Sunshine

[Spinal]

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v696/joel_harmon/sunshine20SPLASH2.jpg
In space, every day is casual Friday.

Sunshine (Boyle, 2007)

Problems don’t get a whole lot bigger than this. In Danny Boyle’s tense, skillfully made space film, Sunshine, the sun is dying and a crew of eight astronauts is hurtling towards the center of the solar system with the nuclear equivalent of jumper cables. Their task is to deliver a payload that will create a star within the star and bring the earth’s temperature back up where it belongs so that Al Gore can return to the lecture tour. Naturally, all sorts of scientific questions about the plausibility of such a mission are bound to leap into our minds. However, the point of Sunshine is not whether or not the mission will ultimately have precisely the desired effect. The point is that faced with the threat of extinction, the mission represents the last, best effort of the human race. Like De Palma’s Mission to Mars, Boyle’s film excels at offering us evidence of humankind’s ingenuity juxtaposed against cold, hard evidence of our fragility.

That such a journey is even ponderable is in itself rather extraordinary. The crew flying the Icarus II is equipped with technology that exceeds the capabilities of our own time, but not by much. An on-board Earth simulator allows one man, filled with the tension of being away from home for years, to refocus and recalibrate. An abundant greenhouse is filled with plants that provide a small bit of aesthetic beauty, as well as assist with the oxygen flow. Their navigational system is controlled by a computer system that allows for intuitive voice-activated interfacing that is essentially no different from having a conversation. Without resorting to easily defined ‘types’, Boyle’s characters (apart from a couple notable exceptions) also represent the high point of human education, rationality and courage. Some possess the ability to make extraordinary scientific and mathematical calculations. Others are notable for their ability to use logic under intense pressure and place themselves in danger understanding what ultimately is at stake.

At one point, the characters joke that they should not split up because they don’t want to be picked off one by one by a malicious alien. The gag works because it is a direct commentary on the type of film that Sunshine is not – well, not exactly. In addition to the mere difficulty of traversing a vast distance through space, the crew must also contend with a force representative of a certain kind of apocalyptic thought that is a very real threat to human well being in the real world. While there may be some who feel that the final section of Sunshine descends into something more base and ordinary, it seems to me that this is where the film asserts a rather pointed message regarding the battle between scientific accomplishment and religious faith. The idea of manipulating the sun is extraordinary. It may also be seen by some as hubristic. If the caretaker of the universe wants to shut down operations, then who are we to argue? The glorious spiritual conclusion of Sunshine is derived from the notion that we are, in fact, our own caretakers and the tiny part of the universe we inhabit, flawed though it may be, is more precious than the imagined paradises of mythology. This metaphorical struggle elevates Sunshine beyond the scope of a conventional thriller while at the same time intensifying the desperate acts of the Icarus crew.

[***1/2]

[MadMan]

Wahoo, a Spinal review! And a good one at that. I've been wanting to see Sunshine all year but I don't believe it ever came to my area. I must rent it to see what all of the fuss and buzz is about.

[Skitch]

It's a fantastic film...definately one my top three of last year...and probably my top 15 sci-fi of all time.

[number8]

Good on ya, Spinal.

The one sentence in your last paragraph is almost exactly the same as mine:


The crew of Icarus I failed their mission because they could not satisfyingly answer the ultimate question: if God wants the sun to die and therefore killing mankind, who are we to try and stop it?

[Spinal]

Cool, 8. I will seek out your review.

[Spinal]

Good stuff! You pretty much nailed this one. There were many lines that I wish I had written myself. :)

I particularly like this point:


... it’s remarkable in its ambitious existential explorations of human existence, but at the same time it’s also a tense, endlessly entertaining space thriller.

I thought it was remarkable how the final section of the film had its cake and ate it too. Visual effects caused the menacing character to be surreal, yet not supernatural.

[Raiders]

I thought I said similar stuff in the old thread at the other site, but I may have never really written much. Either way, you hit my points pretty well.

Some spoilers likely...

I still think the villain at the end represents doubt as well as religion (though truthfully, they are the same in this film's purpose). I think it is significant that Rose Byrne's character is the one who overcomes the scuffle right before the end in that she is the one who has been most susceptible up to that point. In general, the character's fuzziness has been interpreted by many as a lack of clarity for the purpose of the villain (I believe Chaw dubbed it a "metaphorical smudge"), but to me it is symptomatic of religion's fuzzy logic and singular point of view (it MUST be this way... because I said so) that takes the focus off the person and personal accomplishments altogether. So much that the one character who creates life bourne from science and not God (the on-board forestation) is stabbed in the back by the villain (maybe he feels threatened?).

It's not a perfect film, though. I think the film uses the sun perhaps as a metaphorical grab bag, standing in for obsession to some, truth to others, God's will, and so on. The final image of Murphy seeing the Sun clearly, for the first time (in a shot that is physically impossible and clearly meant as a symbolic victory by the filmmakers) seems celebratory, but it has never had much specific meaning or purpose up to that moment. Maybe it is simply a victory dance, having beaten all odds. But it plays out more personal than that.

While I think the final act works (in fact, it is what makes the film more than just a quiet Event Horizon), what comes before doesn't really prepare you for the shift in perspective, and it muddles some of the resonance. Still, for the most part a superlative film, and Boyle's direction is first-rate.

[megladon8]

One of the best of last year.

Glad you enjoyed it, Spinal.

[number8]

The final image of Murphy seeing the Sun clearly, for the first time (in a shot that is physically impossible and clearly meant as a symbolic victory by the filmmakers) seems celebratory, but it has never had much specific meaning or purpose up to that moment. Maybe it is simply a victory dance, having beaten all odds. But it plays out more personal than that.

It is personal, I think. He's a selfish, logical character. He's not the type who would sacrifice himself. He was totally expecting to return to Earth safely. The fact that he gives himself up to the sun at the end is a transformation for him.

[number8]

Man, the more I think about it now, the more I remember how much I liked this film. This was #10 on my top ten before I saw Sweeney Todd. Now I'm not so sure I liked Sweeney Todd more to justify the pushing.

I hate top ten lists.

