Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Selma
139 views
Skip to first unread message
Howard
Jan 19, 2015, 7:28:58 PM1/19/15
to
I saw it this weekend, with a bit of doubt, being an Oprah production
with her in the supporting cast, but overall I liked it.
I thought it did a good job presenting the way there were different
factions inside the civil rights movement, and the conflicting pressures
on MLK, and the uneasiness he felt trying to deal with it all. I
thought it did a decent job showing the kind of tactical approach he
tried to bring to the movement.
There's a lot of gripping stuff, and the director and writer clearly
tried to avoid histrionics and cheap sentiment, at least most of the
time, and made a point of avoiding hagiography, especially as far as
King's affairs and his awareness of how they could hurt both his family
and the movement.
Where I think the movie struggled was sometimes being too restrained --
I think the real king was a subtler and more multi-faceted person but
also more mercurial and lively than shown in the movie. Tom Wilkinson's
LBJ only gets the full treatment late in the movie, and he was also a
far more subtle, sneaky, manipulative, flattering, clever person than
the movie shows.
There's been some complaining by LBJ supporters about inaccuracies in
the movie, but I think overall it's fair to him -- he wasn't a huge
backer of futher civil disobedience after the Civil Rights Act was
passed -- except in the matter of J Edgar Hoover. LBJ didn't send
Hoover to ruin King, and I think LBJ was aware that Hoover not only had
out of whack priorities, but also was pretty incompetent.
It's clearly not as artfully or creatively directed as the last biopic I
saw, Lincoln, but it also doesn't have the out of control Spielbergia
that hurt Lincoln at the end. I think it might have gone a bit farther
to show the malignant racism of the time, but it does a decent job
overall, including some nice shots showing how the Confederate flag was
so important for the racists. It's worth seeing at some point, I think.
with her in the supporting cast, but overall I liked it.
I thought it did a good job presenting the way there were different
factions inside the civil rights movement, and the conflicting pressures
on MLK, and the uneasiness he felt trying to deal with it all. I
thought it did a decent job showing the kind of tactical approach he
tried to bring to the movement.
There's a lot of gripping stuff, and the director and writer clearly
tried to avoid histrionics and cheap sentiment, at least most of the
time, and made a point of avoiding hagiography, especially as far as
King's affairs and his awareness of how they could hurt both his family
and the movement.
Where I think the movie struggled was sometimes being too restrained --
I think the real king was a subtler and more multi-faceted person but
also more mercurial and lively than shown in the movie. Tom Wilkinson's
LBJ only gets the full treatment late in the movie, and he was also a
far more subtle, sneaky, manipulative, flattering, clever person than
the movie shows.
There's been some complaining by LBJ supporters about inaccuracies in
the movie, but I think overall it's fair to him -- he wasn't a huge
backer of futher civil disobedience after the Civil Rights Act was
passed -- except in the matter of J Edgar Hoover. LBJ didn't send
Hoover to ruin King, and I think LBJ was aware that Hoover not only had
out of whack priorities, but also was pretty incompetent.
It's clearly not as artfully or creatively directed as the last biopic I
saw, Lincoln, but it also doesn't have the out of control Spielbergia
that hurt Lincoln at the end. I think it might have gone a bit farther
to show the malignant racism of the time, but it does a decent job
overall, including some nice shots showing how the Confederate flag was
so important for the racists. It's worth seeing at some point, I think.
bill van
Jan 19, 2015, 7:49:54 PM1/19/15
to
In article <XnsA427C632F9782...@94.75.214.39>,
Not a ringing endorsement, and besides, I generally dislike biopics. If
it comes to Netflix, or hits the cable movie channels, I'll think about
it.
--
bill
Not a ringing endorsement, and besides, I generally dislike biopics. If
it comes to Netflix, or hits the cable movie channels, I'll think about
it.
--
bill
Howard
Jan 19, 2015, 10:09:51 PM1/19/15
to
bill van <bil...@delete.shaw.ca> wrote:
> Howard <howa...@notmail.com> wrote:
>
>> It's worth seeing at some point, I think.
>
> Not a ringing endorsement, and besides, I generally dislike
> biopics. If it comes to Netflix, or hits the cable movie
> channels, I'll think about it.
I will add that it's not a standard issue biopic, so it avoids a bunch
> Howard <howa...@notmail.com> wrote:
>
>> It's worth seeing at some point, I think.
>
> Not a ringing endorsement, and besides, I generally dislike
> biopics. If it comes to Netflix, or hits the cable movie
> channels, I'll think about it.
of those awful tropes -- childhood trauma that reverberates through the
rest of the movie, inflating the significance of small pieces of a life
due to the need to fit some overarching theme, stuff like that. It's
tightly focused on the Selma piece of King's life, and it wisely doesn't
cram the rest of his life into it -- you don't get "Why hello Ralph
Abernathy, my longterm friend and fellow preacher who was with me at the
bus boycott in Montgomery Alabama in 1953." Even with that limited
focus, it feels to me the movie struggles a bit because too much
happened during just the four-ish months of real life during that period
in Selma to fit in a two hour movie.
The bits I've read about the Stephen Hawking and especially the Alan
Turing biopics make me very reluctant to see them. It sounds like they
don't do very well on either the bio or the pic parts.
bill van
Jan 19, 2015, 10:40:18 PM1/19/15
to
In article <XnsA427E179E47B2...@94.75.214.39>,
I have that sense about the Hawking film, which I have no interest in
seeing. Biopix made while the subject is still alive seem particularly
dicey.
I have mixed feelings about the Alan Turing movie. On the plus side,
Benedict Cumberbatch is really arriving as an actor, and I've liked what
I've seen of him so far. On the down side, I've heard some suggestions
that Turing was building on more fundamental work by the Poles to
decipher German encryption, and that the movie largely disregards that
and gives him all the credit. I'm undecided about whether and when to
see it.
I should add that I don't make it to movie theatres more than once a
year or less these days. Sue's disability is such these days that the
movie-going experience is more of a pain than a pleasure, and we're much
happier waiting for worthwhile films to arrive in our living room.
--
bill
seeing. Biopix made while the subject is still alive seem particularly
dicey.
I have mixed feelings about the Alan Turing movie. On the plus side,
Benedict Cumberbatch is really arriving as an actor, and I've liked what
I've seen of him so far. On the down side, I've heard some suggestions
that Turing was building on more fundamental work by the Poles to
decipher German encryption, and that the movie largely disregards that
and gives him all the credit. I'm undecided about whether and when to
see it.
I should add that I don't make it to movie theatres more than once a
year or less these days. Sue's disability is such these days that the
movie-going experience is more of a pain than a pleasure, and we're much
happier waiting for worthwhile films to arrive in our living room.
--
bill
Boron Elgar
Jan 20, 2015, 9:01:32 AM1/20/15
to
On Mon, 19 Jan 2015 16:49:52 -0800, bill van <bil...@delete.shaw.ca>
wrote:
Biopics rare do more than use the most vague references to reality.
Check out Errol Flynn filmed as Custer and Cary Grant as Cole Porter.
I think the only real things were the names themselves.
wrote:
Check out Errol Flynn filmed as Custer and Cary Grant as Cole Porter.
I think the only real things were the names themselves.
Howard
Jan 20, 2015, 9:29:36 AM1/20/15
to
Boron Elgar <boron...@hootmail.com> wrote in
noted was LBJ asking Hoover to send the FBI's blackmail package to King.
One thing which I assumed was invented when I saw the movie, but when I
looked it up turned out to be true, was Malcolm X visiting Selma and
meeting with Coretta Scott King to explain that he had changed on his
hostility to King and wanted to be useful to him. It sounded too
convenient, but it actually happened.
The pushback from some former LBJ loyalists is somewhat disappointing,
but it's not a surprise that Jack Valenti is the most vocal of them,
since he's pretty shameless.
>> Howard <howa...@notmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> It's worth seeing at some point, I think.
>>
>>Not a ringing endorsement, and besides, I generally dislike
>>biopics. If it comes to Netflix, or hits the cable movie
>>channels, I'll think about it.
>
> Biopics rare do more than use the most vague references to reality.
> Check out Errol Flynn filmed as Custer and Cary Grant as Cole Porter.
> I think the only real things were the names themselves.
Selma is mostly accurate -- the one thing that's seriously off which I
>>
>>> It's worth seeing at some point, I think.
>>
>>Not a ringing endorsement, and besides, I generally dislike
>>biopics. If it comes to Netflix, or hits the cable movie
>>channels, I'll think about it.
>
> Biopics rare do more than use the most vague references to reality.
> Check out Errol Flynn filmed as Custer and Cary Grant as Cole Porter.
> I think the only real things were the names themselves.
noted was LBJ asking Hoover to send the FBI's blackmail package to King.
One thing which I assumed was invented when I saw the movie, but when I
looked it up turned out to be true, was Malcolm X visiting Selma and
meeting with Coretta Scott King to explain that he had changed on his
hostility to King and wanted to be useful to him. It sounded too
convenient, but it actually happened.
The pushback from some former LBJ loyalists is somewhat disappointing,
but it's not a surprise that Jack Valenti is the most vocal of them,
since he's pretty shameless.
Howard
Jan 20, 2015, 9:31:24 AM1/20/15
to
Howard <howa...@notmail.com> wrote in
news:XnsA42860971C8D...@94.75.214.39:
Should have said Joseph Califano, who is also shameless, not Valenti,
who is quite dead.
news:XnsA42860971C8D...@94.75.214.39:
who is quite dead.
S. Checker
Jan 20, 2015, 10:00:07 AM1/20/15
to
Howard <howa...@notmail.com> wrote:
> There's been some complaining by LBJ supporters about inaccuracies in
> the movie, but I think overall it's fair to him -- he wasn't a huge
> backer of futher civil disobedience after the Civil Rights Act was
> passed -- except in the matter of J Edgar Hoover. LBJ didn't send
> Hoover to ruin King, and I think LBJ was aware that Hoover not only had
> out of whack priorities, but also was pretty incompetent.
