|
|
Post by dremen on Aug 14, 2007 16:47:45 GMT -5
This is my first post, and I thought I’d contribute something worthwhile. There is a definite philosophical message in this movie (as in many, but for once it’s a particularly intelligent one). Anyhow, philosophy is my field of study, and I shall dissect the central theme.
First off, this is a pro-atheistic movie. There’s no getting around this; I’ve noticed many of you trying to redefine God, or present really ambiguous—bordering on naturalistic—concepts of spirituality. But that was never the movie’s aim. A large and central theme is that “God” or “Spirituality” is not required for beauty and, in this case, salvation.
The movie focuses on the power of humanity. We human creatures have such great potential, and here are the best of us. We’re capable of creating such mind-boggling technology, but more, I really think, is that we’re capable of sacrificing ourselves for a moral good, knowing full well that death is the—final—end.
Beyond this, it also makes an attack on religion AND God (something too many movies are afraid to do, and which I have tremendous respect for). The most obvious example is the religious fanatic, but I don’t think it’s the central one, which is the following:
There are two ways to interpret the necessity of re-igniting the sun (which is viewed at as a positively good thing).
1. That no God is watching out for us, and so we must take care of ourselves. We must act as our own “God” (I use that in a purely ironic sense, and imply no spirituality whatsoever).
2. That if there is a God, we ought to defy him.
I would suggest it leans to the former, but both things can be—and I believe are being—said.
Ultimately, it’s a movie about human strength. Religion is a bane to human strength. Religion teaches us to be “humble” (where humility assumes the perpetual comparison with God—making one weak and unintelligent by comparison). It teaches that God will determine our world’s fate, and that it will be what is best for us. And perhaps beyond the perspective of this movie, it tells us what is moral and immoral. Ultimately, it is a relationship of intellectual submission and weakness.
I also find it very unnecessary to interject “ambiguous spirituality.” The entire point of the movie is that we humans can be beautiful, amazing, and magnificent all by ourselves. Thus, I find that throwing any sort of “spiritual” or supernatural aspect into the movie—where it doesn’t belong—is an insult to its message. Once again, human strength, human greatness…
It’s all us, and that’s the point.
|
|
|
|
Post by neiru2012 on Aug 14, 2007 18:01:22 GMT -5
According to IMDB trivia, "'Alex Garland' wrote the film as a 'love letter' to psychologically-minded science-fiction, and also a film about atheism and 'meeting God'. He and director Danny Boyle differed in their interpretation of this aspect of this film, but found this did not affect the content of the movie. Garland remarks that they had reached 'the same two interpretations that could be made from the world around us'." Meaning, I don't think the creators intended for the movie's message to be interpreted in any one way. What any individual gets from watching a movie (or the world) is completely subjective... art would be a bit boring otherwise, in my opinion. Like me, for example. If I had not read someplace that Alex wanted to pit Science against Religion, I would've seen Pinbacker and thought "enh, crazy guy on a ship *shrug*" or "finally, some action!" It would not have sent me pondering "OMGs, if the sun's dying, 'God' must want us to die! We can't question 'God'!!" because Science vs Religion is simply not an issue for me. This brings us to this idea of "God." Which God?? There's a million different ideas of "God" out there, and many of them don't disempower humanity. Just because something doesn't fit the Judeo-Christian-Muslim model of "God" does not make it "ambiguous spirituality." Naturalistic? The first God/dess honored by humans was nature. It can be argued that if Sunshine has anything to say about religion/spirituality, it is the awesome power of nature. Both an Atheist (Searle) and a Theist (Pinbacker) are transformed by the raw majesty of the sun. And if the script was also in part about "meeting God," then Capa's blissful melding with the sun might not purely be about the triumph of Atheism. But ok, lets take the Judeo-Christian-Muslim idea of God. Even then there are more than two ways to interpret the necessity of re-igniting the sun: 1. That no God is watching out for us, and so we must take care of ourselves. 2. That if there is a God, we ought to defy him. 3. That if there is a God, it must be no coincidence that the sun is dying just as humanity has acquired the knowledge to save it. Clearly God wants us to save the Earth that "he" has entrusted in our care.That is probably Pinbacker's biggest folly as far as the Judeo-Christian-Islamic model goes. He presumes to know what God's plan for humanity is, and enforces it on everyone else. He's the one playing God, as opposed to letting God "himself" prove human science futile. But, regardless of what I got out of it, I'm all for this being a pro-Atheist movie. It would not have made the same kind of impact on me if Capa wasn't. I agree that it is about human strength and achievement, and that humans are beautiful, amazing, and magnificent all by themselves. I just don't think that belief or disbelief in God/dess undermines or insults that message. It just makes that message available in several different flavors. |
|
|
|
Post by dremen on Aug 14, 2007 18:19:40 GMT -5
Well, Cillian Murphy did, himself, convert to atheism while researching the role.