[Dead & Messed Up]

While there may be some who feel that the final section of Sunshine descends into something more base and ordinary, it seems to me that this is where the film asserts a rather pointed message regarding the battle between scientific accomplishment and religious faith.

One of the intriguing points where this film reflects 28 Days Later is in how, with both stories, Garland and Boyle use a very real character in the third act to represent the themes that are, up to then, mostly buried underneath the narrative and characters.

Honestly, though, I can't say that I like this technique at all. Sunshine's antagonist certainly communicates a thematic message, but I was much more intrigued by the strain of the protagonists, as well as the technical difficulties that provided enormous suspense on their own. Had Boyle and Garland found a more natural way to integrate their themes into a character, without resorting to something of a "jump" in the narrative, I'd appreciate the film a lot more.

As it is, the film, by putting all its underlying ideas into such a one-dimensional antagonist, undermines the points it wants to make. When I can't decode what's going on visually, and I don't know how a character can exist, the existence of a deeper meaning doesn't help.

[amberlita]

Honestly, though, I can't say that I like this technique at all. Sunshine's antagonist certainly communicates a thematic message, but I was much more intrigued by the strain of the protagonists, as well as the technical difficulties that provided enormous suspense on their own. Had Boyle and Garland found a more natural way to integrate their themes into a character, without resorting to something of a "jump" in the narrative, I'd appreciate the film a lot more.

As it is, the film, by putting all its underlying ideas into such a one-dimensional antagonist, undermines the points it wants to make. When I can't decode what's going on visually, and I don't know how a character can exist, the existence of a deeper meaning doesn't help.


I just saw this tonight and I completely agree. I was mesmerized by the film until the jump in narrative where the antagonist is indeed supernatural, despite declaration to the opposite by someone earlier in the thread.

I rolled my eyes when the man was able to pick up Capa with one hand and hold him by the throat hanging over the side of the massive bomb.

While I like the film very much, I feel I could have loved it had this been left out and it's a frustrating addition. To have the message of what the Icarus I crew's final struggle was (to cope with what seemed to be God's will that humankind be wiped out) and then to see a series of scientific and mathematical disasters jeopardize their own mission, it would have sufficed as reason enough for the Icarus II's crew to question if perhaps these events were also God's will. And to see them struggle against it nevertheless, fighting tooth and nail to fight God with Science, all the while wondering if our scientific brilliance and human resolve may still not be enough to thwart inevitability.

An ending to see them achieve despite that would have been powerful indeed. The current ending, despite attempts to create an antagonist symbolizing religious faith, feels more like they beat the equivalent of Freddy Krueger.

[Spinal]

I was mesmerized by the film until the jump in narrative where the antagonist is indeed supernatural, despite declaration to the opposite by someone earlier in the thread.



Yeah, I don't see it as a jump in narrative at all, but rather an unexpected development during the course of a mission where a number of extraordinary things happen. Despite Boyle's efforts to film the antagonist with extreme visual choices, I don't really see how he can be defined as supernatural.

[megladon8]

I don't see how one can interpret the antagonist as not being supernatural.

[Spinal]

I don't see how one can interpret the antagonist as not being supernatural.

What makes him supernatural?

[amberlita]

Yeah, I don't see it as a jump in narrative at all, but rather an unexpected development during the course of a mission where a number of extraordinary things happen. Despite Boyle's efforts to film the antagonist with extreme visual choices, I don't really see how he can be defined as supernatural.

Well, in particular is the part I mentioned in spoilers but that you did not quote. That he exhibits superhuman strength.

[megladon8]

What makes him supernatural?


He's a giant walking scab. He is both inhumanly fast and strong, and can seemingly be in more than one place at one time. And I'd say that augmented, God-like voice is not a side effect normally seen in burn victims.

[Spinal]

He's a giant walking scab. He is both inhumanly fast and strong, and can seemingly be in more than one place at one time. And I'd say that augmented, God-like voice is not a side effect normally seen in burn victims.

I don't remember him exhibiting superhuman speed. When did that occur? Are you sure it wasn't just a stylistic flourish? Superhuman strength? I don't know. Did he really do anything beyond what other action movies allow characters to do? We don't call a James Bond villain 'supernatural'. I don't recall him being in more than one place at one time. The voice was a stylistic flourish, a way of expressing artistically the nature of his menace. I do not believe we were meant to see him as supernatural.

[megladon8]

I don't remember him exhibiting superhuman speed. When did that occur? Are you sure it wasn't just a stylistic flourish? Superhuman strength? I don't know. Did he really do anything beyond what other action movies allow characters to do? We don't call a James Bond villain 'supernatural'. I don't recall him being in more than one place at one time. The voice was a stylistic flourish, a way of expressing artistically the nature of his menace. I do not believe we were meant to see him as supernatural.


I guess I must agree to disagree, then - I haven't seen the movie recently enough to give specific examples.

I can just say with certainty that he's very much a supernatural character - he does not exist on the same plane of reality as the other characters.

[Russ]

Superhuman strength? I don't know.
Saw this for the first time tonight. Didn't he grab one of the characters by the throat and hold them elevated as he preached to them in that stylistic voice? Hard to tell because of Boyle's shot selection. I didn't much care for this, it seemed as if Boyle was uncomfortably out of his element (or rather lost his way)..

[Spinal]

Hard to tell because of Boyle's shot selection.

Yeah, this is key. I think it's difficult to pin down anything that is going on with that character for certain because we rarely get a clear shot of him.

[megladon8]

Maybe I'm remembering this wrong, but doesn't the film make a point of showing that the blurred vision/no clear shots of him weren't just stylistic, but that the characters experienced this as well when in his presence? That no one was able to see him very clearly?

Plus there's the fact that, without great medical care - which I assume he couldn't have gotten when he's alone in space - one could not survive the burns he had. His entire body was a giant 3rd degree burn.

And there's the whole popping-out-of-nowhere scene towards the end when they're on the bomb. I thought that made him out to be more ghost-like than anything.

[D_Davis]

I need to check this out. It sounds like it might be a science fiction film that actually captures all the humanity and speculation of a good science fiction novel. I keep picking up on themes popular with Bester, Ballard, Bradbury, Haldeman and Clarke here. Shoot, even if it only captures half of it, it still sounds like the best science fiction film I haven't seen.

