THE IMITATION GAME

Uni and I just saw the movie by this name.  It tells the story of Alan Turing, who was undoubtedly one of the greatest mathematical minds who ever lived.  But his story is not merely the dull story of a brilliant mathematician; it is the story of a man who is credited with saving millions of lives and bringing WWII to a close two years earlier than it might have been.

Along with other men of genius, Turing was recruited by British intelligence to crack Enigma, the German code, which changed daily.  The main body of the movie tells the story of his struggles with his superiors and co-workers in his plan to build a computing machine that could accomplish this task.  Of course, as is well known, he did just that; his "Turing Machine," as it came to be known - a monstrous device with whirring wheels and gears - cracked the code and became the ancestor of our modern computers.

This, however, is only one part of his story.  The movie actually begins in the 1950's with a police investigation into a robbery that occurs in the home of the eccentric professor, which uncovers some strange secrets.  Turing's life and struggles are shown through a series of flashbacks, not only to his work during WWII, but also to his preteen experiences in an all-male boarding school.

Alan Turing as played sympathetically by Benedict Cumberbatch, comes across as an odd, antisocial eccentric.  Though a brilliant mathematician, cryptanalyst and logician, he has no social skills.  He seems unable to understand normal human communication.  And we find out through the three parallel tales that he is a homosexual.  As a preteen in the boarding school, he is mocked and harassed by his fellow students simply for being "different," and he turns in love to his friend Christopher - the only person who understands him.

The police investigation ultimately reveals his condition and Turing is arrested as a pervert under the existing British laws of his day.  Apparently no consideration was given to his heroic acts during the war; they had never been made public.  At the close we see him as a confused sickly man, no longer able to function, alone with his beloved machine, which he knows as Christopher.  He was being chemically castrated - a choice forced on him as an alternative to prison.  A note at the bottom of the screen tells us that he committed suicide shortly thereafter.  And another note tells us that years later he was posthumously pardoned by the Queen.

As Uni and I drove home still wiping tears from our eyes, we both agreed that this was a great, though tragic story.  I even mentioned that this was a genuine tragedy in the same sense as the Greek and Shakespearean tragedies; it contained all the required elements.  Just to be sure, when I got home I looked up "Tragedy" in my old copy of The Reader's Companion to World Literature (1956, 1973, The New American Library).  It is described there as "a type of drama in which the chief character undergoes a morally significant struggle which ends disastrously. ... In Greek tragedy (and in most great tragedies written since) the hero is essentially a superior person and is treated sympathetically; his destiny or choice is to go down fighting rather than submit, and thus to pluck a moral victory from a physical defeat.  The hero's recognition of his role and his acceptance of his destiny constitutes the climax of the tragic structure.  His 'tragic flaw,' as Aristotle calls it, is some defect which helps to involve him in ruin, for the spectacle of entirely undeserved suffering would be merely depressing. ...  Ironically, the noblest efforts of the hero involve him in guilt and lead to his misery.  The struggle may be between one character and conflicting forces which he can in no way control.  In the greatest tragedies, however, there is also conflict within the character himself ..." (pages 529-30).  This description is an almost perfect fit with Turing's story as presented in the movie.

I suppose some of my evangelical Christian friends would moralize.  They might see this movie as advocating homosexual behavior.  I admit that I had a bit of that fear myself before I saw the movie.  It doesn't!  In fact, the only sexual reference that I found offensive was a crude heterosexual joke told by one of Turing's co-workers.  I believe that this little bit was added to show how Turing was totally oblivious to the meaning of this type of humor.  No, the movie doesn't advocate homosexuality any more than Sophocles' tragedy Oedipus the King advocates incest.  Nor for that matter, are the countless biblical tales of rape, incest and murder, advocating these acts!

I believe that this movie is the type of movie Christians should see.  It takes us outside of our box and shows us the struggles and feelings of some of our fellow fallen human beings and should arouse empathy rather than condemnation.  And it should also arouse compassion for those who are "different."

