Danny Boyle's SUNSHINE

[mouton]

SUNSHINE
Written by Alex Garland
Directed by Danny Boyle

Cassie: There’s a difference between thinking you might not make it home and knowing you won’t.


Oh Mother Nature, why have you forsaken us? Are we really all that bad to you that we deserve what you’re giving us? Not only have you fought back with global warming and disastrous storm activity but now you insist on dooming us on film as well. SUNSHINE, from director, Danny Boyle, does not announce distinctly when it takes place. Regardless of the time, the sun is about to give out on us. It has been slowly dying over the centuries and its warmth is finally waning on earth. After one unsuccessful attempt, the people of earth have pooled their resources together to send one last chance into space. The crew of Icarus II must travel through space for what can only be millions of miles (it may even be billions but I’m no space enthusiast) to reach the sun and drop a bomb into its center in hopes of reigniting its flame. Boyle’s SUNSHINE is a visual hot bed that draws the viewer into its world of dichotomies. From light and dark to close and far, the opposing forces manifest on the screen to make for a gripping debate between whether it’s better to fight against fate or resign yourself to it.

Staring directly into the sun is damaging to your eyes while staring directly into Boyle’s SUNSHINE will delight them. Boyle makes calculated visual and sound decisions that allow the viewer to feel like a crewmember on this momentous voyage. Long corridors are often devoid of noise and shown stretching on toward far depths before cutting to tight framing of various crewmembers (Cillian Murphy, Michelle Yeoh and Chris Evans, to name but a few). The rooms that find these solitary crewmembers vary in style from simulation rooms that show the glory of the sun’s power to the payload room that houses the bomb that will hopefully save humanity, from rooms with wall-to-wall computer screens to oxygen rooms dedicated to the growth of plants. With so many rooms to speak of, Icarus II feels like its own world. With the people of this world alone in each of these rooms that make up this separate existence, the detachment from each other is only second in intensity to the distance between this ship and the planet it has left behind and lost all communication with. Determined to complete the mission they have set out for must outweigh the fear they feel being so completely secluded as their drive in order to survive.

Author of THE BEACH, Alex Garland, has crafted a script that plays out like a morality debate. The importance of the individual is weighed against the significance of the masses in some moments, while the needs of the masses are then weighed against the natural progression of the species in others. Fate and the usual bickering over whether we have any say in the matter permeate the entire mission, mostly against Boyle’s better judgment. Garland’s exploration of God and atheism were not elements that Boyle wanted to devote much screen time to, if any, but they still manage to make their way to the forefront. It seems curious to me that he would want to avoid these topics, as SUNSHINE needs them to further enforce its own sense of urgency. If this mission is unsuccessful, the sun’s warmth will inevitably cease to reach the earth. Come the time when all of earth’s inhabitants begin to reach their freezing point, the existence of God is going to be the hottest topic around.

SUNSHINE will definitely draw comparison to Stanley Kubrick’s 2001 (it’s doing it right now even) with its soft-spoken computer voice commanding the ship and eerie, quiet emptiness. While it won’t come anywhere near having the same impact, it is still a strong successor. Boyle modernizes the space solitude tale by jumping back and forth between quiet calm and frenetic dizziness, between dusty and stale and bright and explosive. As the mission wreaks havoc on the minds of the crew, Boyle plays with our senses, making SUNSHINE an engaging, tense and thought-provoking trip to the center of the sun. Really though, can you imagine it any other way?

www.blacksheepreviews.blogspot.com

[tabuno]

[Includes spoilers]

I was impressed by the look and sound of this movie, but unfortunately this overly ambitious project gets away from Boyle. Early on the visuals are similar to ALIEN (1979) with the ship's corridor scenes and the now familiar common room eating scene. There are explosive personality scenes that leave one with plenty of questions as to what initiated them. There are hysterical females who don't get to do any of the more daring exploration activities like in ALIEN. Over this length of time in space, apparently 18 months or there abouts, there doesn't seem to be any sign of relational patterns between crew members. And while the Japanese crew members get to reveal their apparently honorable cultural pride, one even kills himself not in fear but in sacrifice and responsibility for his apparent oversight. Early on in the film, there is a kitchen scene showing what appears to be a present day (2007) stove and cooking utensils that seem wildly out of place while its takes a few moments to understand the connection of the vital greenhouse to the success of the mission. How the strange additional passenger gets on board the Icarus II is a feat beyond imagination. The desparate attempt to transfer between ships without a spacesuit is taken directly from 2001: A SPACE ODYESSY (1968). In terms of an intriguing science fiction plot and its serious execution at the time of its production, FIRST SPACESHIP ON VENUS (1962) is even more effective and eerie than this movie. The movies descent to a horror genre towards the end seems unbelievable in terms of crew reactions and strains plausibility, something similiar happens in EVENT HORIZON (1997) that has an even a worse terrible outcome in terms of picture quality.