I just don't see many sci-fi films anymore because they almost never, like 99.9% of the time, offer up anything remotely close to as good as the science fiction I read.

For those of you that liked it, but rarely read sci-fi, make sure to check out some Bester and Haldeman. Sounds like this film is right up the same alley. I think I'll rent it this week.

Nice reviews Spinal and 8.

[Sycophant]

All this discussion is telling me I really need to watch this one again. I was really struck by it initially, but it's diminished in my mind and I can't put my finger on why.

[Rowland]

Yeah, this is key. I think it's difficult to pin down anything that is going on with that character for certain because we rarely get a clear shot of him.When they are in the thing being shot into the sun, he holds at least one of them by the neck over an edge. They grab onto his arm and the skin slides off, which prompts him to somehow drop them back onto the ground. His religious fervor must have given him a surge of adrenaline.

[ledfloyd]

i loved this movie until kruger showed up. i loved the very end too. the score during the final scene was beautiful. this film is like a step away from being one of the great science fiction movies. i wish they'd found a less jarring way to move the narrative ahead. actually they could've done the same thing without the supernatural stuff and it would've worked. that completely undermined the film for me. though it is still more good than bad.

[Grouchy]

This one had a lot of ideas, but a couple of things bugged me, like the seizure-inducing direction of the blatant contrivance that the Icarus II crew decide to go pick up a bomb lost somewhere in space instead of continuing with their route and stipulated mission.

[number8]

How is that contrived? The film spent like 10 minutes arguing whether or not they should do it and listed all the faults of going. It was sheer human error that they decided to go anyway, which is the point of the film.

[Spinal]

I don't know what else to say. I guess I just see the film differently in regards to what you guys are labeling as supernatural.

[Skitch]

Insanity could make people superstrong...like someone on PCP.

[Dead & Messed Up]

This one had a lot of ideas, but a couple of things bugged me, like the seizure-inducing direction of the blatant contrivance that the Icarus II crew decide to go pick up a bomb lost somewhere in space instead of continuing with their route and stipulated mission.

I was more offended by the contrivance of having a walking-scab villain wait seven years, eating carrots and pooping into space, until the plot required him to menace a cast that deserves better.

[Spinal]

I was more offended by the contrivance of having a walking-scab villain wait seven years, eating carrots and pooping into space, until the plot required him to menace a cast that deserves better.

So you bought the fact that humans could restart the sun with nuclear weapons and this bothered you?

[chrisnu]

I was more offended by the contrivance of having a walking-scab villain wait seven years, eating carrots and pooping into space, until the plot required him to menace a cast that deserves better.
FOR SEVEN YEARS I SPOKE WITH GAWD! HE TOLD ME TO TAKE US ALL TO HEAVEN!!!!

I think a MUHAHAHAHAHA!!! needed to be added to the end of that one.

[Rowland]

I was more offended by the contrivance of having a walking-scab villain wait seven years, eating carrots and pooping into space, until the plot required him to menace a cast that deserves better.Yes, it is an idiotic idea when taken literally. One could assume that Boyle shot the character and most of that sequence as he did partly to divert our attention from how strained the logic was behind that plot development, or interpreted with more generosity, that the fabric of time and space was disintegrating as they approached the sun, which could then be extrapolated into explaining how he survived, albeit in a metaphysical kinda way. Sure, they cover their asses with the intact greenhouse, but it's still (to put it lightly) highly dubious that he could have survived in his condition and those circumstances for several years. In fact, the very notion is rather hilarious when taken literally, so it's logical that most people immediately jump to the "supernatural" angle.

[Dead & Messed Up]

So you bought the fact that humans could restart the sun with nuclear weapons and this bothered you?

Yes, because the first is required for the story to exist at all, but the second comes on the heels of ninety-odd minutes of relatively careful, accomplished filmmaking that relies very much on the reality of what must be an tremendous psychological pressure-cooker.

Man, I wish someone could articulate that narrative "jump" better than me. Oh wait! How about Danny Boyle (http://www.luminomagazine.com/mw/content/view/2074/1)?

...some people find that Pinbacker breaks the realism too much. Which is fair enough, but I always love taking a huge risk in films where you risk everything by doing something that breaks the pattern. Like, there’s a bit in “Trainspotting” where Ewan goes down the toilet, and people used to say, “You’ll never get away with that. It’s ludicrous.” But, in fact, people love that moment. So that was always the plan, to take you and see how far we could stretch realism. Push it as hard as we could...

[Spinal]

...some people find that Pinbacker breaks the realism too much. Which is fair enough, but I always love taking a huge risk in films where you risk everything by doing something that breaks the pattern. Like, there’s a bit in “Trainspotting” where Ewan goes down the toilet, and people used to say, “You’ll never get away with that. It’s ludicrous.” But, in fact, people love that moment. So that was always the plan, to take you and see how far we could stretch realism. Push it as hard as we could...

Note that he says stretch realism and not abandon realism or leave realism. This has been my point all along. This does nothing to convince me that the character is supernatural. He's a character at the outer limits of realism. Extraordinary, but not magical.

[Raiders]

He's a character at the outer limits of realism. Extraordinary, but not magical.

Right, like y'know... a science fiction character.

[Spinal]

Right, like y'know... a science fiction character.

Exactly.

[Dead & Messed Up]

Note that he says stretch realism and not abandon realism or leave realism. This has been my point all along. This does nothing to convince me that the character is supernatural. He's a character at the outer limits of realism. Extraordinary, but not magical.

Dude, my point isn't that he's supernatural. My point is that he's contrived and unnecessary.

[Spinal]

Dude, my point isn't that he's supernatural. My point is that he's contrived and unnecessary.

But that's the whole point of the film. I don't get it. Without him, you don't have the very thing that the filmmakers wanted to express.

[Rowland]

But that's the whole point of the film. I don't get it. Without him, you don't have the very thing that the filmmakers wanted to express.I think he's just saying that they could have expressed this in a less contrived manner.

Personally, I thought they were already establishing that thematic undercurrent with the sun-viewing room and the psychiatrist character's obsession with it, which could have maybe been expanded into the same territory without the walking scab.