To use Aristotle's words, it should be a "catharsis," causing us to "thrill with horror and melt with pity."  And it'll give you a good cry.

HOPE SPRINGS

Uni and I recently went to see the movie, Hope Springs starring Meryl Streep and Tommy Lee Jones as Kay and Arnold, a middle aged married couple who had recently celebrated their 31^st anniversary by upgrading their cable.  Sound boring?

Well yes and no.  The boring exterior, as with many “happily” married couples, covers up sad, deeply frustrated lives.

As we see Kay in her night gown gazing at herself in the mirror, fluffing her hair, primping, our first thought is of how attractive she looks.  Then we are drawn to the sadness in her eyes.  Meryl Streep is a great actor.  She portrays a look I’ve seen before on many married women – friends, family, women I’ve counseled, even at times the woman who lives in my house.

She opens the door of Arnold’s bedroom where he lays reading.  That’s right, they sleep in separate bedrooms!  No not tonight; some excuses I can’t remember.

The movie does not have a complicated plot.  It’s a simple story of a married couple who are trying to bring their marriage back to what it should be and once was (or at least she’s trying.  No secret affairs.  They’ve been “faithful” to one another for 31 years.

Anyway Kay comes across a book on marriage written by a Doctor Feld.  She takes her hard-earned savings and purchases reservations for the two for a week’s intensive counseling in the quaint little town of Hope Springs, Maine (where everyone seems to be something of a therapist – the waitress at the café, the bartender, the maître d’ at the restaurant, the clerk at the bookstore – all except the old geezer at the museum.)

Arnold grudgingly goes along, complaining all the while.  “Didn’t I buy you a new refrigerator?”  “Four thousand dollars for one week!  We could have gotten a new roof!”  Tommy Lee Jones plays a perfect grump!

As we watch the movie in the theater, there are bits of what sounds like nervous laughter from the audience.  There’s enough comic relief to allow this, though I suspect the story is getting a bit too close to home for some.

It took a while for me to get used to seeing Steve Carell as Dr. Feld.  We’re used to seeing and hearing him talking seriously, but saying stupid things.  But here he’s all seriousness and compassion as he questions and counsels Kay and Arnold.  It is here in the counseling room that the truth that by this time we’ve suspected comes out – they haven’t had sex for years.  Arnold can’t remember the last time; Kay can.  Yet they both want it.

We find that the problem is not all Arnold’s fault (though I felt like shouting at him a few times); Kay has her hang-ups as well.

Some viewers may be uncomfortable with the homework assignments and Kay and Arnold’s efforts to carry them out.  Just remember they are married.

The movie does have a happy ending, though I’m not sure how we got there.  In fact, we’re never sure till almost the end if it’s going to work out.

I recommend and have recommended this movie to every married couple – especially if you’ve been married for a while.  Not that every marriage is in the same shape as Kay and Arnold’s, but it is a possibility that any marriage can go this way.  And I suspect that many marriages are moving in this direction.  One temptation is to tell ourselves we’re not this messed up; our marriage is a lot better than that.  Rather, I think we should look for similarities and seek ways to avoid them, to seek correction before we end up like Kay and Arnold.

And for my Christian friends:  no, this is not a “Christian” movie.  It is not, as many in that category, a disguised sermon.  Don’t go see this movie to find simplistic solutions.  You won’t find them here or in any of those preachy movies.  Go to see yourselves!  And if you don’t see yourselves in this movie, the problem may not be with the movie.  It may be with you.

GRAN TORINO

(or, as described by some: “Dirty Harry, the Golden Years”)

I loved this movie! Though I’m not a Clint Eastwood fan, I had wanted to see the movie since it first came out (but never got around to it). The previews showed Clint Eastwood as an angry, hate-filled racist bigot – an old white guy, the only one of his race left in a neighborhood turned brown.

A few weeks ago while we were visiting our son and his family, he asked us if we’d ever seen the movie. I told him I’d like to and mentioned what little I knew of it. He said, “You’ll be surprised – it’s not what you’d think.” So we watched it. I was surprised – pleasantly! So Uni and I went out, purchased it and watched it again and intend to watch it a few more times.

