Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

The Imitation Game Fails Test of Inspiring the Next Turings

Posted by timothy on from the thought-he-was-great-in-wargames-though dept.

reifman writes In 'The Imitation Game': Can This Big Fat Cliche Win Best Picture?, reviewer Monica Guzman blasts the film for distorting history and missing the opportunity to inspire today's tech savvy, highly surveilled generation to follow in Turing's path: Instead of an inventor, it shows a stereotype. Instead of inspiring us to follow in the footsteps of a person who shaped technology, the film inspires us only to get out of the way of the next genius who can. The Imitation Game changed aspects of the real Alan Turing's personality to conform more closely to our idea of the solitary nerd. It falls in line with the tired idea that only outcasts could love computers...As for explaining the science behind Turing's code-breaking machine, the movie doesn't bother. if invention doesn't deserve top billing in this story, where the technology at its heart is not only historically significant but hugely resonant in our lives today, then I don't know where it would. The message of the movie is that the uncommon man can do amazing things, but the message we need is that the common man, woman, anybody can and should tinker with the technology that manages our whole world.

8 of 194 comments (clear)

  1. common man by itzly · · Score: 4, Insightful

    the message we need is that the common man, woman, anybody can and should tinker with the technology that manages our whole world.

    Why ? One genius can do more on his own than a thousand mediocre people together.

    1. Re:common man by sneakyimp · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The OP sounds like a great recipe for a terrible fucking movie. And yes, no ordinary person could have done what Turing did. Just comprehending his papers is a struggle -- even for such intellectual titans as myself.

    2. Re:common man by bloodhawk · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The single genius can do very little without the shoulders of the thousands that do the drudgery to stand upon.

    3. Re:common man by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Yes there is-- we elect them all the time.

      Some people are stronger than others, some are smarter, some have a fundamental understanding of computation (Turing) or electricity (Tesla) that the rest of us simply do not have-- This idea that we all *HAVE* to be equal is insane-- we should recognize, and celebrate, our differences. I would no more want Stephen Hawking to build my next house than I would want Usain Bolt to design a CPU for my next computer.

      Humans are genuinely an amazing animal... but to claim that all humans are above average is to demonstrate a fundamental lack of awareness of both math, and humanity.

    4. Re:common man by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      What are you talking about? The vast majority of politicians are highly-educated, often with many academic awards, and also usually wealthy (many times by their own efforts).

      They may seem mediocre because of the specious reasoning they give for their policies. This is an illusion created by your own credulity: you believe they are motivated by a statesman-like desire to serve the greater good. In fact, they are motivated by a very selfish desire to acquire and exercise power, and also to acquire great wealth (while empowering their political allies to do the same). They often lie in order to justify policies that accomplish this.

      And they are very good at it.

    5. Re:common man by GauteL · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Others have failed to mention the peasants that worked the land that not only fed Mozart but kept Mozart's patrons wealthy enough to support the arts by commissioning Mozart's works, or indeed made it possible for all Mozart's spectators to enjoy arts rather than spend the day doing subsistence farming themselves. Without them, all arts we'd have would be able to sustain is the odd folk singing after a hard day's work.

      Others have mentioned the craftsmen that made his instruments, but also keep in mind the folk that made and gathered paper, ink and quills he used to write his music. Or even the millions of ordinary people of his past that helped shape the language he used, without which it would be impossible to sustain human civilization.

      Thus Mozart, stood on the shoulders of millions of completely ordinary folk.

      The lesson here; next time you believe the bullshit of "self-made man" and "I didn't receive no help from nobody", think of what steps are actually necessary for the life we live today.

  2. Re:Reviewer totally missed the point by sneakyimp · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Sort of. The Allies probably would have won anyway due to a preponderance of economic strength. However, the impact of the code-breaking was truly profound and it's hard to overstate its importance. The US naval war in the Pacific -- in particular the Battle of Midway -- was an especially stark illustration of the advantage that intel brings. The Allies located the Japanese fleet and got their planes in the air first and essentially crippled the Japanese navy for the duration of the war. Information brings tremendous power in warfare.

  3. Re:The problem by geezer+nerd · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Turing was gay and he was on of the few British that actually did anything in the early computer field. That's why we hear about him, not because of his accomplishments, which were few and unimportant.

    If his accomplishments were so unimportant, then why is the preeminent award in computing named for him? And why are his papers used as the foundation for much of Computer Science?

    And if you think the British were little active in the early days of computing, I suggest you go and study your history better.