[Dead & Messed Up]

But that's the whole point of the film. I don't get it. Without him, you don't have the very thing that the filmmakers wanted to express.

Maybe there's a better way they could've expressed it. I'm not sure. The final act just feels fundamentally false to me. I would've rather one of the Icarus II's inhabitants be responsible for the carnage, if the carnage is even required to forward the concepts of "sun as God" and "what right we have."

[Derek]

I think he's just saying that they could have expressed this in a less contrived manner.

Personally, I thought they were already establishing that thematic undercurrent with the sun-viewing room and the psychiatrist character's obsession with it, which could have maybe been expanded into the same territory without the walking scab.

But the "walking scab" was a direct counterpoint to the psychiatrist's obsession. One was obsessed with the glowing life force that physically and visibly allows mankind to survive while the other is obsessed with protecting the invisible will of God, which he believes wants mankind to be destroyed. It's a yin-and-yang, so I don't see much point of one without the other. That character didn't quite work for me the first time I saw it, but upon reflection, I really like how he fit in. I'll be rewatching it in the next few days, so I'll see how it works this time.

[Rowland]

But the "walking scab" was a direct counterpoint to the psychiatrist's obsession. One was obsessed with the glowing life force that physically and visibly allows mankind to survive while the other is obsessed with protecting the invisible will of God, which he believes wants mankind to be destroyed. It's a yin-and-yang, so I don't see much point of one without the other. That character didn't quite work for me the first time I saw it, but upon reflection, I really like how he fit in. I'll be rewatching it in the next few days, so I'll see how it works this time.I can't remember it too clearly, but wasn't he growing notably spacey? One of the other characters even directly comments upon this. Given that he is the least scientifically inclined member of the team, it seems logical that he could be used as the symbolic vessel for an opposing "irrational" force, without necessarily having to directly invoke God through a crazed bogeyman.

But I like your yin-and-yang interpretation. I'll keep that in mind when I see the movie again. After all, they are rather explicitly correlated, right down to the scabs he develops from spending too much time in the observation room, and the presence of the uber-scab man is introduced almost directly after he buys it (as a direct result of the scab man's meddling).

[Derek]

I can't remember it too clearly, but wasn't he growing notably spacey? One of the other characters even directly comments upon this. Given that he is the least scientifically inclined member of the team, it seems logical that he could be used as the symbolic vessel for an opposing "irrational" force, without necessarily having to directly invoke God through a crazed bogeyman.

But I like your yin-and-yang interpretation. I'll keep that in mind when I see the movie again. After all, they are rather explicitly correlated, right down to the scabs he develops from spending too much time in the observation room, and the presence of the uber-scab man is introduced almost directly after he buys it (as a direct result of the scab man's meddling).

But given his growing obsession with the sun and the energy and sustenance it provides him, I'm not sure it'd make much sense for him to want to see it destroyed. I agree the two characters are inextricably linked, but it's very much in opposition, be it science vs. religion, faith in the invisible vs. celebration of the real, etc. Good call on the scabs - I wasn't thinking of that as a way of them being linked, but the fact that the scientist was just beginning to develop them could be read as his beginning a descent into madness and extremism, even if it's fueled by the very opposite of the religious fervor that fueled uber-scab man.

[Rowland]

I agree the two characters are inextricably linked, but it's very much in opposition, be it science vs. religion, faith in the invisible vs. celebration of the real, etc. Yeah, but he's a psychiatrist, which isn't as much of a tangible science as those in which the other crew members specialize, so in a sense, he is correlated with uber-scab by his affection for the abstract.

[Raiders]

Potential spoilers...

Are they really linked in such a way? Cliff Curtis' character's questions to the captain as the captain is being exposed to the full blast of the sun shows his obsession is fueled by curiosity and the rush of the unexplored. I think the film is more about mankind's uneasy transition into the celestial beyond and areas outside the realm of comprehension. It explains why one character would see the will of God and claim we are destined to be destroyed; why another sees mankind's resiliency and chance for preservation; why another is consistently afraid and unsure; why even another becomes infatuated and obsessed, treating the experience like a drug. The movie's tension is based on the Alien adage "in space, no one can hear you scream;" based on the isolation within a world where the elements destroy us on the smallest error. The Icarus I captain who makes his appearance at the end is simply the lingering effects of a doomed mission, of doubt, likely compromised by his religious belief that mankind is scheduled for execution (this reminds me of the Dawn of the Dead scene where the zealot black minister on TV blames the zombie eruption on mankind's sinful ways). I think Curtis' scabs are more indicative of his swaying attention. As the scene with the captain's death shows, Curtis is no longer mission-minded but concentrated away from humanity to the Sun, his own form of spiritual infatuation. So I guess, yeah, the scabs do connect them, but I don't think it is in a strictly science vs. religion mind.

[Cherish]

But given his growing obsession with the sun and the energy and sustenance it provides him, I'm not sure it'd make much sense for him to want to see it destroyed. I agree the two characters are inextricably linked, but it's very much in opposition, be it science vs. religion, faith in the invisible vs. celebration of the real, etc. Good call on the scabs - I wasn't thinking of that as a way of them being linked, but the fact that the scientist was just beginning to develop them could be read as his beginning a descent into madness and extremism, even if it's fueled by the very opposite of the religious fervor that fueled uber-scab man.

I assumed that "uber-scab man" had the same science-based motives as the psychiatrist and the rest of the Icarus II crew when he started the mission. He would have been screened and tested like any astronaut before being chosen. There must have been a "conversion" experience after he became obsessed with the sun. I think the psychiatrist was quite possibly on the same path.

That suppports D&MU's idea that the Icarus crew could have fulfilled the role. But, just to go on record, I had no problem with the movie as is.

[Derek]

I want to respond to you guys, but since I'm planning to rewatch this in the next few days, I'll hold off since I haven't seen this since opening weekend in theaters.

As of now, I agree with Raiders that the science/religion dichotomy is a bit too pat and simplistic to make between the psychiatrist and scab man. However, I do think his obsession with the sun was meant to be a counterpoint to scab man's quest to destroy it, so I'm not sure he could've served the same purpose in the film. Thanks for giving me some things to reconsider.