Without cites, I Have Heard that LBJ called Hoover on the carpet to
> There's been some complaining by LBJ supporters about inaccuracies in
> the movie, but I think overall it's fair to him -- he wasn't a huge
> backer of futher civil disobedience after the Civil Rights Act was
> passed -- except in the matter of J Edgar Hoover. LBJ didn't send
> Hoover to ruin King, and I think LBJ was aware that Hoover not only had
> out of whack priorities, but also was pretty incompetent.
fire him, and Hoover left the meeting with his job intact. And he was
not the only president to try this.
--
The hearing ear is always found close to the speaking tongue, a custom
whereof the memory of man runneth not howsomever to the contrary, nohow.
Mark Brader
Jan 20, 2015, 11:09:36 AM1/20/15
to
"Howard":
I would recommend it. I only know the broad outlines about Hawking's
life, though, so I can't say how true to life it is.
> Biopix made while the subject is still alive seem particularly dicey.
Ah, but it means he *doesn't have to die at the end of it*.
--
Mark Brader, Toronto Don't put all your X in one window.
m...@vex.net -- Peter Neumann
My text in this article is in the public domain.
> > The bits I've read about the Stephen Hawking and especially the Alan
> > Turing biopics make me very reluctant to see them. It sounds like they
> > don't do very well on either the bio or the pic parts.
"bill van":
> > Turing biopics make me very reluctant to see them. It sounds like they
> > don't do very well on either the bio or the pic parts.
> I have that sense about the Hawking film, which I have no interest in
> seeing.
You're talking about "The Theory of Everything". I saw it; I liked it;
> seeing.
I would recommend it. I only know the broad outlines about Hawking's
life, though, so I can't say how true to life it is.
> Biopix made while the subject is still alive seem particularly dicey.
--
Mark Brader, Toronto Don't put all your X in one window.
m...@vex.net -- Peter Neumann
My text in this article is in the public domain.
Charles Bishop
Jan 20, 2015, 11:36:26 AM1/20/15
to
came from a book written by his wife and so has her POV mostly. I would
have rather seen it from the POV of the physics. I didn't notice any
egregious errors, but wouldn't notice any but a large physics one.
Turing's was good too. At the time I wondered why his homosexuality
featured in the film, but by the end of the film it seemed to fit in
well enough. There was a small bit with regard to a name he gave his
"computer" that sounded too pat, but it could have been true.
Of the two, I'd recommend the Turing one.
--
charless
Mark Brader
Jan 20, 2015, 11:37:39 AM1/20/15
to
"Howard":
on real events. That's certainly true. Filmmakers have some license
to simplify or rearrange history for dramatic purposes, but this movie
invented conflicts, rearranged events, and omitted events *when the
true story would have been just as interesting*.
I'll provide more specifics in a separate posting that you can and should
skip if you still want to see the movie.
Despite what I just said, there are things about the movie that I liked
quite a bit. In particular, the depiction of Turing himself was, as far
as I know, dead on, and they did do a good job of conveying the urgency
and importance of the work and how people responded to that. So if you're
willing to put up with more distortions of the history than I was,
then I'd recommend seeing it, whether on TV later or in the cinema.
I've seen three other shows relating directly to the Bletchley Park
codebreakers. The first was "Breaking the Code", a play about Turing from
about 1988, which has also been shown on TV. Like "The Imitiation Game",
the title refers to his work and also plays on his secret homosexuality.
It sticks closer to the facts about at least one key event and I would
recommend it unreservedly.
The second was "Enigma", based on a novel by Thomas Harris, which I've
also read. It's a fictional spy story but the story includes at least
one key event of the codebreaking, which is told correctly. I liked
this too.
The third was "The Bletchley Circle", a British TV mini-series (shown
on PBS a couple of times) set in the postwar era when everything about
Bletchley Park was still secret. A group of women who worked there
find themselves using their talents and secret knowledge to solve a
crime, and in later episodes, additional crimes. It was okay.
--
Mark Brader (Douglas R.) Hofstadter's Law:
Toronto "It always takes longer than you expect, even
m...@vex.net when you take into account Hofstadter's Law."
>> The bits I've read about the Stephen Hawking and especially the Alan
>> Turing biopics make me very reluctant to see them. It sounds like they
>> don't do very well on either the bio or the pic parts.
"bill van":
>> Turing biopics make me very reluctant to see them. It sounds like they
>> don't do very well on either the bio or the pic parts.
> I have mixed feelings about the Alan Turing movie. On the plus side,
> Benedict Cumberbatch is really arriving as an actor, and I've liked what
> I've seen of him so far. On the down side, I've heard some suggestions
> that Turing was building on more fundamental work by the Poles to
> decipher German encryption, and that the movie largely disregards that
> and gives him all the credit.
The disclaimer at the end of the film describes it as "loosely" based
> Benedict Cumberbatch is really arriving as an actor, and I've liked what
> I've seen of him so far. On the down side, I've heard some suggestions
> that Turing was building on more fundamental work by the Poles to
> decipher German encryption, and that the movie largely disregards that
> and gives him all the credit.
on real events. That's certainly true. Filmmakers have some license
to simplify or rearrange history for dramatic purposes, but this movie
invented conflicts, rearranged events, and omitted events *when the
true story would have been just as interesting*.
I'll provide more specifics in a separate posting that you can and should
skip if you still want to see the movie.
Despite what I just said, there are things about the movie that I liked
quite a bit. In particular, the depiction of Turing himself was, as far
as I know, dead on, and they did do a good job of conveying the urgency
and importance of the work and how people responded to that. So if you're
willing to put up with more distortions of the history than I was,
then I'd recommend seeing it, whether on TV later or in the cinema.
I've seen three other shows relating directly to the Bletchley Park
codebreakers. The first was "Breaking the Code", a play about Turing from
about 1988, which has also been shown on TV. Like "The Imitiation Game",
the title refers to his work and also plays on his secret homosexuality.
It sticks closer to the facts about at least one key event and I would
recommend it unreservedly.
The second was "Enigma", based on a novel by Thomas Harris, which I've
also read. It's a fictional spy story but the story includes at least
one key event of the codebreaking, which is told correctly. I liked
this too.
The third was "The Bletchley Circle", a British TV mini-series (shown
on PBS a couple of times) set in the postwar era when everything about
Bletchley Park was still secret. A group of women who worked there
find themselves using their talents and secret knowledge to solve a
crime, and in later episodes, additional crimes. It was okay.
--
Mark Brader (Douglas R.) Hofstadter's Law:
Toronto "It always takes longer than you expect, even
m...@vex.net when you take into account Hofstadter's Law."
Mark Brader
Jan 20, 2015, 11:51:57 AM1/20/15
to
"bill van":
visual, to get the maximum benefit of the big screen. Among the late-2014
releases I saw, that would mean "Interstellar".
It's not perfect; for one thing, I don't think it need to be 2 hours and
49 minutes long. But it's one of those movies where the first section
needs to drag a bit in order to set up what follows. Some of the
action-type scenes could have been written more plausibly, but I was
willing to forgive them. And the warnings I saw from multiple people
before going to the movie, to the effect that the dialogue in some
scenes was drowned out and hard to follow, were certainly true.
But the important thing was the overall science-fiction plot, and that
part I liked a lot.
This is, by the way, the first movie I've ever seen where a well-known
physicist had executive producer credit -- Kip Thorne. I did not know
that going in, and it was quite a surprise to see it. (And still more
of a surprise when he turned up as a *character* in the *next* movie
I saw -- "The Theory of Everything".) Thorne was also a science
consultant on the movie, and being an executive producer meant he had
the clout to enforce his suggestions.
--
Mark Brader A real Canadian science-fiction plot would be
Toronto about whether alien visitors were a federal or
m...@vex.net a provincial responsibility. --Duncan Thornton
> I should add that I don't make it to movie theatres more than once a
> year or less these days. Sue's disability is such these days that the
> movie-going experience is more of a pain than a pleasure, and we're much
> happier waiting for worthwhile films to arrive in our living room.
In that case I would think you'd want to select movies that are highly
> year or less these days. Sue's disability is such these days that the
> movie-going experience is more of a pain than a pleasure, and we're much
> happier waiting for worthwhile films to arrive in our living room.
visual, to get the maximum benefit of the big screen. Among the late-2014
releases I saw, that would mean "Interstellar".
It's not perfect; for one thing, I don't think it need to be 2 hours and
49 minutes long. But it's one of those movies where the first section
needs to drag a bit in order to set up what follows. Some of the
action-type scenes could have been written more plausibly, but I was
willing to forgive them. And the warnings I saw from multiple people
before going to the movie, to the effect that the dialogue in some
scenes was drowned out and hard to follow, were certainly true.
But the important thing was the overall science-fiction plot, and that
part I liked a lot.
This is, by the way, the first movie I've ever seen where a well-known
physicist had executive producer credit -- Kip Thorne. I did not know
that going in, and it was quite a surprise to see it. (And still more
of a surprise when he turned up as a *character* in the *next* movie
I saw -- "The Theory of Everything".) Thorne was also a science
consultant on the movie, and being an executive producer meant he had
the clout to enforce his suggestions.
--
Mark Brader A real Canadian science-fiction plot would be
Toronto about whether alien visitors were a federal or
m...@vex.net a provincial responsibility. --Duncan Thornton
Alfalfa Bill
Jan 20, 2015, 11:57:43 AM1/20/15
to
On Tuesday, January 20, 2015 at 9:00:07 AM UTC-6, S. Checker wrote:
> Howard <howa...@notmail.com> wrote:
>
> > There's been some complaining by LBJ supporters about inaccuracies in
> > the movie, but I think overall it's fair to him -- he wasn't a huge
> > backer of futher civil disobedience after the Civil Rights Act was
> > passed -- except in the matter of J Edgar Hoover. LBJ didn't send
> > Hoover to ruin King, and I think LBJ was aware that Hoover not only had
> > out of whack priorities, but also was pretty incompetent.
>
> Without cites, I Have Heard that LBJ called Hoover on the carpet to
> fire him, and Hoover left the meeting with his job intact. And he was
> not the only president to try this.
Tim Gun telling a story on NPR's Wait Wait Don't Tell Me:
> Howard <howa...@notmail.com> wrote:
>
> > There's been some complaining by LBJ supporters about inaccuracies in
> > the movie, but I think overall it's fair to him -- he wasn't a huge
> > backer of futher civil disobedience after the Civil Rights Act was
> > passed -- except in the matter of J Edgar Hoover. LBJ didn't send
> > Hoover to ruin King, and I think LBJ was aware that Hoover not only had
> > out of whack priorities, but also was pretty incompetent.