Two warnings are in order here:
 First, if profanity and crude talk offends you or would keep you from paying attention to the movement of the story, don’t bother to watch it.
 Second, if you haven’t seen the movie and intend to, don’t read further. I’m going to give away the story and ruin the ending for you.

A brief synopsis:
Clint Eastwood plays a really unlikable guy, Walt Kowalski, a widower and retired Ford autoworker living in a Detroit suburb. He hates his kids. (I know this guy! I think I talked to him at my 50 year high school class reunion.) He is apparently, the last white man in a neighborhood that has seen better days and is now populated by Hmong immigrants (he calls them Ha-mong, as well as other things). It is clear that he hates these people, along with those of other races. His speech is peppered with racial (as well as other) epithets. He is the proud owner of a 1972 Ford Gran Torino in mint condition, which he guards carefully. He owns an M-1 rifle which he claims to have used in the war, as well as what looks like a government issue Colt 45 automatic pistol.

When his deceased wife’s youthful priest attempts to get him to come to confession, Walt spurns him with salty language. He feels no need for confession.

Walt, however, soon finds himself entangled in the lives of his Hmong neighbors. He rescues Sue, the teenage daughter from the advances of some black thugs and Thao, the teenage son (whom he names Toad) from a gang of Hmong thugs. It isn’t long before they befriend him.

Next Thao attempts to steal the Gran Torino as an initiation rite into the gang. As an act of contrition, Thao is assigned to do work for Walt. This leads to a mentoring relationship. Through all this we find that much of Walt’s meanness is simply a persona, a façade to cover up deep-seated feelings.

The movie then seems to take on the character of some of Clint’s old Westerns and Dirty Harry movies. There is a buildup toward what we all know is a showdown with the bad guys – the Hmong gang who have been harassing Sue and Thao’s family. Walt makes preparations for what he (as well as we) seems to perceive as the possibility of his death: he gets a haircut, a professional shave and a new suit. He finally goes to confession.

The twist is that Walt heads for this showdown unarmed. This is very un-Clintish! Rather than a two-way shootout, Walt eggs the gangsters into blowing him away in front of witnesses. The bad guys are then hauled off to jail, the family is safe and the movie ends happily ever after, with Thao inheriting the Gran Torino and driving off into the sunset with Walt’s dog Daisy.

Good movie – great ending! Good illustration of the crossing of racial and ethnic lines. Good illustration of the mentoring process – kind of like one of my other favorite movies: “Finding Forrester.”

But there seem to be some heavier undercurrents, theological and otherwise. Walt is dying. He coughs up blood, apparently experiencing the effects of his hard drinking and hard smoking.

Walt is also carrying around a load of guilt. He has killed men in battle – 13, as I recall. But those killings don’t bother him. It’s just one – a young North Korean soldier who was trying to surrender. When Walt finally goes to confession, he confesses some seemingly minor sins, but makes no mention of this one young man who has been haunting him.

When I saw Walt getting blown away by the bad guys, my first thought was that here was what has been known as a “Christ-figure,” one who gives himself for his new friends. John 15:13: “No one has greater love than this -- that one should lay down his life for his friends.” This element is certainly present. Though Walt was definitely not Christlike in his demeanor, when the chips were down he did what Jesus did.

But was Walt also trying to make atonement for his own sin? That one that he did not confess? It seems that way. He did not confess to the priest the one great sin that had been haunting him for over 50 years. He did not take advantage of the forgiveness that was offered him in Christ.

There are, of course, many other possible motives. He was dying anyway; this could give him an instant death. He wanted to get these gangsters; he wanted to get even with his own kids. We’ll never know and after all, this is fiction. Clint Eastwood probably had all of them in his mind and none of them in his plot.

I like to think that it is my first interpretation that is correct.

Clint Eastwood as a Christ-figure! Who would have thought it?

Bill Ball
8/14/2009