You could say that it leaves open room for God, but it certainly doesn't suggest it. The idea is human strength, and while it may not be an airtight philosophy paper, its theme, I think, is suggestive enough.
As you said, the writer himself (which perhaps is more relevant for this particular aspect of them film) had atheistic intentions. Either way, the movie suggests that we can take care of ourselves - that we don't NEED God. To boot, it comments negatively on religious fanaticism.
One COULD throw some really ambiguous notion of spirituality in there, but it seems really unnecessary, and unsupported. And personally, throwing my allegiance to the writer, I view it as a bit contradictory to the theme.
|
|
bunkergate7
Communicator
"Building Better Worlds"
Posts: 84
|
Post by bunkergate7 on Aug 14, 2007 20:05:44 GMT -5
A large and central theme is that “God” or “Spirituality” is not required for beauty and, in this case, salvation. You are 110% correct in this statement (and in your argument). A "Light Year" point for you and your keen insight. |
|
|
|
Post by nimue on Aug 14, 2007 20:45:30 GMT -5
The movie has indeed touched on vital (and to some, almost dangerous) issues that has long since been argued about. Albeit, they showed it subtly.
I didn't think it was an outright attack against Religion in general though. After all, Kaneda was a Buddhist. And in a way, Athiesm is a religion too. I think mostly it sort of went against the effects of religion in us.. organized strict religion, I mean. Harvey, for example, amongst all the other crew member, was the one most scared to die. Most say, yes, it was because he wanted to see his wife again. But I think that there was more to it than that. Based on his religion, he would believe that Death is a point of uncertainty. Would he go to Heaven or Hell? Eternal damnation or eternal happiness? And uncertainty always scare most of us. This is a great contrast to the Atheists - they do not believe in any kind of afterlife (right?) and that Death was only the sure thing in the world. And they've made peace with that knowledge a long time ago. And now, they embrace it.
|
|
|
|
Post by neiru2012 on Aug 14, 2007 21:43:21 GMT -5
Harvey, for example, amongst all the other crew member, was the one most scared to die. *nod nod* I think a lot of people turn to religion because they're afraid of death and find comfort in believing they have answers for the unknown. But maybe that fear never really goes away because they don't make peace with death in the way Atheists do. Either way, the movie suggests that we can take care of ourselves - that we don't NEED God. To boot, it comments negatively on religious fanaticism. The movie does both these things very well. I think religious fanaticism is key here, though, not spirit/religion in general. They are not a central to the movie, but I do find spiritual overtones in Searle and Kaneda's fascination with the sun, even dying by the sun. Just goes to show how many layers and interpertations there are to the movie. The Power-of-God versus the Power-of-Man is the most blatant issue presented, and I think your analysis of Alex's message is spot on. But I think the movie has a life of its own by now and people are noticing things the creators might not even have intended. There's no need to insert spirituality, but if you do, it yields a number of new perspectives that still fit with the content of the film. I see the sun as the focal point of the movie. I think it is symbolic of what humans would normally call God. When I think about how differently it affects members of both Icarus crews, I see it as several obververs drawing subjective conclusions based on the same objective reality. It could range from Pinbacker's fanaticism, to Searle/Kaneda's reverence, to Capa's thirst for knowledge, to Mace's apparent ambivalence. I think this is an accurate spectrum of human reactions to God and spirit. It also shows how it only takes one zealot to ruin it for everybody. |
|
|
|
Post by cococi on Sept 1, 2007 16:40:46 GMT -5
I say that in the end it all comes up to ur brain u decide there are a milion correct answer but only a few if not one is not "correct" for u think at this for a moment ... in the end nobody proved god exist but i still bellieve cause that gives us a chance in salvation and life after death could u imagine not existance afte death ? i think not .. now i would continue whit after-life philosophy but i dont see the point so i end here  gn pp |
|
|
|
Post by chancesundance on Sept 10, 2007 18:24:32 GMT -5