>
> Without cites, I Have Heard that LBJ called Hoover on the carpet to
> fire him, and Hoover left the meeting with his job intact. And he was
> not the only president to try this.
My father was a career FBI agent, 26 years. And he was - well, he was an agent but he ended up being J. Edgar Hoover's ghostwriter, speechwriter - took care of all the correspondents and his office was two doors down from Mr. Hoover's office.
And growing up, my sister and I loved the FBI tour. And this one particular year, I was nine or 10 and my sister was therefore six or seven. And my father said, you kids are going to be so excited - Vivian Vance is in Mr. Hoover's office. And I was a huge "I Love Lucy" fan. Would you like to meet her? Well, yes, of course. So we did and it was lovely and she was charming.
Years later, my father's in a nursing home with Alzheimer's disease - he's not at the Thanksgiving table where family has gathered. And all these rumors are out about Hoover being a cross-dresser.
And I turned to my sister and I said, upon reflection, I know it was years and years ago - doesn't it strike you as odd that Hoover wasn't in the office?
I wrote about this in one of my books - "Gunn's Golden Rules." It was published by a division of Simon & Schuster. The Simon & Schuster legal team went to task on that book. They spent two weeks with it and they contacted Vivian Vance's two biographers - neither of whom knew anything about this visit to the FBI, and then they went to the FBI to look at their visitor logs - no Vivian Vance.
[Question] How was J. Edgar Hoover as Vivian Van dressed - which is really what matters?
TIM GUNN: A stunning house dress.
http://www.npr.org/2014/06/07/319423432/not-my-job-project-runways-tim-gunn-gets-quizzed-on-terrible-fashion
Les Albert
Jan 20, 2015, 12:34:28 PM1/20/15
to
On Tue, 20 Jan 2015 08:36:24 -0800, Charles Bishop
<ctbi...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>> The bits I've read about the Stephen Hawking and especially the Alan
>> Turing biopics make me very reluctant to see them. It sounds like they
>> don't do very well on either the bio or the pic parts.
>I've seen them both and enjoyed them, with reservations. The Hawking one
>came from a book written by his wife and so has her POV mostly. I would
>have rather seen it from the POV of the physics. I didn't notice any
>egregious errors, but wouldn't notice any but a large physics one.
>Turing's was good too. At the time I wondered why his homosexuality
>featured in the film, but by the end of the film it seemed to fit in
>well enough. There was a small bit with regard to a name he gave his
>"computer" that sounded too pat, but it could have been true.
>Of the two, I'd recommend the Turing one.
The Turing movie is full of inaccurate and made-up stuff. Here is an
<ctbi...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>> The bits I've read about the Stephen Hawking and especially the Alan
>> Turing biopics make me very reluctant to see them. It sounds like they
>> don't do very well on either the bio or the pic parts.
>I've seen them both and enjoyed them, with reservations. The Hawking one
>came from a book written by his wife and so has her POV mostly. I would
>have rather seen it from the POV of the physics. I didn't notice any
>egregious errors, but wouldn't notice any but a large physics one.
>Turing's was good too. At the time I wondered why his homosexuality
>featured in the film, but by the end of the film it seemed to fit in
>well enough. There was a small bit with regard to a name he gave his
>"computer" that sounded too pat, but it could have been true.
>Of the two, I'd recommend the Turing one.
interesting article from the Guardian about them:
http://tinyurl.com/mrugz54
Their conclusion: "Historically, The Imitation Game is as much of a
garbled mess as a heap of unbroken code."
Les
Les Albert
Jan 20, 2015, 2:28:50 PM1/20/15
to
On Tue, 20 Jan 2015 09:34:22 -0800, Les Albert <lalb...@aol.com>
wrote:
Here is an article from Slate about the Turing movie, showing its
inaccuracies: http://tinyurl.com/kz6gzwo
Les
wrote:
inaccuracies: http://tinyurl.com/kz6gzwo
Les
Greg Goss
Jan 20, 2015, 2:56:44 PM1/20/15
to
m...@vex.net (Mark Brader) wrote:
> "Interstellar".
...
>willing to forgive them. And the warnings I saw from multiple people
>before going to the movie, to the effect that the dialogue in some
>scenes was drowned out and hard to follow, were certainly true.
I have serious hearing problems, combined (when my hearing was still
OK) with an inability to pull dialog out of a noisy (eg bar or party)
environment. I saw the warnings before going to the movie, and
dreaded what we might find. In the actual theatre, I never had ANY
problems with understanding what was said.
I saw it at an IMAX theatre. I remembe that Imax used to introduce
their theatres with an extended intro (mainly to let your eyes
dark-adjust before the show starts) that included a detailed look at
the audio setup. Is Imax really better at comprehensibility than
routine theatres?
>This is, by the way, the first movie I've ever seen where a well-known
>physicist had executive producer credit -- Kip Thorne. I did not know
>that going in, and it was quite a surprise to see it. (And still more
>of a surprise when he turned up as a *character* in the *next* movie
>I saw -- "The Theory of Everything".) Thorne was also a science
>consultant on the movie, and being an executive producer meant he had
>the clout to enforce his suggestions.
There was a SciAm editorial about their senior editor's role in Deep
Impact. He said that they took EVERY suggestion he made seriously,
except that he wanted the surface to be black. They told him that you
can't sell a black snowball to the public in a movie, and he accepted
that.
--
We are geeks. Resistance is voltage over current.
> "Interstellar".
...
>willing to forgive them. And the warnings I saw from multiple people
>before going to the movie, to the effect that the dialogue in some
>scenes was drowned out and hard to follow, were certainly true.
OK) with an inability to pull dialog out of a noisy (eg bar or party)
environment. I saw the warnings before going to the movie, and
dreaded what we might find. In the actual theatre, I never had ANY
problems with understanding what was said.
I saw it at an IMAX theatre. I remembe that Imax used to introduce
their theatres with an extended intro (mainly to let your eyes
dark-adjust before the show starts) that included a detailed look at
the audio setup. Is Imax really better at comprehensibility than
routine theatres?
>This is, by the way, the first movie I've ever seen where a well-known
>physicist had executive producer credit -- Kip Thorne. I did not know
>that going in, and it was quite a surprise to see it. (And still more
>of a surprise when he turned up as a *character* in the *next* movie
>I saw -- "The Theory of Everything".) Thorne was also a science
>consultant on the movie, and being an executive producer meant he had
>the clout to enforce his suggestions.
Impact. He said that they took EVERY suggestion he made seriously,
except that he wanted the surface to be black. They told him that you
can't sell a black snowball to the public in a movie, and he accepted
that.
--
We are geeks. Resistance is voltage over current.
Mark Brader
Jan 20, 2015, 3:47:34 PM1/20/15
to
Mark Brader:
> The disclaimer at the end of ["The Imitation Game"] describes it as
> "loosely" based on real events. That's certainly true...
> I'll provide more specifics in a separate posting that you can and
> should skip if you still want to see the movie.
Okay, here goes. Spoilers galore. And I'll repeat that despite
everything I say here, I still liked the movie somewhat.
[1] The boss.
Fiction: Turing and his boss Denniston are depicted in a cliched hostile
relationship, as if Denniston despises Turing for having a high assessment
of his own abilities and wants him to fail. Early on Turing goes around
Denniston's back and this increases the resentment.
Fact, by all accounts in the real world: That is not the way Bletchley
Park was run -- everyone *knew* they were on the same side, and while
the work was hard and the conditions dreary, the atmosphere was one
of collegiality.
Side point: Part of this hostility is because Turing was able to get
100,000 pounds allocated to develop the Bombe. In fact, once the device
proved itself, a large number of them were built and that amount was
the *total* cost.
[2] Cribs.
Fiction: 2 years into the war, a casual conversation gives Turing the
idea that it would be useful to guess some stereotyped text that might be
likely appear in a message. They try it out at once, and sure enough,
suddenly the Bombe produces the settings that enable them to decode
the message.
Fact: The *whole idea* of the Bombe, from the beginning, was to find
possible settings based on a guessed piece of text -- what they called a
"crib". Without that, it would just be spinning through all the possible
settings meaninglessly and there would be no way to tell when the right
one was found.
Side point: It wasn't as simple as "enter the crib into the machine,
start it, and read off the settings", either. But if they'd gotten the
basic idea right, *then* I think it would be reasonable for the rest to
be simplified.
[3] All at once.
Fiction: The movie makes it seem as though no German code was broken
until the Bombe was made to work, but when they did, that was all it took
and all messages could be read thereafter -- even though this leaves
it unexplained what all those people in the other huts were doing,
and where that first crib came from.
Fact: There were several separate German networks using Enigma, and
some of them (particularly the German navy) followed procedures more
carefully than others. If the machine was used carelessly, it wasn't
nearly as secure as the number of possible settings would imply, and
Bletchley Park took advantage. Some scenes show people using other
methods of codebreaking, without explanation.
Side point: The Bombes were designed to break Enigma machines with
three rotors, but in 1941 the German Navy began using 4-rotor machines.
For several months until the wiring of the 4th rotor was figured out
(through the events depicted in the book and movie "Enigma", and I won't
mention the entirely fictional "U-571" if you don't), this rendered the
codes unbreakable again.
[4] Midnight.
Fiction: Before the above happens, people are shown working feverishly to
break the day's Engima settings, but as soon as midnight strikes and they
have failed again, they give up because the settings will now be changed.
Fact: The faster a message can be decoded the better, but there is no
need to stop working on it just because the settings are out of date.
If you break the settings for one day, you can decode other messages
that you recorded on that day. Some of them may still be important in
themselves, and all of them may provide useful suggestions for cribs.
[5] No Colossus.
Fiction: Enigma was the only cipher machine the Germans used, even for
high-level communications from one regional headquarters to another.
Even the onscreen text at the end of the movie leaves this implication.
