The British actor plays genius codebreaker Alan Turing who helps the Allies defeat the German Nazis in World War II, only to be criminally prosecuted for being a homosexual when he is caught with a 19-year-old man in 1952.
Some critics have asked why sex does not feature in the film but according to Cumberbatch, it is "not an exploration of someone's sex life".
"He's chemically castrated because he admits to being a homosexual; he talks about entreating a young man to touch his penis. I mean, it's pretty explicit," he told The Wrap last month.
"If you need to see that to understand that he's gay, then all is lost for any kind of subtle storytelling. The conversations are so naked in themselves that the idea of having to see two naked men wasn't something I ever thought was missing in the script." ...
No reason to show Mr Turing doing it with a dude, of course, though this seems odd when the film has been criticised for focusing on a fictionalised relationship with a female colleague.
And seeing as his life and career were pretty much ruined by a prosecution for gross indecency, I'd've thought his 'sex life' would be pretty central to any telling of his story.
And seeing as his life and career were pretty much ruined by a prosecution for gross indecency, I'd've thought his 'sex life' would be pretty central to any telling of his story.
PS Here's The Wrap interview - not sure why this has surfaced now.
Update: The ever-baffling Mr Cucumberpatch at a London Film Festival press conference...
"His sexuality is something contained that is expressed in the film but not shown explicitly. There is no heterosexuality expressed in the film. So what we show in his behaviour is sadly true to his story. He had to suppress his sexuality, make it private, make it something secret. When he talks about his sexuality in the film it shows his complete honesty, guilelessness, innocence. He was aware of the risks but at the same time wasn't willing to cave in to the intolerance and potential permutations of confessing such a thing. Some people own him as martyr or as standard-bearer for a cause. I think he was just very true to himself, which is a form of martyrdom, but he didn't make a political statement out of it."
"His sexuality is something contained that is expressed in the film but not shown explicitly. There is no heterosexuality expressed in the film. So what we show in his behaviour is sadly true to his story. He had to suppress his sexuality, make it private, make it something secret. When he talks about his sexuality in the film it shows his complete honesty, guilelessness, innocence. He was aware of the risks but at the same time wasn't willing to cave in to the intolerance and potential permutations of confessing such a thing. Some people own him as martyr or as standard-bearer for a cause. I think he was just very true to himself, which is a form of martyrdom, but he didn't make a political statement out of it."
No idea. Anyone?
Posts
He's a complete thicko. Not sure why he keeps getting cast as a genius (Hawking, Sherlock, Turing, even Khan in that dreadful Star Trek movie).
ReplyDelete