[D_Davis]

I will be watching this tonight. I am greatly anticipating it. My mind is full of so much amazingly good sci-fi right now, and I hope it delivers the best experience it can. I've been clamoring for a good, even a decent, sci-fi film - will this be it?

[megladon8]

I will be watching this tonight. I am greatly anticipating it. My mind is full of so much amazingly good sci-fi right now, and I hope it delivers the best experience it can. I've been clamoring for a good, even a decent, sci-fi film - will this be it?


I hope so - I thought it was wonderful.

And I have to give props to Chris Evans. I didn't know the guy could actually act...but yes, he can. And very well.

[Dead & Messed Up]

I will be watching this tonight. I am greatly anticipating it. My mind is full of so much amazingly good sci-fi right now, and I hope it delivers the best experience it can. I've been clamoring for a good, even a decent, sci-fi film - will this be it?

Oh, it's decent at the very least. It's almost flawlessly executed - the scenes of the ship under duress are magnificent.

[D_Davis]

Oh, it's decent at the very least. It's almost flawlessly executed - the scenes of the ship under duress are magnificent.

The discussion here has definitely made me interested. It's been really good. Some of the best genre discussion I've seen on Match Cut in a long time. Good job guys!

[Wryan]

Haven't seen the movie yet, and have only skimmed the thread but I just wanted to say...

"Icarus II"? I can't help myself, I'm gonna have to quote Ghost World:

"That's so bad it's gone past good and back to bad."

Please tell me someone comments on the precious-ness of the name in the film.

[Derek]

True, I would expect more from the same NASA that gave us space mission names like Apollo, Challenger, Discovery, Atlantis, Enterprise and Endeavor.

[D_Davis]

Haven't seen the movie yet, and have only skimmed the thread but I just wanted to say...

"Icarus II"? I can't help myself, I'm gonna have to quote Ghost World:

"That's so bad it's gone past good and back to bad."

Please tell me someone comments on the precious-ness of the name in the film.

Seems typical of the genre to me. Lots of ships, characters and tech in sci-fi are named after mythological things and symbols. There is a tight connection between religious symbolism and mythology and science fiction.

[megladon8]

Haven't seen the movie yet, and have only skimmed the thread but I just wanted to say...

"Icarus II"? I can't help myself, I'm gonna have to quote Ghost World:

"That's so bad it's gone past good and back to bad."

Please tell me someone comments on the precious-ness of the name in the film.


Have you ever read anything about NASA, or the space ships which actually exist, and what they're called?

[Wryan]

True, I would expect more from the same NASA that gave us space mission names like Apollo, Challenger, Discovery, Atlantis, Enterprise and Endeavor.

It's still incredibly groan-worthy and twee.

[megladon8]

It's still incredibly groan-worthy and twee.


I think that's a pretty lame complaint, but that's just me.

[Raiders]

It's still incredibly groan-worthy and twee.

Well, they were going to call it the Hey Sun, We Have Come to Chew Bubblegum And Kick Ass... And We're All Out of Bubblegum, but they ran out of room for the decals.

[Dead & Messed Up]

The name doesn't bug me too much. Boyle said that a typical American name would be something like "Ship of Hope" or some such blindly optimistic name. You know, like "Operation Iraqi Freedom."

[Wryan]

Well, they were going to call it the Hey Sun, We Have Come to Chew Bubblegum And Kick Ass... And We're All Out of Bubblegum, but they ran out of room for the decals.

Now there's a name I can get behind. Can you imagine all the tv announcers having to say that everytime? That'd be hilarious.

[D_Davis]

I think that's a pretty lame complaint, but that's just me.

No. It's not just you. :p

Ships, tech, and characters with mythological and religiously symbolic names are a staple of the science fiction genre. It's what ties the visions and examinations of the future with humanity's past on Earth. Names with strong religious and mythological symbolism act as anchors between the fiction of the narrative and the reality of the audience. It gives us something to project upon. It is no coincidence that religious-themed science fiction is a very large sub-genre.


Sunshine is a pretty good movie. One of the better science fiction films I've seen, that's for sure. It does suffer from Event Horizon syndrome though. Both of these films have interesting and fascinating premises, but then they both kind lose track towards the end. EH became Hellraiser in space, and this also becomes a kind of sci-fi slasher flick. It was a little strange, but it did work for the most part.

Every time they showed the burnt man, I couldn't help but think of The Burning Man in Alfred Bester's The Stars My Destination. And anyone who even remotely enjoyed Sunshine should read this. There are many good reasons why so many science fiction authors and readers consider it the single greatest science fiction novel ever written.

I liked how things started off - in space, not on Earth. We didn't have to sit through thirty minutes of infodump and sappy good-byes. I was reminded of Joe Haldeman's The Forever War in this regard. It was a smart move to focus only on the astronauts and their current situation. No flashbacks, good call. Although, they shouldn't have cut to the Earth at the end, it would have been a much more powerful ending if they would have left us on the sun.

The characters weren't very interesting though. I think they killed off the two most interesting characters too early, and we were left with the typical boring hero types. At least there wasn't a ton of exposition told through dialog, because the script itself wasn't all that great. Most of the stuff is shown through action and reaction, and I appreciated this.

Visually, the film is gorgeous. I love the motifs of vision and sight throughout the film. The constant close ups on the eyes, the obscured view through the space helmets, and the blinding light of the sun all added a lot to the film's look.

My favorite moment of the entire film is when the crew assembles to watch Mercury (?) in orbit, floating around the Sun. This was awesome. Truly a spectacular moment, and would have liked it if they lingered on this longer, perhaps with some voice over, an internal monologue commenting on humanity's determination in the face of total absurdity.

I will definitely watch this again, and I am interesting to hear the commentary to see if Boyle name checks any science fiction literature.

[megladon8]

No. It's not just you. :p

Ships, tech, and characters with mythological and religiously symbolic names are a staple of the science fiction genre. It's what ties the visions and examinations of the future with humanity's past on Earth. Names with strong religious and mythological symbolism act as anchors between the fiction of the narrative and the reality of the audience. It gives us something to project upon. It is no coincidence that religious-themed science fiction is a very large sub-genre.

I know this - that's why I think it's a lame complaint, because it's not like Sunshine was doing anything new or against the rules by calling the ship Icarus II.