Fact: In about 1941 they introduced a number of still more sophisticated
machines that worked, not at the level of characters (converted to and
from Morse code by a human), but at the level of bits (in teleprinter
Baudot code). For the second half of the war one of these machines, the
Lorenz (code-named "Tunny" by the British), was used for all high-level
messages -- traffic far more important strategically than the messages
to individual units that continued to be Enigma-coded.
Bletchley Park had to start from scratch in dealing with these,
but they were able to break them too. To do it, they moved beyond
electromechanical machines like the Bombe to purely electronic machines --
the Heath Robinson and then the Colossus. And while Turing was not
one of the people responsible for these machines being built (the star
developer of the electronics was Tommy Flowers), Turing did produce
one of the first important recommendations for what they should do,
so this is part of his story too.
I can accept that the movie is not about the time period when the Colossus
machines were built, but pretending it never happened is another matter.
[6] Secrecy (during).
Fiction: When Turing and his group first broke a message with the Bombe,
Turing then realized that they mustn't tell anyone what it said, because
then the enemy would know what they were doing.
Fact: This was understood all along. It wasn't the codebreakers' job
to decide what to do with the information they decoded; that was for
people in a position to decide how it could be disguised as coming from
other sources. (Much of Bletchley Park worked on a need-to-know basis,
for good reason. Cryptographers knew how to break messages; they didn't
need to know what to do with the information, and they knew that.)
Side comment: There is a story to the effect that Bletchley Park
discovered that Coventry was to be attacked and Churchill himself chose to
suppress the information. In fact the message regarding Coventry simply
was not decoded and understood (Coventry was referred to by a code name)
in time for action to be taken. But when it was realized from Enigma
messages that a later attack in the series would be on Wolverhampton,
additional defenses were rushed to the site -- and seen by German
reconnaissance, leading to that raid being canceled.
[7] Secrecy (after).
Fiction: The onscreen text at the end of the movie says that the secrets
of Bletchley Park were kept for 50 years.
Fact: Some were, but many important secrets were made public only about
30 years later.
Side comment: Both Heath Robinson and Colossus used long loops of paper
tapes, running at unprecedentedly high speeds, as a form of external
memory. In about 1975 when I was at university, I went to a talk once
where pictures of one of these machines were shown and some of their
capabilities were explained, but when the speaker was asked what data
was on the tapes, he merely said "Ah!"
I wish I remembered how that speaker was, but at the time his name was
unknown to me. One obvious possibility is Bill Tutte, who played a major
role in the breaking of Tunny and was a distinguished professor there
at the time, I think Jack Good also spent some time at the university
and he was also on the project, so it could have been him.
[8] General-purpose computers.
Fiction: It isn't stated explicitly, but it seems to be implied,
that the Bombe is some sort of general-purpose computer, a successor
to Turing's purely theoretical concept of a universal Turing machine.
In a scene after the war he is working on some sort of general-purpose
electronic computer and it seemed to be intended to say that this
was a development from his Bletchley Park work.
Fact: The Bombe was a special-purpose device. Even the Colossus was a
special-purpose device, though it is is considered the first electronic
computer by people who like the idea that it was the British developed
the first electronic computer. What it did do was introduce techniques
that could easily *have been used next* to develop an electronic
general-purpose computer -- if only they hadn't been suppressed under
a veil of secrecy (just like the Bombes, as correctly depicted at the
end of the movie).
The British did eventually start a computer industry after the war,
and Turing did work on one of the early projects -- as did Flowers.
That work could be considered conceptually similar to the universal
Turing machine, but it did not flow from what was done at Bletchley.
[9] Soviet spies and Turing's exposure.
Fiction: There was a Soviet agent in Turing's group, who believed
that since the Soviets were British allies the British shouldn't be
keeping secrets from them. When Turing reported a minor theft, he was
investigated for possibly being that agent and thus a security risk.
The police investigated and instead discovered that he was homosexual,
for which he was arrested.
Fact: There was a Soviet agent at Bletchley Park, but not in Turing's
group, and he wasn't even suspected at the time. When Turing reported
a minor theft, he mentioned being in a homosexual relationship with the
probable culprit (on the assumption that this was unimportant), and was
therefore arrested (exactly as depicted in "Breaking the Code").
--
Mark Brader "Those who do not study history
Toronto are condemned to repeat the course"
m...@vex.net (after George Santayana)
> The disclaimer at the end of ["The Imitation Game"] describes it as
> "loosely" based on real events. That's certainly true...
> I'll provide more specifics in a separate posting that you can and
> should skip if you still want to see the movie.
everything I say here, I still liked the movie somewhat.
[1] The boss.
Fiction: Turing and his boss Denniston are depicted in a cliched hostile
relationship, as if Denniston despises Turing for having a high assessment
of his own abilities and wants him to fail. Early on Turing goes around
Denniston's back and this increases the resentment.
Fact, by all accounts in the real world: That is not the way Bletchley
Park was run -- everyone *knew* they were on the same side, and while
the work was hard and the conditions dreary, the atmosphere was one
of collegiality.
Side point: Part of this hostility is because Turing was able to get
100,000 pounds allocated to develop the Bombe. In fact, once the device
proved itself, a large number of them were built and that amount was
the *total* cost.
[2] Cribs.
Fiction: 2 years into the war, a casual conversation gives Turing the
idea that it would be useful to guess some stereotyped text that might be
likely appear in a message. They try it out at once, and sure enough,
suddenly the Bombe produces the settings that enable them to decode
the message.
Fact: The *whole idea* of the Bombe, from the beginning, was to find
possible settings based on a guessed piece of text -- what they called a
"crib". Without that, it would just be spinning through all the possible
settings meaninglessly and there would be no way to tell when the right
one was found.
Side point: It wasn't as simple as "enter the crib into the machine,
start it, and read off the settings", either. But if they'd gotten the
basic idea right, *then* I think it would be reasonable for the rest to
be simplified.
[3] All at once.
Fiction: The movie makes it seem as though no German code was broken
until the Bombe was made to work, but when they did, that was all it took
and all messages could be read thereafter -- even though this leaves
it unexplained what all those people in the other huts were doing,
and where that first crib came from.
Fact: There were several separate German networks using Enigma, and
some of them (particularly the German navy) followed procedures more
carefully than others. If the machine was used carelessly, it wasn't
nearly as secure as the number of possible settings would imply, and
Bletchley Park took advantage. Some scenes show people using other
methods of codebreaking, without explanation.
Side point: The Bombes were designed to break Enigma machines with
three rotors, but in 1941 the German Navy began using 4-rotor machines.
For several months until the wiring of the 4th rotor was figured out
(through the events depicted in the book and movie "Enigma", and I won't
mention the entirely fictional "U-571" if you don't), this rendered the
codes unbreakable again.
[4] Midnight.
Fiction: Before the above happens, people are shown working feverishly to
break the day's Engima settings, but as soon as midnight strikes and they
have failed again, they give up because the settings will now be changed.
Fact: The faster a message can be decoded the better, but there is no
need to stop working on it just because the settings are out of date.
If you break the settings for one day, you can decode other messages
that you recorded on that day. Some of them may still be important in
themselves, and all of them may provide useful suggestions for cribs.
[5] No Colossus.
Fiction: Enigma was the only cipher machine the Germans used, even for
high-level communications from one regional headquarters to another.
Even the onscreen text at the end of the movie leaves this implication.
Fact: In about 1941 they introduced a number of still more sophisticated
machines that worked, not at the level of characters (converted to and
from Morse code by a human), but at the level of bits (in teleprinter
Baudot code). For the second half of the war one of these machines, the
Lorenz (code-named "Tunny" by the British), was used for all high-level
messages -- traffic far more important strategically than the messages
to individual units that continued to be Enigma-coded.
Bletchley Park had to start from scratch in dealing with these,
but they were able to break them too. To do it, they moved beyond
electromechanical machines like the Bombe to purely electronic machines --
the Heath Robinson and then the Colossus. And while Turing was not
one of the people responsible for these machines being built (the star
developer of the electronics was Tommy Flowers), Turing did produce
one of the first important recommendations for what they should do,
so this is part of his story too.
I can accept that the movie is not about the time period when the Colossus
machines were built, but pretending it never happened is another matter.
[6] Secrecy (during).
Fiction: When Turing and his group first broke a message with the Bombe,
Turing then realized that they mustn't tell anyone what it said, because
then the enemy would know what they were doing.
Fact: This was understood all along. It wasn't the codebreakers' job
to decide what to do with the information they decoded; that was for
people in a position to decide how it could be disguised as coming from
other sources. (Much of Bletchley Park worked on a need-to-know basis,
for good reason. Cryptographers knew how to break messages; they didn't
need to know what to do with the information, and they knew that.)
Side comment: There is a story to the effect that Bletchley Park
discovered that Coventry was to be attacked and Churchill himself chose to
suppress the information. In fact the message regarding Coventry simply
was not decoded and understood (Coventry was referred to by a code name)
in time for action to be taken. But when it was realized from Enigma
messages that a later attack in the series would be on Wolverhampton,
additional defenses were rushed to the site -- and seen by German
reconnaissance, leading to that raid being canceled.
[7] Secrecy (after).
Fiction: The onscreen text at the end of the movie says that the secrets
of Bletchley Park were kept for 50 years.
Fact: Some were, but many important secrets were made public only about
30 years later.
Side comment: Both Heath Robinson and Colossus used long loops of paper
tapes, running at unprecedentedly high speeds, as a form of external
memory. In about 1975 when I was at university, I went to a talk once
where pictures of one of these machines were shown and some of their
capabilities were explained, but when the speaker was asked what data
was on the tapes, he merely said "Ah!"
I wish I remembered how that speaker was, but at the time his name was
unknown to me. One obvious possibility is Bill Tutte, who played a major
role in the breaking of Tunny and was a distinguished professor there
at the time, I think Jack Good also spent some time at the university
and he was also on the project, so it could have been him.
[8] General-purpose computers.
Fiction: It isn't stated explicitly, but it seems to be implied,
that the Bombe is some sort of general-purpose computer, a successor
to Turing's purely theoretical concept of a universal Turing machine.
In a scene after the war he is working on some sort of general-purpose
electronic computer and it seemed to be intended to say that this
was a development from his Bletchley Park work.
