Review: The Imitation Game

by Trevor Kirkendall

★★★

Tis the season for historical Oscar bait dramas. Not that that’s a bad thing. In my opinion, we have to sit through 11 months of mediocre movies before we get to this point of the year. Oscar voters have a very short memory apparently. The quality of films this time of year is rather high and when the Weinsteins release a movie this late in the year, you know it’s probably going to be good. “The Imitation Game” is the Weinstein Company’s horse in this year’s Oscar race. It arrives with high expectations and already many accolades from the film festivals. While it is a very good film, it comes up a little bit short.

“The Imitation Game” is a story about how Alan Turing (Benedict Cumberbatch), a British mathematician, helped to crack the German Enigma code during the Second World War. The Nazi military sent out encrypted codes that were easily intercepted by the Allied forces, but no one had any idea what they said. No one had an opportunity to crack the code because the Nazis would change the settings on the Enigma machine each day, which would then scramble to codes differently.

The British Navy’s team of codebreakers at Bletchley Park, lead by Commander Denniston (Charles Dance), brings in a group of linguists and mathematicians including Turing and former world chess champion Hugh Alexander (Matthew Goode) to figure out how to break the code. Turing doesn’t work well with others at all, and strong-arms his way into leading the team. He brings in more competent personnel in order to help him including Joan Clarke (Keira Knightley). He sets out to build a massive machine that could search for the correct Enigma settings and crack the codes instantly everyday. This machine would later go by the name “Turing Machine” which we know commonly refer to today simply as a “computer.”

The movie tells three stories at once. Breaking Enigma is the largest portion, but we also see a police investigation into a robbery at Turing’s home in the early 1950s lead by Detective Nock (Rory Kinnear). We also see a young Turing (Alex Lawther) in primary school in the late 1920s along with his close friend Christopher Morcom (Jack Bannon). All these help to illustrate Turing’s homosexuality, something that was very illegal in Britain during this time. Turing’s sexual preference is examined heavily by the filmmakers in order to address a social topic that is looked at vastly differently today than it was during the time of this story’s occurrence.

“The Imitation Game” is a smart and compelling story. It’s a highly entertaining film thanks to Graham Moore’s sharp screenplay and Morten Tyldum’s precise direction. What the film lacks is that extra little bite and that sense of importance that accompanies so many historical dramas. Why do we enjoy hearing stories of the past? Most of the time, it’s because they usually carry some sort of significance along with it. The events depicted in “The Imitation Game” are largely important, but you don’t walk away from the film feeling that emotional punch like other historical dramas.

Moore’s script is exceptionally smart. Everything is briskly paced with absolutely no filler. A decade ago, a film coming out that had any semblance of meaning would have been two-and-a-half hours at least. I think those days are safely behind us now. Instead, we now have films that a concise and to the point, and they can now be shown in under two hours. The dialogue is keen and witty without being mistaken as comical. However, Moore doesn’t seem to know where to direct his screenplay’s focus. Should this be an informative historical drama, or a film to take stance on an important social topic?

This might not all fall on Moore, of course. Tyldum is the director, after all, and the emphasis falls on him. Don’t get me wrong, I have no issue with the social message that comes through. I’d rather see the film either address the topic completely, or not talk about it at all. As backstory is given, we can put all the pieces together and get a sense as to what message the movie is trying to convey. In the end, it hits you over the head with its message like a ton of bricks. I think this would have been a better film had they not been so cryptic about it up front. But this is a movie about solving cryptic messages, so the joke’s me I suppose.

Cumberbatch is a pretty popular movie star right now, but he's never really delivered a masterful performance yet. I still feel he has more to offer after his performance in “The Imitation Game.” While Cumberbatch does show a little more depth in this performance than in previous roles, it still doesn’t go over the top and become something that’s emotionally powerful. Not to mention, Turing is made to look like an antisocial jerk in this film so there isn’t much rooting interest in him. He’s also completely upstaged by Lawther, who plays the younger Turning. Even though they never share a scene together, Lawther is the top performer in this movie. Knightley also turns in an average performance, which is highly unusual for her. There are a few scenes in the film where she shines, but overall it’s not a memorable role for her.

Despite all my gripes and groans, “The Imitation Game” is not a bad film. It’s an important story to tell. I just wish Tyldum had done more to give the film a better sense of importance and be more impactful. It also carries an important social topic of discussion, even in this modern day. But will “The Imitation Game” be remembered for telling an important story, or for being a film that addresses society’s issues regarding homosexuality? The film never knows where to stand, which ends up being an unmistakable flaw. It’s not a bad film though. It simply might not be remembered years from now the way other important historical films are and the way other important social films are. When trying to be something special, pick one or the other. Not both.