealed through a series of unrelated events. This moral dilemma does however, add another layer of complexity to Turing’s character, making the audience feel even more empathy towards him and the injustices he faced following his sentence. It also humanises him, showing that even though he was able to allow ships to sink for the sake of preventing the Germans from knowing that they had broken the code, he still had that instinct of self-preservation and selfishness, not wanting to part from his job or his machine, making it all the more poignant when he lost both these things and more when the police discover his homosexuality through the minor burglary he experienced at the end of the film. Turing’s actions in the film were completely understandable from the audience’s point of view however, it causes the misconception that Turing was as closeted about his sexuality as depicted in the film. The movie was correct in the fact that Turing was tried and convicted for homosexuality and that he chose to go through chemical castration instead of prison. Records dispute whether or not it was the chemical treatment that caused his instability which ultimately led to his suicide, but as the movie depicts, Turing did end his own life by ingesting cyanide.

Alan Mathison Turing indeed played a pivotal and crucial role in the Allied efforts of the war. The Imitation Game shows not only his story in the war but his personal one as well. Even though Cmdr. Alistair Denniston was not the villain he was painted to be, and Turing wasn’t the sole mastermind who had created the Bombe or even very secretive or ashamed about his sexuality, The Imitation Game is still a movie worth seeing. Beautifully complex and intricate, it still deserves all the acclaim it has gotten, even if just for its artistic value. It may not be very valuable in terms of learning actual historical facts, but it is still based on the incredible story of an even more incredible man.

Work Cited

1. Anderson, L.V., ”How accurate is ‘The Imitation Game?” Slate Magazine. N. p., 2019. https://slate.com/culture/201 4/12/the-imitation-game-fact-vs-fiction-how-true-the-new-movie-is-to-alan-turings-real-life-story.html. 8 June 2019.
2. Beaumont-Thomas, Ben. 'Portrayal Of Imitation Game 'Baddy' Is Inaccurate, Says Family.' the guardian.com. N. p., 2014. https://www.theguardian.com/film/2014/nov/27/imitation-game-alastair-denniston-inaccurate-family. 8 June 2019.
3. Dixon, Hayley. 'Alan Turing: The Man Who Cracked The Enigma Code.' telegraph.co.uk. N. p., 2013. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/history/world-war-two/10536307/Alan-Turing-the-man-who-cracked-the-Enigma-code.html. 8 June 2019.
4. Dockternman, Eliana. 'The True Story of The Imitation Game”. time.com. N. p., 2019. http://time.com/3609585/the-true-story-of-the-imitation-game/. 8 June 2019.
5. “How Alan Turing Cracked The Enigma Code.' Imperial War Museums. N. p., 2019. https://www.iwm.org.uk/history/how-alan-turing-cracked-the-enigma-code. 8 June 2019.
6. Merry, Stephanie. “How accurate is ‘The Imitation Game’?”. washingtonpost.com. N. p., 2019. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/arts-and-entertainment/wp/2015/02/17/how-accurate-is-the-imitation-game/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.6fdf0d1c9136. 8 June 2019.
7. Rocchi, James. ''Imitation Game' Director Morten Tyldum On Doing Justice To Alan Turing.' latimes.com. N. p., 2019. https://www.latimes.com/entertainment/envelope/la-et-mn-en-morten-tyldum-20150101-story.html. 8 June 2019.
8. 'The Enigma Of Alan Turing”. Cia.gov. N. p., 2019. https://www.cia.gov/news-information/featured-story-archive/2015-featured-story-archive/the-enigma-of-alan-turing.html. 8 June 2019.