Fact: The Bombe was a special-purpose device. Even the Colossus was a
special-purpose device, though it is is considered the first electronic
computer by people who like the idea that it was the British developed
the first electronic computer. What it did do was introduce techniques
that could easily *have been used next* to develop an electronic
general-purpose computer -- if only they hadn't been suppressed under
a veil of secrecy (just like the Bombes, as correctly depicted at the
end of the movie).
The British did eventually start a computer industry after the war,
and Turing did work on one of the early projects -- as did Flowers.
That work could be considered conceptually similar to the universal
Turing machine, but it did not flow from what was done at Bletchley.
[9] Soviet spies and Turing's exposure.
Fiction: There was a Soviet agent in Turing's group, who believed
that since the Soviets were British allies the British shouldn't be
keeping secrets from them. When Turing reported a minor theft, he was
investigated for possibly being that agent and thus a security risk.
The police investigated and instead discovered that he was homosexual,
for which he was arrested.
Fact: There was a Soviet agent at Bletchley Park, but not in Turing's
group, and he wasn't even suspected at the time. When Turing reported
a minor theft, he mentioned being in a homosexual relationship with the
probable culprit (on the assumption that this was unimportant), and was
therefore arrested (exactly as depicted in "Breaking the Code").
--
Mark Brader "Those who do not study history
Toronto are condemned to repeat the course"
m...@vex.net (after George Santayana)
Howard
Jan 20, 2015, 4:13:42 PM1/20/15
to
m...@vex.net (Mark Brader) wrote in
> Mark Brader:
>> The disclaimer at the end of ["The Imitation Game"] describes it as
>> "loosely" based on real events. That's certainly true...
>
>> I'll provide more specifics in a separate posting that you can and
>> should skip if you still want to see the movie.
>
> Okay, here goes. Spoilers galore. And I'll repeat that despite
> everything I say here, I still liked the movie somewhat.
Upstream you noted that they made changes when the real story would have
been just as interesting.
I'm guessing there's some kind of theme they were trying to show -- was it
clear what they were after? Was it something interesting, or was it just a
sort of mash of looky at what a genius can do stuff?
> Mark Brader:
>> The disclaimer at the end of ["The Imitation Game"] describes it as
>> "loosely" based on real events. That's certainly true...
>
>> I'll provide more specifics in a separate posting that you can and
>> should skip if you still want to see the movie.
>
> Okay, here goes. Spoilers galore. And I'll repeat that despite
> everything I say here, I still liked the movie somewhat.
been just as interesting.
I'm guessing there's some kind of theme they were trying to show -- was it
clear what they were after? Was it something interesting, or was it just a
sort of mash of looky at what a genius can do stuff?
Boron Elgar
Jan 20, 2015, 4:26:58 PM1/20/15
to
guess, but there really isn't any great cinematic precedent for it.
Not unheard of, I suppose, but certainly not any sizeable portion of
these films should be taken to heart. Same with historical event
depiction movies. This is why it drives me nuts when these films get
shown in school as teaching aids.
Boron
Greg Goss
Jan 20, 2015, 5:16:58 PM1/20/15
to
Boron Elgar <boron...@hootmail.com> wrote:
>I have never expected biopics to stick to reality. It'd be nice, I
>guess, but there really isn't any great cinematic precedent for it.
>
>Not unheard of, I suppose, but certainly not any sizeable portion of
>these films should be taken to heart. Same with historical event
>depiction movies. This is why it drives me nuts when these films get
>shown in school as teaching aids.
One of the first miniseries ever was the Canadian "The National
>I have never expected biopics to stick to reality. It'd be nice, I
>guess, but there really isn't any great cinematic precedent for it.
>
>Not unheard of, I suppose, but certainly not any sizeable portion of
>these films should be taken to heart. Same with historical event
>depiction movies. This is why it drives me nuts when these films get
>shown in school as teaching aids.
Dream". I wanted to buy the DVD once, but it was priced at the
educational market, rather than the home consumer market. I'm not
sure how close to reality they kept it, but I took it as gospel when I
was a preteen.
(I walked over the old-style high wooden trestles that they used to
film the opening sequence on. The "big" railways had all upgraded
their bridges long since, but the KVR still used the old style
mesh-of-beams trestles until they went broke. \)
Joseph Nebus
Jan 20, 2015, 6:09:22 PM1/20/15
to
In <OISdnXEyC4gi4CPJ...@vex.net> m...@vex.net (Mark Brader) writes:
>"Howard":
>> Biopix made while the subject is still alive seem particularly dicey.
>Ah, but it means he *doesn't have to die at the end of it*.
``Steve, you're gonna love the way we punched up your life story.
Now in this last scene you're getting the Nobel Peace Prize and stumble
and fall over dead. It's just the heartstring-tugging the final act
needed.''
``BUT ... I ... ''
``Yeah, I know, I know, Steve, but your death scene is just a
killer.''
``APPARENTLY.''
--
Joseph Nebus
Math: Reading the Comics: Finding Your Place Edition http://wp.me/p1RYhY-H4
Humor: The Mid-Winter Fashion http://wp.me/p37lb5-I1
--------------------------------------------------------+---------------------
>"Howard":
>> Biopix made while the subject is still alive seem particularly dicey.
>Ah, but it means he *doesn't have to die at the end of it*.
Now in this last scene you're getting the Nobel Peace Prize and stumble
and fall over dead. It's just the heartstring-tugging the final act
needed.''
``BUT ... I ... ''
``Yeah, I know, I know, Steve, but your death scene is just a
killer.''
``APPARENTLY.''
--
Joseph Nebus
Math: Reading the Comics: Finding Your Place Edition http://wp.me/p1RYhY-H4
Humor: The Mid-Winter Fashion http://wp.me/p37lb5-I1
--------------------------------------------------------+---------------------
Mark Brader
Jan 21, 2015, 12:01:52 AM1/21/15
to
Greg Goss:
books. It was basically a documentary with scenes reenacted,
not a fictionalization as such.
--
Mark Brader | "That would be correct, if it was correct." --Mark Brader
Toronto | "It's amazing how often that's said about my statements."
m...@vex.net | --Greg Goss
> One of the first miniseries ever was the Canadian "The National
> Dream"... I'm not sure how close to reality they kept it, but
> I took it as gospel when I was a preteen.
Well, it was adapted by Pierre Berton from his own nonfiction
books. It was basically a documentary with scenes reenacted,
not a fictionalization as such.
--
Mark Brader | "That would be correct, if it was correct." --Mark Brader
Toronto | "It's amazing how often that's said about my statements."
m...@vex.net | --Greg Goss
art...@yahoo.com
Jan 21, 2015, 7:50:21 PM1/21/15
to
On Monday, January 19, 2015 at 7:28:58 PM UTC-5, Howard wrote:
> I saw it this weekend, with a bit of doubt, being an Oprah production
> with her in the supporting cast, but overall I liked it.
Is this the one in which Dr. King drives into the Grand Canyon?
> I saw it this weekend, with a bit of doubt, being an Oprah production
> with her in the supporting cast, but overall I liked it.
Oh wait, that's Selma and Louise.
Never mind.
Howard
Jan 21, 2015, 8:42:24 PM1/21/15
to
to get rid of DeVito's mother by sending her to white slavers on the City
of New Orleans.
Oh wait, that's Sell Mama From the Train.
Rick B.
Jan 22, 2015, 7:05:39 AM1/22/15
to
Howard <howa...@notmail.com> wrote in news:XnsA429D2AB9A5AFhowdtldhmustmayo@
94.75.214.39:
All the Alabama Little Leaguers can't wait for the season to start. There
will be joy as games are played on every Selma diamond.
94.75.214.39:
will be joy as games are played on every Selma diamond.
snide...@gmail.com
Jan 22, 2015, 10:46:01 PM1/22/15
to
On Monday, January 19, 2015 at 7:40:18 PM UTC-8, bill van wrote:
> I have mixed feelings about the Alan Turing movie. On the plus side,
> Benedict Cumberbatch is really arriving as an actor, and I've liked what
> I've seen of him so far. On the down side, I've heard some suggestions
> that Turing was building on more fundamental work by the Poles to
> decipher German encryption, and that the movie largely disregards that
> and gives him all the credit. I'm undecided about whether and when to
> see it.
The book /The Theory That Would Not Die/, McGrayne 2011, has a chapter on
> I have mixed feelings about the Alan Turing movie. On the plus side,
> Benedict Cumberbatch is really arriving as an actor, and I've liked what
> I've seen of him so far. On the down side, I've heard some suggestions
> that Turing was building on more fundamental work by the Poles to
> decipher German encryption, and that the movie largely disregards that
> and gives him all the credit. I'm undecided about whether and when to
> see it.
WWII codebreaking, and Turing figures highly in it. Pg 65 of the paperback
edition (Yale), says: "Turing's bobme, a radical redesign and upgrade
of the device invented by the Poles, would turn Bletchley Park into
a code breaking factory.", assisted in this part by Welchman and Keen.
Maria'n Rejewski (I'll let Turlock fix the diacrits) is described on pg 62
as figuring out (with group theory) how the Enigma wheels were wired,
and by 1938 the Poles were reading 75% of the German army and air force
messages. And they sent an Enigma machine (their clone, I guess) to London.
Note that the Germans upgraded their machines several times during the war,
and that the German navy had improved their machines faster than the army had.
The part of the story that bring Turing into the book is the Game of Banburismus
On pg 66: "One of Turing's first jobs was to reduce the number of tests a
bombe had to conduct. Although it was fast, a bombe took 18 minutes to test
a possible wheel setting. Assuming the worst, a bombe would need four days
to test all 336 possible wheel permutations on an Enigma. Until more bombes
could be build, their worklodd had to be drastically reduced."
Thus the motivation for the game, which basically automated the starting
probabilities needed for the Bayesian calculations. On pg 67: "Turing's
measure of belief, the ban, and its supporting mathematical framework have
been called his greatest intellectual contribution to Britain's defense."
References for the chapter include Copeland 2004, Copeland 2006, Erskine 2006
(an account of the Pole's meeting with the Brits in 1939 in Pyry, published
in Cryptologia), Gandry and Yates /Collected Works of AM Turing/ (2001),
Good 1950, Hodges /Alan Turing: The Enigma/ (1983, 2000),
Kahn /The Codebreakers/ (1967),
How well the movie jibes with that account, and how well either account stand
up to more recent review is something I will be interested in hearing.