[Dead & Messed Up]

I know this - that's why I think it's a lame complaint, because it's not like Sunshine was doing anything new or against the rules by calling the ship Icarus II.

You have to admit, though, you really are setting yourself up for trouble when you name a craft "Icarus." It's one step above "The Craft That Will Fail."

[Spinal]

You have to admit, though, you really are setting yourself up for trouble when you name a craft "Icarus." It's one step above "The Craft That Will Fail."

I thought that too. It's much more pessimistic than those names tend to be. Perhaps it's intended as a subtle literary joke, I don't know.

[Raiders]

I guess the ship name was also Heston's problem in Planet of the Apes.

[D_Davis]

I thought that too. It's much more pessimistic than those names tend to be. Perhaps it's intended as a subtle literary joke, I don't know.

It's used for foreshadowing I think. We know the fate of Icarus because of our knowledge of mythology.

I recently read a fantastic book by Clifford D. Simak called, Waystation; imagine an episode of the X-Files written by Hemingway - and yes, the prose is that good. Anyhow, the main character is named Enoch, and if you know about the Biblical Enoch it adds an interesting light through which to more fully view the character.

Names are important, and it is important to pick names that have some relevance to the narrative. In this regard, I think that Icarus is a great name for a ship flying to the sun.

[Spinal]

Names are important, and it is important to pick names that have some relevance to the narrative. In this regard, I think that Icarus is a great name for a ship flying to the sun.

Yes, I definitely see the relevance to the narrative. But it also suggests that whoever did the naming basically considered it an ill-advised suicide mission.

[megladon8]

Yes, I definitely see the relevance to the narrative. But it also suggests that whoever did the naming basically considered it an ill-advised suicide mission.


I think they were all under that impression.

It's made pretty clear that the mission is not a guaranteed success - they say its effectiveness is purely theoretical.

[Dead & Messed Up]

It's used for foreshadowing I think. We know the fate of Icarus because of our knowledge of mythology.

I recently read a fantastic book by Clifford D. Simak called, Waystation; imagine an episode of the X-Files written by Hemingway - and yes, the prose is that good. Anyhow, the main character is named Enoch, and if you know about the Biblical Enoch it adds an interesting light through which to more fully view the character.

Names are important, and it is important to pick names that have some relevance to the narrative. In this regard, I think that Icarus is a great name for a ship flying to the sun.

Indeed, but it's such a well known mythological figure that surely the people actually naming it realized as such.

"Tom, I've been giving the craft's name a lot of thought. I think we should call it Icarus."
"Icarus? Man, I don't know. Wasn't he the guy who flew too close to the sun and royally fucked up and died?"
"Tom, shut up."

[D_Davis]

Yes, I definitely see the relevance to the narrative. But it also suggests that whoever did the naming basically considered it an ill-advised suicide mission.

I would imagine so. When I first heard of this film, I was under the impression that it was a known suicide mission. I think the film could have been more interesting if there was never any hope of return. Imagine the kinds of characters that might have signed up, or been forced to sign up, had it been a definite suicide mission?

Although, I imagine that in the backs of their heads, the characters never really thought they would get home.

[D_Davis]

Indeed, but it's such a well known mythological figure that surely the people actually naming it realized as such.

"Tom, I've been giving the craft's name a lot of thought. I think we should call it Icarus."
"Icarus? Man, I don't know. Wasn't he the guy who flew too close to the sun and royally fucked up and died?"
"Tom, shut up."

Should they have called it The Titanic? :lol:

[D_Davis]

Anyhow, I do think it is an insignificant thing to complain about in this film, especially when there are more legitimate concerns and because the naming convention does work for the genre.

[Spinal]

I'm not even really complaining about it. I just thought it was kinda unusual.

[D_Davis]

When I first started watching this, I accidentally had it on an alternate audio channel, the one for the visually impaired. I actually thought that the film was narrated like a science fiction novel would be written, and while it was odd, I thought it was kind of cool way of doing a science fiction film. So much of what I enjoy about science fiction literature is found in the characters and their internal thoughts. Lynch tried to do this with Dune, and while it didn't really work, it was still an interesting failure.

It was pretty funny when I realized what I had done.

[Benny Profane]

Holy Bejeezus this film was a masterpiece until the Freddy Kruger sun-creature came aboard. Agree wholeheartedly with DaMU about the disconcerting narrative jump. Nonetheless, Sunshine was a breathtaking marvel. I didn't think Boyle could ever make film as good as Trainspotting but he came pretty darn close. This is as high as a three-and-a-half star film can be.

[number8]

All I know is, when I make a spaceship, I'm calling it the Hindenburg.

[megladon8]

Holy Bejeezus this film was a masterpiece until the Freddy Kruger sun-creature came aboard. Agree wholeheartedly with DaMU about the disconcerting narrative jump. Nonetheless, Sunshine was a breathtaking marvel. I didn't think Boyle could ever make film as good as Trainspotting but he came pretty darn close. This is as high as a three-and-a-half star film can be.


Awesome - I feel pretty much the same way.

And like D_Davis, the scene where they watch Mercury float across the view of the sun was fantastic.

[D_Davis]

And like D_Davis, the scene where they watch Mercury float across the view of the sun was fantastic.

This gets a vote for one of the best scenes ever in a science fiction film. It is marvelous.

If only the film didn't turn into Halloween in space...

[D_Davis]

All I know is, when I make a spaceship, I'm calling it the Hindenburg.

I'm calling mine The Toyota - those fuckers are built to last.

[Benny Profane]

If only the film didn't turn into Halloween in space...

It did, but it didn't.



(That may be a concept too mind boggling to contemplate!)

[Benny Profane]

Anyway, I thought the "What do you see Kaneda?" scene outshone (grr) the Mercury scene, though the latter was indeed cool as shit.

[chrisnu]

Found the Mercury scene (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tzh7k1FUC5o) on YouTube. I agree that the "what do you see?" (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hfDCvbEtxzY) scene was even better.

[Morris Schæffer]

Very cool. I definitely feel like revisiting this flick at some point in the near future. I'd love to scope it out on Blu-Ray.