Overall, this movie is great to look at and listen to, but the delivery of the script suffers in contrast to the more focused and intimate science fiction horror movie ALIEN (1979) that set a high standard for science fiction presentation.

[oscar jubis]

The audiovisuals are strong indeed but Garland and Doyle start with a wacky premise (the sun beginning to lose its power in 2057, a few billion years ahead of schedule) and go bonkers with a preposterous twist about 85 minutes into the movie. Intriguing nonetheless, but ultimately disappointing.

[Johann]

I liked this movie a lot.
Absolutely influenced by Kubrick and Ridley Scott's Alien.

It's not your usual sci-fi.
It's not too interested in being labelled an "action flick". It's a think-piece with intriguing suggestions about mortality and loud ruminations on sacrifice and atonement.

Some mighty impressive visuals tho.
C'mon, that was some serious ass Solaris-type scale and scope in some scenes. Brilliant execution of some set pieces.

It was original and a throwback.
It's something I didn't mind seeing at this point of the summer.

[Chris Knipp]

Danny Boyle: Sunshine (2007)

Cillian Murphy, and gorgeous visuals: cult potential

Reveiw by CK

Jazz Age glamor boy and literary patron Harry Crosby spoke of aspiring to "a sun-Death into sun." You'll get that in Danny Boyle's hallucinatory sci-fi thriller Sunshine�along with experiencing some of the most gorgeous space visuals ever on the way to it. But if you compare it to Kubrick's Space Odyssey, you'll realize that it's not the quantity of such visuals but how they're used that makes a truly great film. Sunshine hasn't Kubick's extraordinary sense of pace (who does?) and many of the most striking images seem a bit wasted because they're tossed off too quickly or in too chaotic a progression. Nonetheless, this is another "ultimate trip" and for science fiction fans it may be destined for cult status.

Yes, as has been said by others, this movie takes strong hints from Tarkovsky's Solaris and Silent Running and from films about a threatened earth. It's not so much notable for originality of design as for sheer, mind-boggling beauty. At some point you just start to forget about the plot details, which are intentionally mysterious when ghostly elements enter toward the end, and just sit back and enjoy the hallucinatory eyeball-popping trip. And Kubrick aside, there are techniques of imaging and editing adeptly used here that were clearly unavailable when 2001 was made. Nerve-wracking suspense and sadness are elements, and so is silliness, but the gorgeousness of a terrific sound and light show is what dominates.

There are actors involved though. This is a space mission to save a dying sun by flying close to it with a nuclear bomb payload that will spark it up again so the earth will not succumb to permanent winter. And so there's a crew on board, with Asians and women (no blacks). At the heart of it all is Cillian Murphy, who burst on screen naked and newborn in Boyle's 28 Days Later. Though that was his 17th film and he has yet to have his great role, he has since become an international star. Murphy is the human key to Sunshine's ethereal and and magical qualities�why, it's hard to say, except that he's a luminous and uncannily relaxed performer with extravagant gifts. It can't be just the striking cheekbones and schoolgirl blush or the liquid blue eyes, but he is special, and he can become anybody, a maniacal terrorist (Red Eye), an evil fear-monger (Batman Begins), a clumsy hoodlum (Intermission), an Irish freedom-fighter (The Wind that Shakes the Barley), a bouncy transvestite (Breakfast on Pluto). The man has range.

And he can play, apparently, a physicist named Capa who's the one indispensable person on this mission to the sun. We can believe that even though he looks more like a schoolboy, because there's a steely passion about him.