/dps
Paul Ciszek
Jan 22, 2015, 10:49:27 PM1/22/15
to
In article <aYGdnXP9mYcwGiPJ...@vex.net>,
Mark Brader <m...@vex.net> wrote:
>
>But the important thing was the overall science-fiction plot, and that
>part I liked a lot.
I had one major problem with the science-fiction plot: Their plan B
>
>But the important thing was the overall science-fiction plot, and that
>part I liked a lot.
(which was really plan A) counted on being able to gestate as many of
those frozen embryos as possible as quickly as possible--and they sent
a crew consisting of three men and one woman.
--
Please reply to: |"We establish no religion in this country, we command
pciszek at panix | no worship, we mandate no belief, nor will we ever.
dot com | Church and state are, and must remain, separate."
Autoreply disabled | --Ronald Reagan, October 26, 1984
Bill Turlock
Jan 23, 2015, 12:54:35 AM1/23/15
to
On Thu, 22 Jan 2015 19:46:00 -0800 (PST), snide...@gmail.com wrote:
>On Monday, January 19, 2015 at 7:40:18 PM UTC-8, bill van wrote:
>
>> I have mixed feelings about the Alan Turing movie. On the plus side,
>> Benedict Cumberbatch is really arriving as an actor, and I've liked what
>> I've seen of him so far. On the down side, I've heard some suggestions
>> that Turing was building on more fundamental work by the Poles to
>> decipher German encryption, and that the movie largely disregards that
>> and gives him all the credit. I'm undecided about whether and when to
>> see it.
>
>The book /The Theory That Would Not Die/, McGrayne 2011, has a chapter on
>WWII codebreaking, and Turing figures highly in it. Pg 65 of the paperback
>edition (Yale), says: "Turing's bobme,
DYMTS "bonbe"?
>On Monday, January 19, 2015 at 7:40:18 PM UTC-8, bill van wrote:
>
>> I have mixed feelings about the Alan Turing movie. On the plus side,
>> Benedict Cumberbatch is really arriving as an actor, and I've liked what
>> I've seen of him so far. On the down side, I've heard some suggestions
>> that Turing was building on more fundamental work by the Poles to
>> decipher German encryption, and that the movie largely disregards that
>> and gives him all the credit. I'm undecided about whether and when to
>> see it.
>
>The book /The Theory That Would Not Die/, McGrayne 2011, has a chapter on
>WWII codebreaking, and Turing figures highly in it. Pg 65 of the paperback
>edition (Yale), says: "Turing's bobme,
> a radical redesign and upgrade
>of the device invented by the Poles, would turn Bletchley Park into
>a code breaking factory.", assisted in this part by Welchman and Keen.
>
>Maria'n Rejewski (I'll let Turlock fix the diacrits)
>is described on pg 62
>as figuring out (with group theory) how the Enigma wheels were wired,
>and by 1938 the Poles were reading 75% of the German army and air force
>messages. And they sent an Enigma machine (their clone, I guess) to London.
>
>Note that the Germans upgraded their machines several times during the war,
>and that the German navy had improved their machines faster than the army had.
>
>The part of the story that bring Turing into the book is the Game of Banburismus
>On pg 66: "One of Turing's first jobs was to reduce the number of tests a
>bombe
Bill Turlock
Jan 23, 2015, 12:56:18 AM1/23/15
to
On Thu, 22 Jan 2015 21:54:40 -0800, Bill Turlock
<billt...@billturlock.com> wrote:
>
>DYMTS "bonbe"?
_I_ MTS "bombe".
Shit.
<billt...@billturlock.com> wrote:
>
>DYMTS "bonbe"?
_I_ MTS "bombe".
Shit.
Mark Brader
Jan 23, 2015, 1:23:25 AM1/23/15
to
Mark Brader:
its, ah, support system.
--
Mark Brader | "But how do you figure out whether the programmer
Toronto | knew what he was doing when you find his code
m...@vex.net | after he's gone?" -- Roger Critchlow
>> But the important thing was the overall science-fiction plot, and that
>> part I liked a lot.
Paul Ciszek:
>> part I liked a lot.
> I had one major problem with the science-fiction plot: Their plan B
> (which was really plan A) counted on being able to gestate as many of
> those frozen embryos as possible as quickly as possible--and they sent
> a crew consisting of three men and one woman.
I assumed they had technology that would substitute for a uterus and
> (which was really plan A) counted on being able to gestate as many of
> those frozen embryos as possible as quickly as possible--and they sent
> a crew consisting of three men and one woman.
its, ah, support system.
--
Mark Brader | "But how do you figure out whether the programmer
Toronto | knew what he was doing when you find his code
m...@vex.net | after he's gone?" -- Roger Critchlow
Mark Brader
Jan 23, 2015, 1:32:00 AM1/23/15
to
"Snidely":
The reason they were able to do this without the advanced bombes that
Bletchley Park produced was that at the time the Germans had only three
different rotors to go in the machine's three slots, and were only
changing the machine settings once a month. Also, each message included
a message-specific setting that was transmitted in code at the start of
the message, and at the time the Germans were transmitting this twice
for redundancy, which helped the Poles decode the setting used to encode
the setting.
--
Mark Brader "All economic statistics are best seen as
Toronto a peculiarly boring form of science fiction..."
m...@vex.net --Paul Krugman
> Maria'n Rejewski (I'll let Turlock fix the diacrits) is described on pg 62
> as figuring out (with group theory) how the Enigma wheels were wired,
> and by 1938 the Poles were reading 75% of the German army and air force
> messages...
> as figuring out (with group theory) how the Enigma wheels were wired,
> and by 1938 the Poles were reading 75% of the German army and air force
The reason they were able to do this without the advanced bombes that
Bletchley Park produced was that at the time the Germans had only three
different rotors to go in the machine's three slots, and were only
changing the machine settings once a month. Also, each message included
a message-specific setting that was transmitted in code at the start of
the message, and at the time the Germans were transmitting this twice
for redundancy, which helped the Poles decode the setting used to encode
the setting.
--
Mark Brader "All economic statistics are best seen as
Toronto a peculiarly boring form of science fiction..."
m...@vex.net --Paul Krugman
bill van
Jan 23, 2015, 3:24:17 AM1/23/15
to
In article <rio3calicvb9edff0...@4ax.com>,
I've been wondering how to pronounce "bombe". My best guess is bom-buh,
with the 'b' sounded. Anyone else?
--
bill
with the 'b' sounded. Anyone else?
--
bill
Snidely
Jan 23, 2015, 3:26:26 AM1/23/15
to
On Thursday, Bill Turlock pointed out that ...
No, virus.
/dps "flambe"
--
"This is all very fine, but let us not be carried away be excitement,
but ask calmly, how does this person feel about in in his cooler
moments next day, with six or seven thousand feet of snow and stuff on
top of him?"
_Roughing It_, Mark Twain.
/dps "flambe"
--
"This is all very fine, but let us not be carried away be excitement,
but ask calmly, how does this person feel about in in his cooler
moments next day, with six or seven thousand feet of snow and stuff on
top of him?"
_Roughing It_, Mark Twain.
snide...@gmail.com
Jan 23, 2015, 1:51:29 PM1/23/15
to
"bombą", or "bomby". GT's suggestions mechansim, machine, equipment ("sprzęt"
is first), kalkulator, dekodera, and widżet don't look like the right track.
/dps
Les Albert
Jan 23, 2015, 3:00:16 PM1/23/15
to
On Fri, 23 Jan 2015 00:31:59 -0600, m...@vex.net (Mark Brader) wrote:
>"Snidely":
>> Maria'n Rejewski (I'll let Turlock fix the diacrits) is described on pg 62
>> as figuring out (with group theory) how the Enigma wheels were wired,
>> and by 1938 the Poles were reading 75% of the German army and air force
>> messages...
>The reason they were able to do this without the advanced bombes that
>Bletchley Park produced was that at the time the Germans had only three
>different rotors to go in the machine's three slots, and were only
>changing the machine settings once a month. Also, each message included
>a message-specific setting that was transmitted in code at the start of
>the message, and at the time the Germans were transmitting this twice
>for redundancy, which helped the Poles decode the setting used to encode
>the setting.
For Enigma fans, here is a very complete description of how the
>"Snidely":
>> Maria'n Rejewski (I'll let Turlock fix the diacrits) is described on pg 62
>> as figuring out (with group theory) how the Enigma wheels were wired,
>> and by 1938 the Poles were reading 75% of the German army and air force
>> messages...
>The reason they were able to do this without the advanced bombes that
>Bletchley Park produced was that at the time the Germans had only three
>different rotors to go in the machine's three slots, and were only
>changing the machine settings once a month. Also, each message included
>a message-specific setting that was transmitted in code at the start of
>the message, and at the time the Germans were transmitting this twice
>for redundancy, which helped the Poles decode the setting used to encode
>the setting.
machine works, both old and newer versions:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/military/how-enigma-works.html
There is also a transcript of a Nova TV presentation from 1999 titled,
"Decoding Nazi Secrets". This is interesting because it interviews
people who were at Bletchley doing the decoding work:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/transcripts/2615decoding.html
I read several descriptions of breaking the Enigma codes, but until I
read the transcript of "Decoding Nazi Secrets" I never understood how
sending the same three-letter code twice at the beginning of each
message could help in the decoding. It was because of the use of
Jeffries sheets:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"It was just such a flaw that broke the Enigma. Bletchley Park called
the repeated letters 'females.' Only a few configurations of the
machine could produce these females. If the codebreakers now worked
their way through them, they would find that day's settings. The
codebreakers produced huge cards, known as Jeffries sheets, with holes
punched through in an alphabetical grid representing the wheel
positions that could produce females. By lining these sheets over each
other, the codebreakers could hunt through the wheel positions to find
out how the Enigma had been set up for that day."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Les
Mark Brader
Jan 23, 2015, 4:18:22 PM1/23/15
to
"bill van":
source to confirm it. None of the books I can find at home that mention
the thing give a pronunciation, and Internet searches produce conflicting
answers.
