Jack Oughton Sunshine SP1S09

Sunshine is a British science fiction

film released in April, 2007. It was
directed by Danny Boyle, from a
screenplay by Alex Garland. The
DVD was released on 27th August,
2007. It was distributed by Fox
Searchlight pictures and had a
budget around £20 million. It is a
dramatic and visually stunning film,
which revolves around a mission to
‘reignite the sun’ and the perils
faced by the crew. The prevalent
popular image of science and
scientists comes from the media
(Jones, 1970)[1], therefore I chose
this film because although not
strictly designed as a piece of
scientific communication, it’s large
(relative to other science work), wide exposure, mostly accurate science and
exciting content give it an edge over more traditional science
communication. Sunshine is an opportunity to share astrophysics in an
engrossing way to a large number of people, who may not normally learn
about it.

How Does It Communicate?

Generally speaking, Sunshine presented science accurately. The film’s

scientific consultant was Dr. Brian Cox, a physicist and research fellow who
works at CERN. Cox has extensive experience communicating science
through BBC documentaries and study resources, which is noticeable in his
commentary of the film. I believe his commentary to be a better piece of
science communication relative to the original film dialogue, as he corrects
scientific errors and explains the theory behind many events as they unfold.
He does this in an accessible and easy to understand manner, not using any
complex physical terminology. Cox also gives small insights into a physicist’s
mind and speaks about the nature of his work. Unfortunately I believe that
most of Sunshine’s audience wouldn’t experience the commentary unless
they had specific interest in the film or the science behind it. This is because
his commentary is only available on the DVD and does interfere with the
continuity of the film; it would have to be watched after the first viewing,
otherwise it may spoil the plot. In all probability, the commentary’s exposure

1
Jack Oughton Sunshine SP1S09

would probably be significantly lower than the original film dialogue and only
attract Sunshine enthusiasts or those interested in physics.

The film itself communicates science’s many

facets in a manner arguably more engrossing
than any documentary could. Due to its plot
it deals chiefly with the astrophysical, but
briefly includes aspects from other
disciplines such as astronomy, psychology
and scientific philosophy, these are generally
not presented separately or in any particular
structure, occurring as parts of the story.
Brian Cox – Physics rockstar and
scientific consultant for Sunshine.

The presentation format emphasizes the audio and visual experience, with
much of the budget going on special effects. The presentation is very
beautiful, for example, the transit of mercury across the sun and the almost
mystical ‘stellar bomb’. In Sunshine the significance of science could not be
conveyed better; science is generally presented as positive, an essential and
empowering human tool for humanity to save itself. Sunshine’s simple
science presentation would suggest a non-specific action film audience
above the age of 15, with a possible limited scientific interest, this viewer
would probably not be viewing the film with the goal of learning about
astrophysics.

Sadly, the amount of scientific errors and lack of explanation for most
technical aspects of the film are a very significant strike against this
production as an effective piece of science communication. The emphasis on
making it commercially attractive meant that most opportunities for
education had to be avoided and in some cases science had to be incorrectly
presented to enhance the plot. Cox remarks in the commentary; “There’s a
tension between making a $50m movie and getting the science right”[2].
Many needless examples of incorrect science, which do not enhance the plot,
are found in this film. One is the absence of explanation for the mission
itself, a hypothetical scenario imagined by scientists at CERN involving a ball
of super symmetric particles called a ‘Q-Ball’ interfering with the sun,
implying a thermonuclear warhead the size of Manhattan could affect the
fusion processes of this star.

2
Jack Oughton Sunshine SP1S09

How Did It Fare?

Overall I believe that this film fared moderately if defined as a piece of

science communication, failing to educate and explain, but succeeding in
communicating the importance and value of science. The production
received unexceptional commercial acclaim, reviews averaging at 6.4/10 on
rottentomatoes.com[3]. Reviewers with scientific background criticized it
severely (perhaps they were jealous?). Dr Chris Lintott, a researcher at
Oxford University; “From a scientist's point of view, it's complete rubbish”.
[4].Anjana Ahuja, a solar physicist, wrote “Danny Boyle could have achieved
the same level of scientific fidelity in Sunshine by giving a calculator to a
schoolboy”[5]. Many contemporary pieces of science communication, such
as television documentaries, increasingly include a dramatic element to
capture the human interest; these ‘docudramas’ combine conventional plot
building and acting with the documentary component. This is relevant to
Sunshine because it is a clear example of the unfortunate necessity to
tradeoff human interest for quality of scientific communication. In this
manner Sunshine’s use in science communication is to interest people in
science, not to inform them about it. Sunshine’s complex and often violent
plot is inconsistent with the age level of science presented, possibly posing
an obstacle to a younger viewer’s exposure to the film. Some of the scenes
later in the film are probably unsuitable for children.

Verdict

I believe that the film could not be used as a piece of serious science
communication due to certain scientific inconsistencies, lack of explanation
of scientific phenomena and its design as a commercial creation. By my
standards the accuracy of scientific content was average, and the clarity was
poor. As an educational tool, Cox’s commentary fared better, if watched in
conjunction with the film would correct many scientific blunders and explain
much of the correct science, the insight into Cox’s work also enlightens the
viewer on a ‘real’ physicist’s job. However, I don’t consider it alone is enough
to redeem the film, as I believe its potential audience is very small, and the
commentary still has a lower level and quality of scientific communication
than a ‘conventional’ piece. For Sunshine to have fared better as science
communication I believe at the very least it could have incorporated a
greater scientific explanation of events as they occurred, perhaps by a
narrator, with diagrams depending on the age of the target audience. Casual
scientific errors such as the statement that space is -273°C would also need
to have been eliminated. This would however have lessened its public

3
Jack Oughton Sunshine SP1S09

exposure, compromised its plot and altered its format from a film to a
docudrama. Today, studies have shown that Public Engagement of Science
and Technology is underrepresented in Europe (Lorenzen 2006)[6], and
science needs as much positive exposure as possible, even from unorthodox,
unintended (usually ineffective) sources, such as the film industry. Cox’s
work on the film (barring the mistakes he missed) combined with Danny
Boyle’s desire for ‘hard science fiction’; “If I could make a $50m dollar
documentary about the sun... I’d do that”…[7], meant that Sunshine came as
close to credible scientific communication possible within the standards of a
glossy film (compared to others in the genre such as Star Wars), but
essentially failed because it was not designed for this purpose. Sunshine’s
communicational value could be as a stepping-stone to other more
informative documentaries. A better alternative in communicating problems
with diminished solar output reaching Earth would be BBC Horizon’s Global
Dimming[8], which is a high quality documentary, designed specifically to
communicate science, which has many advantages, such as an emphasis on
science explanation, presentation of data and interviews with experts.

The science communication may have needed improvement, but Sunshine’s visuals were
astounding.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------

4
Jack Oughton Sunshine SP1S09

[1]Jones G., Connell I., Meadows J., (1978) The Presentation Of Science By
The Media. 1st ed. Leicester: PCRC.

[2],[7] Sunshine and Commentary by Brian Cox (2007) D. Boyle

[3]http://uk.rottentomatoes.com/m/sunshine/ Accessed on 01/12/2007

[4]http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/film/art
icle1598953.ece. Accessed on 01/12/2007

[5]http://film.guardian.co.uk/News_Story/Critic_Review/Guardian_review/0,,2
060703,00.html Thursday April 19, 2007. Accessed on 01/12/2007

[6]Christensen L. L. (2007) The Hands On Guide For Science Communicators,

A Step-by-Step Approach to Public Outreach. 1st ed. New York: Springer

[8]Horizon – Global Dimming (2005) BBC2