The story is implausible. What shield could allow a manned space vehicle to fly close to the sun? Why would a crucial mission, the planet's last hope, take a detour when something turns up? How could men shift from pod to ship without space suits? But by the end of it Sunshine has reached a level of the fantastic on which anything can happen, and the visuals make it unimportant. It's only in the early scenes when the whole crew is still together than the dialog seems pedestrian and lame; there's clearly been some bad casting that underlines this fault. The casting director chose Murphy and then went on holiday.

[Johann]

Originally posted by Chris Knipp


The story is implausible. What shield could allow a manned space vehicle to fly close to the sun? Why would a crucial mission, the planet's last hope, take a detour when something turns up? How could men shift from pod to ship without space suits?[/B]



The shield? It's the future, Chris.
They thought of/invented something.

Re: detour. They even said in the film:
Two last hopes are better than one.


Re spacesuits. Space works like this: it's cold, it's a vacuum (they'd have to hold their breath) and they were wrapped in insulation anyway. The one who survived was only in space for a very short time until he was in the airlock. The other guy went floating off. They showed that you can go into space without much protection. It just can't be for very long.

[Chris Knipp]

Normally I don't use "realism" or "plausibility" to judge a film. And after all this is science fiction. That's a genre where science is played about with. I would have to leave others to comment on the lack of good science behind the story line. A scientist and science fiction expert, Mark Kelly, has listed (http://locusmag.blogspot.com/2007/07/muted-sunshine.html) a number of blatant errors in Sunshine's narrative from scientific and common sense viewpoints. I would have to agree also with him and some movie reviewers on the absurdity of the talk about running out of oxygen in view of the immense (and apparently artificial-gravity-equipped) interior spaces of the ship, all full presumably of breathable air since nobody wears masks. Probably what bothered me most was psychologically and socially implausible aspects of the team's behavior: that a project crucial to the earth would go off with no clearcut game plan for negotiating emergency decisions; and that they would wind up deviating in such a major way from their course (without seeming to have anticipated what happened and the new choices it presented as a possible outcome). Scientists consider all the possibilities. And a government project of beyond military importance would have strict protocols and procedures for all contingencies and decisions, which here appear lacking. Though as I think I have remarked, the mission's use of a manned flight is itself inexplicable, and others have alluded to this implausibility.

The human-computer interface isn't sufficiently used nor are the complexities of the deviations from the computer's programming sufficiently developed; again, compare the huge psychological role of Hal in Kubrick's 2001. The conflicts between human and computer remain imponderables in both films but Kubrick gives Hal a vastness and a pathos that make 2001 emotionally rich. In purely action storytelling terms, human losses in Sunshine aren't made as emotionally affecting to the audience as they could have been

But I am not trying to tear down the movie. I enjoyed it quite a lot. I think every CGI and SCI-FI and film visuals fan ought to see it and has missed one of the events of the year if he/she hasn't managed to see it on a big screen in an up-to-date auditorium. I'm very glad I did. It was a treat.

[Chris Knipp]

To experience the vacuum is to die, but not quite in the grisly manner portrayed in the movies Total Recall and Outland. The truth of the matter seems to be closer to what Stanley Kubrik had in mind in 2001: A Space Odyssey.

According to the 1966 edition of the McGraw/Hill Encyclopedia of Space, when animals are subjected to explosive decompression to a vacuum-like state, they do not suddenly balloon-up or have their eyes pop out of their heads. It is, in fact, virtually impossible to compress or expand organic tissues in this way. Instead, death arises from the response of the free gasses trapped within the tissues.

If decompression takes 1/2 second or longer, even lung tissue remains intact. When the ambient pressure falls below 47 mm of mercury (similar to the pressure at the surface of Mars), the water inside all tissues passes into a vapor state beginning at the skin surface. This causes the collapse of surface cells and the loss of huge amounts of body heat via evaporation. After six seconds, the process of cell collapse involves the heart and lungs causing circulatory interruption, followed by acute anoxia, convulsions and the relaxation of the bowel muscles. After 15 seconds, mental confusion sets-in, and after 20 seconds you become unconscious. You can survive this for about 80 seconds if a pressure higher than about 47 mm mercury is then reestablished, otherwise, you turn into freeze-dried dead meat on a stick. --Astronomy Cafe (http://www.astronomycafe.net/qadir/q62.html) .