"Snidely":
In Polish the original machine was a "bomba"; "bomby" is the plural.
Some sources use the Polish word, reserving "bombe" for the British
machine, while others use "bombe" for both.
--
Mark Brader, Toronto / "A computer makes it possible to do, in half an hour,
m...@vex.net / tasks which were completely unnecessary to do before."
>> I've been wondering how to pronounce "bombe".
I remember reading that it's just like "bomb", but I don't have a good
source to confirm it. None of the books I can find at home that mention
the thing give a pronunciation, and Internet searches produce conflicting
answers.
"Snidely":
> Google Translate suggests that the Polish for "bomb" is one of "bomba",
> "bomb[small e with ogenek]", "bomb[small a with ogenek]", or "bomby"...
In Polish the original machine was a "bomba"; "bomby" is the plural.
Some sources use the Polish word, reserving "bombe" for the British
machine, while others use "bombe" for both.
--
Mark Brader, Toronto / "A computer makes it possible to do, in half an hour,
m...@vex.net / tasks which were completely unnecessary to do before."
Questor
Jan 24, 2015, 2:14:22 AM1/24/15
to
On Fri, 23 Jan 2015 15:18:21 -0600, m...@vex.net (Mark Brader) wrote:
>"bill van":
>>> I've been wondering how to pronounce "bombe".
>
>I remember reading that it's just like "bomb", but I don't have a good
>source to confirm it. None of the books I can find at home that mention
>the thing give a pronunciation, and Internet searches produce conflicting
>answers.
The machine was named for the ticking noise it made, so "bomb" is the
>"bill van":
>>> I've been wondering how to pronounce "bombe".
>
>I remember reading that it's just like "bomb", but I don't have a good
>source to confirm it. None of the books I can find at home that mention
>the thing give a pronunciation, and Internet searches produce conflicting
>answers.
most likely pronounciation.
Mark Brader
Jan 24, 2015, 11:08:25 AM1/24/15
to
"bill van":
>>>> I've been wondering how to pronounce "bombe".
Mark Brader:
>>>> I've been wondering how to pronounce "bombe".
>> I remember reading that it's just like "bomb", but I don't have a good
>> source to confirm it. None of the books I can find at home that mention
>> the thing give a pronunciation, and Internet searches produce conflicting
>> answers.
"Questor":
>> source to confirm it. None of the books I can find at home that mention
>> the thing give a pronunciation, and Internet searches produce conflicting
>> answers.
> The machine was named for the ticking noise it made...
This is also disputed.
--
Mark Brader "When a supposedly indivisible transaction
Toronto fails to complete properly, this is known
m...@vex.net as an atomic bomb." -- Peter Neumann
Questor
Jan 25, 2015, 9:51:12 PM1/25/15
to
On Sat, 24 Jan 2015 10:08:24 -0600, m...@vex.net (Mark Brader) wrote:
>"bill van":
>>>>> I've been wondering how to pronounce "bombe".
>Mark Brader:
>>> I remember reading that it's just like "bomb", but I don't have a good
>>> source to confirm it. None of the books I can find at home that mention
>>> the thing give a pronunciation, and Internet searches produce conflicting
>>> answers.
>"Questor":
>> The machine was named for the ticking noise it made...
>
>This is also disputed.
My name is spelled Raymond Luxury Yacht, but it's pronounced 'Throat Wobbler
>"bill van":
>>>>> I've been wondering how to pronounce "bombe".
>Mark Brader:
>>> I remember reading that it's just like "bomb", but I don't have a good
>>> source to confirm it. None of the books I can find at home that mention
>>> the thing give a pronunciation, and Internet searches produce conflicting
>>> answers.
>"Questor":
>> The machine was named for the ticking noise it made...
>
>This is also disputed.
Mangrove.'
S. Checker
Jan 26, 2015, 9:00:08 AM1/26/15
to
snide...@gmail.com wrote:
> Google Translate suggests that the Polish for "bomb" is one of "bomba", "bombe",
> "bomba", or "bomby". GT's suggestions mechansim, machine, equipment ("sprzet"
> is first), kalkulator, dekodera, and widzet don't look like the right track.
Widzet? Really? Is that the source of the English widget, borrowed from
it, or completely unrelated?
--
From a certain point onward there is no longer any turning back. That is
the point that must be reached.
-- F. Kafka
> Google Translate suggests that the Polish for "bomb" is one of "bomba", "bombe",
> "bomba", or "bomby". GT's suggestions mechansim, machine, equipment ("sprzet"
> is first), kalkulator, dekodera, and widzet don't look like the right track.
Widzet? Really? Is that the source of the English widget, borrowed from
it, or completely unrelated?
--
From a certain point onward there is no longer any turning back. That is
the point that must be reached.
-- F. Kafka
Snidely
Jan 26, 2015, 11:18:22 AM1/26/15
to
S. Checker submitted this gripping article, maybe on Monday:
Some people have access to the online OED, which may have a first use
example.
/dps
--
The presence of this syntax results from the fact that SQLite is really
a Tcl extension that has escaped into the wild.
<http://www.sqlite.org/lang_expr.html>
> snide...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>> Google Translate suggests that the Polish for "bomb" is one of "bomba",
>> "bombe", "bomba", or "bomby". GT's suggestions mechansim, machine, equipment
>> ("sprzet" is first), kalkulator, dekodera, and widzet don't look like the
>> right track.
>
> Widzet? Really? Is that the source of the English widget, borrowed from
> it, or completely unrelated?
I don't know who borrowed from whom.
>
>> Google Translate suggests that the Polish for "bomb" is one of "bomba",
>> "bombe", "bomba", or "bomby". GT's suggestions mechansim, machine, equipment
>> ("sprzet" is first), kalkulator, dekodera, and widzet don't look like the
>> right track.
>
> Widzet? Really? Is that the source of the English widget, borrowed from
> it, or completely unrelated?
Some people have access to the online OED, which may have a first use
example.
/dps
--
The presence of this syntax results from the fact that SQLite is really
a Tcl extension that has escaped into the wild.
<http://www.sqlite.org/lang_expr.html>
Mark Brader
Jan 26, 2015, 12:40:11 PM1/26/15
to
"S. Checker":
> > Widzet [in Polish]? Really? Is that the source of the English
First cite 1931 in an issue of "American Speech".
Checking a couple of more recent online dictionaries:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/widget
"Alteration of gadget. First Known Use: 1926"
http://www.ahdictionary.com/word/search.html?q=widget
"Perhaps alteration of gadget."
--
Mark Brader, Toronto "Information! ... We want information!"
m...@vex.net -- The Prisoner
> > Widzet [in Polish]? Really? Is that the source of the English
> > widget, borrowed from it, or completely unrelated?
"Snidely":
> Some people have access to the online OED, which may have a first use
> example.
"Widget, n. Etymology: Perhaps alteration of gadget n. Orig. U.S."
> example.
First cite 1931 in an issue of "American Speech".
Checking a couple of more recent online dictionaries:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/widget
"Alteration of gadget. First Known Use: 1926"
http://www.ahdictionary.com/word/search.html?q=widget
"Perhaps alteration of gadget."
--
Mark Brader, Toronto "Information! ... We want information!"
m...@vex.net -- The Prisoner
Hactar
Jan 26, 2015, 2:08:05 PM1/26/15
to
In article <ofudnTzhzN9n5lvJ...@vex.net>,
dictionary.
--
-eben QebWe...@vTerYizUonI.nOetP ebmanda.redirectme.net:81
LIBRA: A big promotion is just around the corner for someone
much more talented than you. Laughter is the very best medicine,
remember that when your appendix bursts next week. -- Weird Al
Mark Brader <m...@vex.net> wrote:
> "S. Checker":
> > > Widzet [in Polish]? Really? Is that the source of the English
> > > widget, borrowed from it, or completely unrelated?
>
> "Snidely":
> > Some people have access to the online OED, which may have a first use
> > example.
>
> "Widget, n. Etymology: Perhaps alteration of gadget n. Orig. U.S."
> First cite 1931 in an issue of "American Speech".
>
> Checking a couple of more recent online dictionaries:
>
> http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/widget
> "Alteration of gadget. First Known Use: 1926"
>
> http://www.ahdictionary.com/word/search.html?q=widget
> "Perhaps alteration of gadget."
OK, none of those mentions 'widzet'. We need a Polish for-serious
> "S. Checker":
> > > Widzet [in Polish]? Really? Is that the source of the English
> > > widget, borrowed from it, or completely unrelated?
>
> "Snidely":
> > Some people have access to the online OED, which may have a first use
> > example.
>
> "Widget, n. Etymology: Perhaps alteration of gadget n. Orig. U.S."
> First cite 1931 in an issue of "American Speech".
>
> Checking a couple of more recent online dictionaries:
>
> http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/widget
> "Alteration of gadget. First Known Use: 1926"
>
> http://www.ahdictionary.com/word/search.html?q=widget
> "Perhaps alteration of gadget."
dictionary.
--
-eben QebWe...@vTerYizUonI.nOetP ebmanda.redirectme.net:81
LIBRA: A big promotion is just around the corner for someone
much more talented than you. Laughter is the very best medicine,
remember that when your appendix bursts next week. -- Weird Al
Charles Bishop
Jan 28, 2015, 1:15:57 PM1/28/15
to
In article <ofudnTzhzN9n5lvJ...@vex.net>,
schlub (not in Audubon, maybe in Peterson) know that each of the three
did original research rather than rely on research common to another of
the dictionaries or the dictionary itself?
--
charles, no reflection, &c.
m...@vex.net (Mark Brader) wrote:
> "S. Checker":
> > > Widzet [in Polish]? Really? Is that the source of the English
> > > widget, borrowed from it, or completely unrelated?
>
> "Snidely":
> > Some people have access to the online OED, which may have a first use
> > example.
>
> "Widget, n. Etymology: Perhaps alteration of gadget n. Orig. U.S."
> First cite 1931 in an issue of "American Speech".
>
> Checking a couple of more recent online dictionaries:
>
> http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/widget
> "Alteration of gadget. First Known Use: 1926"
>
> http://www.ahdictionary.com/word/search.html?q=widget
> "Perhaps alteration of gadget."
