Leidenschaftliche Berechnung

This textured and thoughtful film tells the story of Ada Lovelace whose 19th century work provided the foundation upon which computer language is built. Her genius thwarted by social convention, Ada gets a second chance at immortality when a 20th Century computer genius reaches back in time to communicate with her. Both the 19th and 20th Century female geniuses must find a way to be true to their work, the driving passion behind each of them and raise their children. As a working mother I found these issues well presented. As someone who is in awe of computers and genius, I found the intensity of the performances inspiring.

I found this movie important, enthralling, and maddening. Important, because Ada Byron King, Countess of Lovelace, deserves iconic status today. After all, she was the first computer programmer on record. Ada's character is well-portrayed by Tilda Swinton, who gives her both excellent clarity and a fascinating wild side. The backdrops on the past sections are recognizably digital, but lushly colorful.

The maddening part comes from the modern sections, where we are given a modern programmer who contacts Ada through her computer. This narrative drags the movie down, because it's just not as interesting as Ada. The dragging bothered me, because I really wanted to love this movie.

Throughout the movie, women are explored as complex characters, while men are rendered as arbitrarily cruel caricatures. Oh, well, turnabout is fair play, I suppose, but it didn't enhance my appreciation of the film.

Overall, I'd say, see this film. Ada Lovelace is important to our generation. Grit your teeth and sit through whatever you don't like.

This movie is so full of technical holes, that it fails immediately before a word is spoken. The creators of this film evidently believe not only that programming involves clicking on pictures while holding a mouse in mid-air, but also that there are things called "agents" that carry information. This is the main character's MIT-based project. (um, like the http "agent" that brought you this web page? Its called a protocol, and one single google search would have revealed that to the hard-working writers.) Then, they reference "artificial life" which, in all my years as a computer scientist, I've never even heard of a layman refer to AI as "life". Then, out of nowhere, the pixelated dog starts talking. I wouldn't have been surprised if somewhere during the movie if she claimed to have "programmed" (with her mouse I guess) a giant lizard that fights evil named spanky. Since the filmmakers obviously have not hired a person with the most basic knowledge of computers (or science) to consult on the film, they just made up how things work as they went along. I wish this "genius" MIT programmer would have created some of her 8-bit animals to take me back to before I rented this pile of hokey goat poo.

I have to say that some of the commentary about this film is disappointing as well. Someone commented that Ada was like "Alan Turing with breasts" obviously this is a huge misconception of the accomplishments of both. Alan Turing created the worlds first universal machine. Ada, worked within the framework of "programming" Charles Babbage's engine. I wouldn't even compare her with Don Knuth, Dennis M. Ritchie or even Bjorn Stroustrop.

Maybe the Countess of Lovelace does deserve to have her story told, but this dear friends, is not it.

The approach this film takes to storytelling is interesting, but somewhat confusing. I've never seen a cross between a science fiction film and a period film set in the Victorian era, so this was a refreshing change of pace; but many aspects of it were not handled well.

The way that a person in the present can communicate with someone in the past isn't outlined very well, although I've only seen this movie once and maybe I need to see it again. Communicating with someone in the past has something to do with something called "DNA memory" which I don't quite understand. I consider myself to be fairly well-informed about the general concepts of computer science but the way that Emmy explained her interfacing with individuals and memories from the past seemed quite cryptic and unintuitive... I don't really mind the fact that this isn't explained well--plenty of unexplained, far-fetched science fiction premises can still yield a viewer's suspension of disbelief--but the contact between present and past seems to be taken in stride rather than as something utterly magnificent. If I suddenly found out how to talk to my favorite historical figure and see his or her memories on a screen, I would be quite a bit more excited than Emmy, her husband, or her strange mentor. This is one of the film's biggest incongruencies, and it destroyed my suspension of disbelief.

Although I do appreciate the fact that the director attempted to integrate the digital technology (the uses of which Ada Byron predicted) into the film, it didn't seem to work that well at all. The backgrounds looked very two-dimensional (partially because no characters ever travelled much within a shot, and very little tracking and panning was done to give the environment a three dimensional feel, though such camera movements must be nearly impossible when the digital environments are two-dimensional to begin with). The fire effect in particular looked incredibly fake as the rest of the digital environment didn't respond properly to the flickering of the flames, so altogether the cinematography in the Victorian era was horrendous and reminded me of something from old CD-ROM adventure games like Phantasmagoria or Gabriel Knight II.

The portrayal of Ada's character was very well-done, however, effectively displaying both Ada's desires and modern ideas as well as her imprisonment by social standards and the people around her. In particular, her final speech near the end of the film is very well done.

One of my complaints about the film, however, is that none of the male characters really seem to be fleshed out at all; they're all very two-dimensional, without too much depth or personality, which really makes the film seem very gender biased.

Although I did enjoy the film overall and I thought the blend of science fiction and period filmmaking was a novel idea, I really think that this could've been a much better experience if the science fiction premise had been dropped entirely and the movie had just been a period film. I actually like science fiction very much and I'm generally not interested in period films dealing with repression and social mores, but Ada's character is particularly interesting because her interests are so modern--they have so much application to today's world and today's ideas.

I think that by adding the sci-fi premise to the film weakened it overall; with the ubiquitousness of the Internet, today's audiences generally know the ways in which computers can be used and this film's hasty, fleeting vision of someone in the present communicating with someone in the past only adds confusion to the film, not a sense of wonder about Ada's conceptions and the potential of virtual reality and artificial intelligence. I rather would've spent more time learning about the different kinds of ideas that Ada had from her point of view. As it is, the film spends so much time divided between the present world and Ada's world that it doesn't really have enough time to fully develop either of them.

Conceiving Ada is an odd, but ultimately somewhat rewarding film. I had picked it up largely based on the presence of Tilda Swinton, not expecting much from it beyond her performance. I was pleasantly surprised.

The film has a somewhat awkward framing device of a modern computer scientist who discovers a means of communicating with the past. Through the eyes of the modern scientist, we see the life of Ada Lovelace, the world's first computer programmer.

At times, the approach gives a feeling of nothing so much as a PBS or BBC low budget documentary on Lovelace's life, particularly the way in which it is divided up into snippets. Furthermore, the science behind the communication with the past is preposterous, and requires a serious suspension of disbelief. This is not hard science fiction, folks, despite the real world elements. The cameos by Timothy Leary are equally distracting, adding nothing to the plot.

However, both the woman who plays the modern scientist and Tilda Swinton manage to be engaging. The film is definitely worth a look.