[Kurosawa Fan]

Loved it. Really loved it. I thought the third act worked perfectly.

[Raiders]

Loved it. Really loved it. I thought the third act worked perfectly.

:pritch:

[Spinal]

Loved it. Really loved it. I thought the third act worked perfectly.

Voice of reason!

[Dead & Messed Up]

On reflection, I'm probably being too harsh on the film. As much as I dislike the last twenty minutes, I can at least understand what Boyle's trying to do. And the previous ninety minutes are really quite lovely and tense. Regardless of the finale, it's a science fiction film that actually feels like classic science fiction.

Comparisons to 2001, Silent Running, and THX aren't out of the question.

[Kurosawa Fan]

Voice of reason!

I might not get too excited, as I disagree with you slightly on the man at the end and what he represents. I think it's a mistake to assume that he stands for religion, but rather he stands for man's inability to understand God. He is an extremist, and shouldn't be looked upon as a symbol for religion any more than someone who bombs an abortion clinic, or blows themselves up in a government building. There seems to be this feeling among many religious groups that the end times is something to look forward to, and they almost seem to be wishing for it when that's not what God would want. Assuming we're going by the Christian God, God wants us to protect our life and our bodies, and treat life as the greatest gift you can receive. I'd say that falls under what the crew of the Icarus was trying to accomplish. God wants us to know that through faith, we can achieve eternal life, but he doesn't want us to die any sooner than we must. His gift of life isn't something to be thrown away, which is why suicide is a sin.

Otherwise we are in complete agreement on the film.

[D_Davis]

I didn't get anything religious out of this film, at all.

I thought the burning man was just a dude who went crazy in space. He may have had insane religious motivation for doing so, but I didn't see him as representing anything more than a delusional man trying to play God. Yeah he mumbles something or other to himself on the video about God, but this was no more religious or symbolic than any crazy bum walking down the street yelling "I'm God," or whatever it is they like to yell.

I am usually pretty in tune with religious themes in science fiction, religious sci-fi is my favorite sub-genre, but Sunshine felt more like sci-fi-horror to me, and less like Boyle was trying to explore humanity and our psychological reasons for doing things.

To me, this was an example of survival sci-fi.

[Kurosawa Fan]

When Capa first encounters him in the observation room, he asks Capa if he's the angel, and wanting to be the last man alive before the end of civilization and meeting God and such. I don't think that was any coincidence. There had been no mention of God prior to his appearance. To me, he was definitely a representation of man's misunderstanding of God.

[D_Davis]

I just saw that as a lazy way to make him "crazy." You know, a lot of films and books use the religious nut stereotype for their villain. Whenever a narrative needs some motivation for the villain, and the author can't think of anything remarkable, they seem to turn to the religious nut.

To me, this doesn't really represent anything except for lazy characterization. I was like, oh great, another one of these guys. A crazy killer with a God-complex.

It definitely didn't explore any religious avenues like a lot of good sci-fi does, it just used a standard archetype for its villain.

[Benny Profane]

So you bought the fact that humans could restart the sun with nuclear weapons and this bothered you?

I think the film was logically consistent within the rules it had constructed until this point*. Also, you don't know for sure that humans can restart the sun with a nuclear bomb. They are simply making their best attempt.


*Meaning the introduction of the scab character

[D_Davis]

Also, you don't know for sure that humans can restart the sun with a nuclear bomb. They are simply making their best attempt.

I think this is a key right here. I imagine the film would have been far more powerful had it not cut back to the Earth at the end. What I like about the main narrative, the whole sun thing, is that the characters really don't know if what they are doing is going to work. They have no idea, but because of their determination and their desire to try they take the mission. This is something explored in a lot of science fiction, and I liked how it was handled here.

[Benny Profane]

Yes, I should have said "at the time the sun-creature is introduced you don't know if the humans will succeed or not"

[Kurosawa Fan]

I just saw that as a lazy way to make him "crazy." You know, a lot of films and books use the religious nut stereotype for their villain. Whenever a narrative needs some motivation for the villain, and the author can't think of anything remarkable, they seem to turn to the religious nut.

To me, this doesn't really represent anything except for lazy characterization. I was like, oh great, another one of these guys. A crazy killer with a God-complex.

It definitely didn't explore any religious avenues like a lot of good sci-fi does, it just used a standard archetype for its villain.

I disagree. I think the fact that no one talks of God in the face of human extinction, even a psychiatrist who instead becomes obsessed with becoming part of "the light", is pretty telling, and is a stark enough contrast to call attention to the sun man and his delusions of God as having a distinct purpose within the story, and is not just there to make him look crazy.

[Spinal]

I might not get too excited, as I disagree with you slightly on the man at the end and what he represents.

Oh, that's fair enough. Different interpretations are to be expected. But I'm glad to have another voice who recognizes that the plot development is an integral part of the film and not just some arbitrary twist.

[Rowland]

Oh, that's fair enough. Different interpretations are to be expected. But I'm glad to have another voice who recognizes that the plot development is an integral part of the film and not just some arbitrary twist.I think it's worth noting that even KF observed how religion is nonexistent in the narrative up to that point. Applying natural extrapolation, if that turn of events in the third act never occurred, nobody watching the movie would have noticed, and as such, I'm not so sure that it can be labeled as integral, given how it essentially twists the foundation of the first two acts in a different direction, the groundwork with the psychiatrist notwithstanding.

[Spinal]

I think it's worth noting that even KF observed how religion is nonexistent in the narrative up to that point. Applying natural extrapolation, if that turn of events in the third act never occurred, nobody watching the movie would have noticed, and as such, I'm not so sure that it can be labeled as integral, given how it essentially twists the foundation of the first two acts in a different direction, the groundwork with the psychiatrist notwithstanding.

The character mentions God the first time we see him on video, which is well before the third act.

[Sycophant]

My recollections of hte film are frustratingly vague, but I remember that pretty much at the outset of the film, I could tell the film was interested in something pertaining to religion.

That's it. I'm rewatching this next week.

[Spinal]

This:

I am Pinbacker, Commander of the Icarus One. We have abandoned our mission. Our star is dying. All our science. All our hopes, our... our dreams, are foolish! In the face of this, we are dust, nothing more. Unto this dust, we return. When he chooses for us to die, it is not our place to challenge God.