While having three sources is better than one source, how is the common
> "S. Checker":
> > > Widzet [in Polish]? Really? Is that the source of the English
> > > widget, borrowed from it, or completely unrelated?
>
> "Snidely":
> > Some people have access to the online OED, which may have a first use
> > example.
>
> "Widget, n. Etymology: Perhaps alteration of gadget n. Orig. U.S."
> First cite 1931 in an issue of "American Speech".
>
> Checking a couple of more recent online dictionaries:
>
> http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/widget
> "Alteration of gadget. First Known Use: 1926"
>
> http://www.ahdictionary.com/word/search.html?q=widget
> "Perhaps alteration of gadget."
schlub (not in Audubon, maybe in Peterson) know that each of the three
did original research rather than rely on research common to another of
the dictionaries or the dictionary itself?
--
charles, no reflection, &c.
Snidely
Jan 29, 2015, 3:16:15 AM1/29/15
to
Charles Bishop pounded on thar keyboard to tell us
Schlubs, even the spotted or herbaceous ones, cannot tell without
visiting the citation archives of the tome in question.
The OED can often be found to have quotes backing up their discourse,
but without a visitation one can't tell if they cribbed the quotes from
Bartlett or not. (I'd be willing to bet "not", but how do we trust but
verify?)
/dps
--
I have always been glad we weren't killed that night. I do not know
any particular reason, but I have always been glad.
_Roughing It_, Mark Twain
visiting the citation archives of the tome in question.
The OED can often be found to have quotes backing up their discourse,
but without a visitation one can't tell if they cribbed the quotes from
Bartlett or not. (I'd be willing to bet "not", but how do we trust but
verify?)
/dps
--
I have always been glad we weren't killed that night. I do not know
any particular reason, but I have always been glad.
_Roughing It_, Mark Twain
Snidely
Feb 1, 2015, 1:55:21 AM2/1/15
to
snide...@gmail.com presented the following explanation :
I have now seen and enjoyed the movie. I think it does a lot to cover
the flavor of the story, but comparing it with McGrayne, I have the
following quick hits:
1) Turing was apparently drafted to Bletchley Park, not just walking
in and volunteering. "After Turing returned to England in the spring
of 1939, his name was quietly added to a short "emergency list" of
people with orders to report immediately to the G&CS in the event war
was declared."
2) The letter to Churchill came later in the war, and while Turing was
the first to sign, he probably wasn't the writer, and several others
signed, including Hugh Alexander and F Stuart Milner Barry, who took
the letter to London, hailed a cab to 10 Downing Street, and persuaded
a brigadier general to give the personally to the PM. The letter was
apparently requesting more clerical support ("girl power") (pg 71).
3) While the submarine war meant a lot of lives lost at sea, what was
at stake for Britain was food to feed the lives at home. "For 23 days
in June 1941, a time when Britain still fought alone, no convoy in the
North Atlantic was attacked. (pg 71)
4) The Bayesian Book makes no mention of a "Joan Clark".
5) In 1942, the Germans added a 4th wheel to the Enigmas used by the
U-Boots. These messages couldn't be decoded until December of that
year, when 3 British seamen swam to a sinking U-Boot, and one of them
not only survived the attempt, but was successful in getting the code
books. (Ian Fleming was involved in developing an earlier plan to
snatch codebooks, to help with the 1941 3-wheel problem; the plan did
not unfold, though.)
6) The movie does show someone moving a sheet of paper around over a
message. See Les' post about the Jeffries sheets. But Turing's
Banburismus use "5- or 6- foot long strips of thin cardboard printed in
Banbury." Nothing of this is shown in the movie.
7) The movie doesn't show Turing assembling the first bombe, but it
certainly suggests he did. It appears these were made off-site by
professional assemblers.
8) McGrayne doesn't say anything about the statical release of decoded
information, which is about where the war-time part of the movie ends.
In turn, the movie doesn't say anything about Turing's war time trip to
America and meetings with Bill Shannon and others.
As for Bill Van's concern that the Polish contribution was ignored by
the movie, it wasn't. However, the Polish contribution ended with the
invasion of Poland, and the movie pretty much begins there.
And now, I can turn to the Slate link elsethread, and see how much *I*
missed.
/dps
--
Ieri, oggi, domani
the flavor of the story, but comparing it with McGrayne, I have the
following quick hits:
1) Turing was apparently drafted to Bletchley Park, not just walking
in and volunteering. "After Turing returned to England in the spring
of 1939, his name was quietly added to a short "emergency list" of
people with orders to report immediately to the G&CS in the event war
was declared."
2) The letter to Churchill came later in the war, and while Turing was
the first to sign, he probably wasn't the writer, and several others
signed, including Hugh Alexander and F Stuart Milner Barry, who took
the letter to London, hailed a cab to 10 Downing Street, and persuaded
a brigadier general to give the personally to the PM. The letter was
apparently requesting more clerical support ("girl power") (pg 71).
3) While the submarine war meant a lot of lives lost at sea, what was
at stake for Britain was food to feed the lives at home. "For 23 days
in June 1941, a time when Britain still fought alone, no convoy in the
North Atlantic was attacked. (pg 71)
4) The Bayesian Book makes no mention of a "Joan Clark".
5) In 1942, the Germans added a 4th wheel to the Enigmas used by the
U-Boots. These messages couldn't be decoded until December of that
year, when 3 British seamen swam to a sinking U-Boot, and one of them
not only survived the attempt, but was successful in getting the code
books. (Ian Fleming was involved in developing an earlier plan to
snatch codebooks, to help with the 1941 3-wheel problem; the plan did
not unfold, though.)
6) The movie does show someone moving a sheet of paper around over a
message. See Les' post about the Jeffries sheets. But Turing's
Banburismus use "5- or 6- foot long strips of thin cardboard printed in
Banbury." Nothing of this is shown in the movie.
7) The movie doesn't show Turing assembling the first bombe, but it
certainly suggests he did. It appears these were made off-site by
professional assemblers.
8) McGrayne doesn't say anything about the statical release of decoded
information, which is about where the war-time part of the movie ends.
In turn, the movie doesn't say anything about Turing's war time trip to
America and meetings with Bill Shannon and others.
As for Bill Van's concern that the Polish contribution was ignored by
the movie, it wasn't. However, the Polish contribution ended with the
invasion of Poland, and the movie pretty much begins there.
And now, I can turn to the Slate link elsethread, and see how much *I*
missed.
/dps
--
Ieri, oggi, domani
Les Albert
Feb 1, 2015, 2:29:52 PM2/1/15
to
On Sat, 31 Jan 2015 22:55:07 -0800, Snidely <snide...@gmail.com>
wrote:
>I have now seen and enjoyed the movie. I think it does a lot to cover
>the flavor of the story, but comparing it with McGrayne, I have the
>following quick hits:
> ....
codebreaker, and why she is mostly forgotten in historical accounts:
http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-29840653
> ...
the Poles who had earlier devised them. Before Jeffries they were
described as Zygalski sheets. Here is the story:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zygalski_sheets
Les
wrote:
>I have now seen and enjoyed the movie. I think it does a lot to cover
>the flavor of the story, but comparing it with McGrayne, I have the
>following quick hits:
>4) The Bayesian Book makes no mention of a "Joan Clark".
Joan Clarke was real. Here is an interesting account of her work as a
codebreaker, and why she is mostly forgotten in historical accounts:
http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-29840653
> ...
>6) The movie does show someone moving a sheet of paper around over a
>message. See Les' post about the Jeffries sheets. But Turing's
>Banburismus use "5- or 6- foot long strips of thin cardboard printed in
>Banbury." Nothing of this is shown in the movie.
I found an additional description of the Jeffries papers, and it was
>message. See Les' post about the Jeffries sheets. But Turing's
>Banburismus use "5- or 6- foot long strips of thin cardboard printed in
>Banbury." Nothing of this is shown in the movie.
the Poles who had earlier devised them. Before Jeffries they were
described as Zygalski sheets. Here is the story:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zygalski_sheets
Les
Snidely
Feb 4, 2015, 1:00:16 AM2/4/15
to
Les Albert suggested that ...
>> ...
>> 6) The movie does show someone moving a sheet of paper around over a
>> message. See Les' post about the Jeffries sheets. But Turing's
>> Banburismus use "5- or 6- foot long strips of thin cardboard printed in
>> Banbury." Nothing of this is shown in the movie.
>
>
> I found an additional description of the Jeffries papers, and it was
> the Poles who had earlier devised them. Before Jeffries they were
> described as Zygalski sheets. Here is the story:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zygalski_sheets
Thanks!
/dps
--
"I am not given to exaggeration, and when I say a thing I mean it"
_Roughing It_, Mark Twain
> On Sat, 31 Jan 2015 22:55:07 -0800, Snidely <snide...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> I have now seen and enjoyed the movie. I think it does a lot to cover
>> the flavor of the story, but comparing it with McGrayne, I have the
>> following quick hits:
>> ....
>> 4) The Bayesian Book makes no mention of a "Joan Clark".
>
>
> Joan Clarke was real. Here is an interesting account of her work as a
> codebreaker, and why she is mostly forgotten in historical accounts:
> http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-29840653
I am punished for not using a primary source.
> wrote:
>
>> I have now seen and enjoyed the movie. I think it does a lot to cover
>> the flavor of the story, but comparing it with McGrayne, I have the
>> following quick hits:
>> ....
>> 4) The Bayesian Book makes no mention of a "Joan Clark".
>
>
> Joan Clarke was real. Here is an interesting account of her work as a
> codebreaker, and why she is mostly forgotten in historical accounts:
> http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-29840653
>> ...
>> 6) The movie does show someone moving a sheet of paper around over a
>> message. See Les' post about the Jeffries sheets. But Turing's
>> Banburismus use "5- or 6- foot long strips of thin cardboard printed in
>> Banbury." Nothing of this is shown in the movie.
>
>
> I found an additional description of the Jeffries papers, and it was
> the Poles who had earlier devised them. Before Jeffries they were
> described as Zygalski sheets. Here is the story:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zygalski_sheets
/dps
--
"I am not given to exaggeration, and when I say a thing I mean it"
_Roughing It_, Mark Twain
0 new messages