Conceiving Ada

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.

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.

I'm the sort of person who went down to the local library and read books on Babbage's difference engine whilst my schoolmates were playing football etc.. So, if there is any such thing as a target audience for this film, then I guess I'd probably be included in that.

Maybe I just need to watch it again. A previous reviewer mentioned not to watch this film whilst being tired. Maybe that was my mistake.

I tried my best to enjoy this film, and there are aspects of it that I do like, but overall I found it amateurish and quite plodding.

Being somewhat of a self confessed computer nerd, I just can't help but pick up on the exact time frame when the movie was actually made, and how the employed graphics reflect that time (i.e. 1997). Having played games of the era c.f. "Mind Grind" to cite one example, this film cannot escape that 16-bit colour low res multimedia explosion of that time. Now thankfully this has somewhat lessened in more recent years in the gaming world at least, in favour of actual game play.

Having to resort to watching this movie via a German FTA satellite channel (as I don't think it's ever been aired on UK FTA TV, well not recently anyway), I was mildly amused to see the end credits note Gottdog (God dog) had 4 people working on it's design. Maybe it's mean spirited of me to be amused by this, given that ten years have elapsed since the movie was made, nevertheless the end result makes movie graphics from the eighties look good by comparison.

But, as for the main story, I agree that the format isn't the best idea. Like others I agree that Ada deserves a film without the sci-fi angle, and a more straightforward biographical approach would perhaps be better suited to covering the life story of this remarkable lady.

There are fundamental mistakes that undermine my enjoyment of this movie. First of all the underlying idea that somehow lost real-world information from the past can be accurately reconstructed through some sort of extrapolation via software based intelligent agents, seems somehow ludicrous.

Also, the theme running through the movie that a computing device can indeed predict the mechanics of all things through the course of time (e.g. the winds) is now known not to be the case.

OK, so the Victorians may have held this view, but the 20th century works of Gödel proving that no mathematical system can be complete, Turing's works on the limits of computability, not to mention chaos theory and quantum mechanics, have all completely undermined these ideas, which seem central to how the modern day researcher's software is supposed to work.

Finally, the clicking of the mouse in the air to mean "programming" is also just plain wrong, as previously mentioned.

This film maybe could have been OK, but at least some technical and scientific consultation would have given the film some much needed credit in the believability stakes.

I won't forget the film though, as like "Pi", it is clearly a unique work, but with too many fatal mistakes for me to truly enjoy it, 3/10 from me.

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.

Despite some occasionally original touches, like the "virtual sets" that provide the background for the Victorian interiors featuring Ada Lovelace and her circle, this film falls short and ultimately disappoints. Newcomer Francesca Faridany seems talented, but is wasted as Emmy, a character who by mid-film is reduced to nothing more than staring at a monitor watching Lady Ada narrate an autobiography. 'Conceiving Ada' takes off briefly when Lady Ada (Tilda Swinton) appears; the camera lingers on her facial expressions, mannerisms, even making her appear to be translucent or momentarily invisible, apporting into scenes to dramatize Emmy's "virtual" rendering of her.

A straightforward biopic of Ada Lovelace would have been worthwhile, but this film unfortunately makes a hash of both Lady Ada's life, and that of a modern-day computer scientist (and her broadly-drawn, doltish boyfriend).