[Kurosawa Fan]

The character mentions God the first time we see him on video, which is well before the third act.

Yep. I meant anyone on Icarus II.

[Benny Profane]

Oh, that's fair enough. Different interpretations are to be expected. But I'm glad to have another voice who recognizes that the plot development is an integral part of the film and not just some arbitrary twist.

I'm only speaking for myself, but I have no problem with a character with a God complex, and I see how it ties in thematically, but my problem was in the physical presentation of the character, both his overly drastic burns and the flashy camera when he appears, and how it stretched plausibility.

If they had made the character more human it would have helped tremendously.

[Rowland]

The character mentions God the first time we see him on video, which is well before the third act.Well, I meant if that character was excised altogether. I forgot this video you're referencing.

[[ETM]]

I disagree. I think the fact that no one talks of God in the face of human extinction, even a psychiatrist who instead becomes obsessed with becoming part of "the light", is pretty telling, and is a stark enough contrast to call attention to the sun man and his delusions of God as having a distinct purpose within the story, and is not just there to make him look crazy.

Exactly. I have just seen the film and I fail to see how that fundamental thread that Boyle introduces from the very first shot is virtually lost on people.
The Sun is the mightiest representation of "higher power" human kind has ever encountered directly... from the dawn of time, man has worshiped it as the giver of life, even literally deifying it in the case of the Egyptians. And here we are, at the brink of extinction, the seemingly perpetual life force of the Sun is dying, and a small group of humans is defying everything history, religion, common sense ever told us, hurrying toward the star to revive it, protected from its wrath only by a flimsy shield science managed to put together... I mean, everything outside its shadow turns to dust in the blink of an eye. It's such an unimaginably extreme situation for any person to be in, it boggles the mind.

The atmosphere Boyle creates to underline this is fantastic...

[[ETM]]

I think they were all under that impression.

It's made pretty clear that the mission is not a guaranteed success - they say its effectiveness is purely theoretical.

Exactly.

I only read this part of the discussion now... is irony lost on everyone these days? The name is the best anyone could ever think of, because what they were trying to do is outrageously unimaginable, just like what the mythological Icarus tried to do - get closer to the Gods, fly higher than his human technology allowed him to do... the story of Icarus is both a cautionary tale about overestimating one's reach, and a monument to the distinctly human trait that is defiance, persisting in the face of towering odds.

Isn't it obvious what they were trying to say with that? I mean, they named the second ship "Icarus II", which is another way of saying "Oh no? Well fuck you, we're doing it again!". That ties very well to the spirit of the film.

[Morris Schæffer]

I really dig those final couple of posts, especially the last one by ETM. Very concise, very much pointing out the crux of the whole Icarus name thing. Still, the sun physically manifesting itself may not be some arbitrary twist, but something can be the point and still not come across as wholly convincing. "Point" merely illustrates intent, but not whether the results are actually satisfactory, as Benny Profane pointed out. This deserves a rewatch. Blu-Ray would be grand so perhaps in a couple of months if I buy a Blu-Ray player.

[Spinal]

... the sun physically manifesting itself ....

This is a new interpretation to me. Kind of an interesting take though.

[[ETM]]

the sun physically manifesting itself may not be some arbitrary twist, but something can be the point and still not come across as wholly convincing. "Point" merely illustrates intent, but not whether the results are actually satisfactory.

Agreed. And this is where the conflict of opinions occurs - those of us who like the film, the whole thing, are aware of flaws in the implementation of ideas. It's the complete disregard of any quality the film has because of the final act's failure to get the point across convincingly by those who had different expectations. I've heard people who call themselves "sci-fi" fans put Sunshine below Armageddon and The Core, even though they liked 2/3 of the film...

[Spinal]

;38201']those of us who like the film, the whole thing, are aware of flaws in the implementation of ideas.

I think that the film gets its ideas across just fine. This is, in my opinion, a case where a film is being criticized for the very thing that makes it special.

[[ETM]]

I think that the film gets its ideas across just fine. This is, in my opinion, a case where a film is being criticized for the very thing that makes it special.

Ideas yes, but I sort of see where the haters are coming from. A few things could have been tighter, more credible, but overall yeah, it's just an excuse for them.

I was surprised at the backlash, because I went into the film without expectations and any prior knowledge, and I "got it" and loved it from the very first second. I'm glad so many others felt exactly the same - it's a totally different situation among the general public.

[Rowland]

This is, in my opinion, a case where a film is being criticized for the very thing that makes it special.It's special because it lets a knife-wielding God-invoking baddie loose in the last third? It just boils down the ideas the first two thirds were flirting with into an obvious antagonist force. I can't imagine how someone can seriously believe he is what makes the movie special.

But I suppose we've gone over this enough.

[Spinal]

It's special because it lets a knife-wielding God-invoking baddie loose in the last third? It just boils down the ideas the first two thirds were flirting with into an obvious pulp conflict. I can't imagine how someone can seriously believe he is what makes the movie special.

:shrug:

[Sycophant]

On as second viewing, I'm decidedly in the KF-Raiders-Spinal-ETM camp.

One thing interesting is that Rose Byrne's Cassie has a pretty prominent cross around her neck (you'll also remember that she's the one who resists the decision to kill Trey). Perhaps that comes across as simple set-dressing to a lot, but in such a science-minded film that dealt with the awe of the unknown (and later questions of God and destiny), it stands out. Her religious position isn't well fleshed out but I think its presence is worth noting.

Maybe simply because I was expecting it, but the captain from Icaurs I was much less jarring this time around. I can still appreciate those who feel let down by the change in tone here, but I think it works perfectly well in the film.

By the way, I should have been pulling for this film for best editing. Some great work here.

I'm not sure, but I think I'm bumping this into my top ten of the year. While it has some flaws, I can tell it's one of the films from 2007 I'm going to be watching many, many times.

[Rowland]

On as second viewing, I'm decidedly in the KF-Raiders-Spinal-ETM camp.Yeah, you guys have quite the shindig going on there. Derek is a member too. Since I still like the movie plenty even with my complaints, how about I just sit in the corner beneath a party hat downing shots?