Susan Sontag, in her essay Against Interpretation, worked to make readers more aware of what she saw as a false claim to be merely describing something or that modern Western self-belief that one can remove subjectivity and have only some bare-bones way of writing. She felt that was just one more rule-bound way of writing, claiming “there are no rules telling me how to write.”
Sontag’s self-awareness as a writer and a critic is precisely what I want to work with here. If a Jewish patron were to see The Imitation Game, they would very likely see more than the story of Alan Turning the wronged cryptanalyst; the ‘wrong’ here would for them necessarily and inescapably involve an understanding of what went on in the death camps of Nazi Germany.
We would be unlikely to find a survivor from Turing’s time in the movie theatre; if I were to talk of Turing as a wronged homosexual some of my readers would nod their heads in agreement. It would be interesting to locate – or, better put, acknowledge – what other current-day wrongs can be mapped onto Turing’s story.
While writing this blog piece I noted that in the reviews, some from well-known sites, the reference to Turing’s homosexuality was often not explicit, as if the reader would take it for granted. What is going on here represents a further social marker of change – the homosexual man is in the process of being socially repositioned. Western societies and cultures now find themselves ‘after’ a period of emancipation; they live inside what sociologists call a phase of normalization. The homosexual man is just like all men: he is now ‘included’ and the putting right of the wrong includes no longer having his sexuality referenced. In other parts of the world – in certain African states and in Putin’s Russia, for example – Turing’s experience of prejudice and socially-configured hostility is playing out as violence sanctioned by church and state.
I’d be doing a bad job if I failed to acknowledge inside mainstream Western societies and cultures there are other voices, other messages – and the gay lobby, I suspect, is well aware of this.
What I find perplexing is a subtext which insists that the Turing story is only about gay men, that to do what I am doing now is somehow not valid. As a critic and a film viewer I would want to leave open how a movie might be interpreted. Jews, persons of colour, and women have every right to see themselves inside this movie’s depiction of individuals who are wronged.
What I experienced whilst watching The Imitation Game was that feeling you have when you see what you want to see – Morten Tyldum‘s Turing is there, of course – but what is most striking is that whatever piques one’s interest is there as well. What I saw was not limited to the story of a homosexual man; I also felt an empathy for the experience of those who are currently labelled ‘paedophile’.
One begins to hear all the reasons why this can’t be the case – mustn’t be the case. Turing was brilliant; that is not what one expects to see inside the profile of the paedophile, is it? Well, actually, the modern gay movement knows only too well most gay men aren’t brilliant either, but they expect to be afforded respect as persons on the basis of the consumerized, value-added Alan Turing the film serves up to us.
Second objection would be: but we see homosexuals differently today; we know better. Funny that – seems to me that’s what the movie is on about: how a society can get things so wrong. For those who are unaware of the work of John Money, he was a New Zealand sexologist (1921–2006); one of his professional concerns was what he referred to as ‘paedophilic genius’ (discussed inside Pedophilia: Biosocial Dimensions). Money gave Lewis Carroll and JM Barrie as examples of paedophilic genius.
As with the homosexual man in the 1950s – and (as discussed above) in some non-Western countries today – social stigma all too often blocks and hides the contribution and giftedness of the ‘deviant’/’pervert’/’child sex-abuser’. I know some readers will be very angry with what I say next: in my lifetime, Michael Jackson would have to be the West’s poster-boy when it comes to paedophilic genius (Tom O’Carroll has authored a text under the name of Carl Toms called “Michael Jackson’s Dangerous Liaisons: Arvizo, Barnes, Bhatti, Chandler, Culkin… The A-Z of All the King’s Boys“).
The homosexual story is a good teacher when it comes to understanding how stigma works and what is at stake when it operates in full swing. Those of a more academic bent might take a look at Stanley Cohen’s “Folk Devils and Moral Panics” (The 1972 version of this book is referenced below; the link offered in this paragraph is the 2011 Routledge Classic of the same book.)
Sociologists refer to stigma in terms of social distance. A recent study – “Stigmatization of People with Pedophilia: Two Comparative Surveys” – looked at stigma and the paedophile noting that in our current societies and cultures the paedophile is the most strongly negative profile inside our spaces. This condemnation – and even hatred – is practiced inside our societies, perhaps because people tell themselves this social practice keeps children safe; Jahnke, Imhoff and Hoyer argue this is not the case; in fact the very opposite may be true – stigmatization of the paedophile may make child sexual abuse more likely. The abstract for this paper states, “The strongest predictors of social distance towards people with paedophilia were affective reactions to this group (anger and, inversely, associated, pity) and the political attitude of right-wing authoritarianism …)”.
Given that we see what we want to see, was what I felt when watching that film an example of personal delusion? I don’t think so; in my view, seeing what you want to see sits at the heart of all art. If that is the way things work, then failing to admit this is where real delusion lives.
What I think is important is not how one’s sense of empathy for Alan Turing as a gay man might map onto the paedophile. The real issue is seeing the ‘person’ who would want to punish Turing in his lifetime. The key question is, Does that person – the one who sees a subhuman object they can kick, punish, imprison for being ‘that way‘ – live in our world today? My sense of things is that yes, that person is very much alive … and kicking.
Put “The Imitation Game” on your list of films to watch – see what you see.
- Cohen, S. (1972). Folk Devils and Moral Panics (Third Edition). London and New York: Routledge
- Downing, L., Morland, I., & Sullivan, N. (2015, 4/01). Pervert or sexual libertarian?: Meet John Money, “the father of f***ology” [Excerpt from the Book “Fuckology: Critical Essays on John Money’s Diagnostic Concepts”]. Salon (USA). Retrieved from http://www.salon.com/2015/01/04/pervert_or_sexual_libertarian_meet_john_money_the_father_of_fology/
- Jahnke, S., Imhoff, R., & Hoyer, J. (2015, 20 June). Stigmatization of People with Pedophilia: Two Comparative Surveys. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 44(1), 21-
- Pedophilia: Biosocial Demensions. (1990) (J. R. Felerman, Ed.).
- Songtag, S. (2001). Against Interpretation. USA: Picador.
- Staff Writer. (2014). The Imitation Game [Web commentator on Film and TV shows.]. In Rotten Tomatoes (Movie Info).
- Toms, C. (2010). Michael Jackson’s Dangerous Liaisons: Arvizo, Barnes, Bhatti, Chandler, Culkin. The A-Z of All the King’s Boys. Leicester, United Kingdom: Troubador.
- Tyldum, M. (2014). The Imitation Game [Benedict Cumberbatch, Keira Knightley, Matthew Goode, Rory Kinnear, Allen Leech, Matthew Beard, Charles Dance, Mark Strong.]. U.S.-U.K.) A Weinstein Co. (in U.S.)/StudioCanal (in U.K.) release and presentation of A Black Bear Pictures/Bristol Automotive production. (International sales: FilmNation Entertainment, Los Angeles.) (113 minutes). Retrieved from http://variety.com/2014/film/reviews/telluride-film-review-the-imitation-game-1201294590/