Morgan Smith writing in Slate also responds to a question about this issue raised by the scene in Sunshine:
At most, an astronaut without a suit would last about 15 seconds before losing conciousness from lack of oxygen. (That's how long it would take the body to use up the oxygen left in the blood.) Of course, on Earth, you could hold your breath for several minutes without passing out. But that's not going to help in a vacuum. In fact, attempting to hold your breath is a sure way to a quick death. To make it for even a few seconds, Sunshine's Mace must have expelled the air from his lungs before he ventured into the starry void. If he hadn't, the vacuum would have caused that oxygen to expand and rupture his lung tissue, forcing fatal air bubbles into his blood vessels, and ultimately his heart and brain. Scuba divers are also at risk for air embolism; they're instructed not to hold their breath as they ascend from the deep sea. For the whole answer go here. (http://www.slate.com/id/2171522/nav/navoa/)

Smith's title is "THE SCI-FI MOVIE SUNSHINE GETS IT ALMOST RIGHT". So this is just iffy, not a major flaw. But the flaws are cumulative (again, see Mark Kelly's more detailed critique (http://locusmag.blogspot.com/2007/07/muted-sunshine.html)). And yet, as the film progresses, I detached from them, like an astronaut drifting into space, and bathed in the bliss of the transcendental experience the film provides in sound and image, and makes it well worth watching -- if not a great film.

P.s. As for the anomalous early-fading of the sun, which Oscar alludes to, Kelly points out that there is an explanation for that, but it's only a theory that was put out by Brian Cox [no relation], the filmmakers' science adviser--but inexplicably left outside of the script, where it doesn't do us a whole lot of good.

[Johann]

Good criticisms Chris.

The thing is that this is a movie, and you wouldn't have much of one if there wasn't some stuff that doesn't match up with real life.

Arthur C. Clarke is the mind behind Kubrick's 2001, one of the most brilliant minds of the 20th/21st centuries.
He did not have anything to do with "Sunshine", so if there are flaws in the narrative/plausibility departments, then you'll have to forgive the scriptwriter. He's not Mr. Clarke.
This film is drawing massive and instant comparisons to Kubrick's groundbreaking film and it takes away from what it's really doing: telling an interesting story cinematically.
Powerful images and music as well as art direction.
Danny Boyle is an amazing director.
Trainspotting
The Beach
28 Days Later
and now this.

can't wait for what else he makes.

[oscar jubis]

Originally posted by Johann
can't wait for what else he makes.

It's called Slumdog Millionaire. Scheduled for release in 2009.
"A comedy centered around an illiterate kid who looks to become a contestant on the Hindi version of Who Wants to be A Millionaire in order to re-establish contact with the girl he loves, who is an ardent fan of the show." (IMDb)

[Chris Knipp]

you'll have to forgive the scriptwriter. He's not Mr. Clarke. You said it. I don't think one should be bothered by so much stuff while watching. Maybe later. The film is flawed. But it excels in some areas. Since you're granting my criticisms (and the ones I cited) are good, we're not really in disagreement. I loved the visuals of this. In some few areas it does almost rival Kubrick. But the lack of Clarke is a big difference, yes.

The Beach bombed with critics and didn't do too well (I think) at the box office. I personally enjoyed it, and loved the book which I immediately read. Not certain he'll ever do anything as iconic as Trainspotting. But 28 Days Later was good stuff and followed up by an even better sequel by Juan Carlos Fresnadillo. All of which made me not want to miss seeing Sunshine in a good auditorium and I'm certainly glad I didn't. I can't comment on Slumdog Millionaire but Boyle's move to Bollywood for that shows again that he's a shape-shifter. That has its pitfalls but can keep us interested to see what's next.

[Johann]

In Alexander Walker's book Icons in the Fire he talks about how he went to a screening of Trainspotting with Kubrick, and how Kubrick instantly saw the similarities with Clockwork Orange.

Needless to say, Danny Boyle has an affinity for the Grand Master's style.

Who doesn't?

[Chris Knipp]

Indeed Kubrick deserves our admiration. Didn't know he saw Trainspotting and spotted a link with Clockwork Orange. But there is one I can see now. I admire Boyle for his willingness to take risks and try new things. I give extra points for risk-taking. As a craftsman he can't touch Kubrick, but who can?