Just keep in mind that WE ALL are "mere 3-dimensional beings (if you don"t count time as a extra dimension) with limited 5 senses. We can"t even see the infra-red spectrum without special equipment. In the end all (God too) are "just" concepts CREATED BY OUR MINDS ... Life itself is (in my opinion) one singularity (embodiement of all there is) that became Self-aware , that divided Itself (Big Bang???)up into discreet parts of Itself that stride the universe on all planes of existence in order to gain a GREATER SELF-KNOWLEDGE .... So in fact are we all One , our illusionary "individuality" is created by little variables in our "programming" called EGO ... (my bet is that Quantum-Mechanics will prove in the near future that we all are just 1 super-conciousness) So yes I believe that there is a god , just look into the mirror and you"ll see 1 facet of God. We human beings are our OWN CREATORS living as our own creations .... But ..to be fair....this too is just a concept created by my MIND  There is truth in Socrates words when he said that there"s wisdom in knowing WE know close to NOTHING ..... |
|
|
|
Post by andymeth on Aug 3, 2008 10:40:38 GMT -5
Hi all,
I’m probably a year or so late with this, but I’ve just seen Sunshine for the first time. My initial reaction was: “Yeah, pretty good. Amazing cinematography/special effects. Impressive performances by Murphy and Evans. Bit disappointed that Pinbacker turned it into a horror film…”
Thing is, it is a film that gets you thinking and I love films like that! And, having read around it a bit on this site and others, I think the Pinbacker character is central to Garland’s anti-religion, pro-atheism theme. Here is a guy that is obviously a genius (you don’t get to captain the mission to save mankind without knowing a thing or two) and gets so close to fulfilling his purpose, but then puts his ship in orbit around the sun. Why does he do this? It is his religion, or more specifically his relationship with God – “My God” as he says to Cappa. His personal understanding of God and His wishes leads Pinbacker to refuse mankind another chance, then attempts to stop the second mission too. The advancement of our species is therefore held back by Pinbacker’s/our understanding of God’s will. Not only that, but it holds back technology from aiding mankind.
(Pinbacker is supposedly named after the Sergeant in Dark Star, which I haven’t seen. Might be a bit of a jump, but “to pinback” obviously means “to hold back” so maybe the name is open to a more literal interpretation?)
Another point that interested me is that the Searle character can be seen as the mirror image of Pinbacker, as suggested by Cliff Curtis. Both have spent too long in the observation room with the filter too low, as shown by Searle’s deteriorating skin and Capa finding Pinbacker there on the Icarus II. But as Curtis sums up: “…even though you could see the similarities Searle is, by his nature, good, and so under the same circumstances as Pinbacker he would sacrifice those beliefs and views, his life, for the greater good, whereas Pinbacker, who's come to a place he believes is right, would sacrifice the world for his beliefs. They're two sides of the coin.”
This seems to relate to the idea that Searle is named after the American philosopher John Searle (suggested on this site), who proposed the Chinese Room thought experiment. The basic theory is that just because you (or a computer) can translate individual Chinese symbols and provide a believable response in Chinese, does not mean that you understand Chinese. Searle in Sunshine, as Pinbacker did, believes he can see God or His will by staring in to the sun light – however, just because they can see individual symbols, doesn’t mean that they understand. Ultimately, Searle sacrifices himself for the mission and the species by staying on the original Icarus to save the others, whereas Pinbacker swaps places with him onboard the Icarus II and tries to sacrifice the crew and mankind for his beliefs.
The Chinese Room thought experiment in the context of the film can be extended to the real world, that people think they understand God or can prove the existence of God from individual symbols found around us in nature, to the detriment of the species. Therefore man’s relationship with God has a negative impact on mankind, which is an atheist premise that I personally subscribe to.
It has been really interesting looking in to it all, and added a lot more to my appreciation of the film. What do you think? Was it all intended by Garland and Boyle, or I am seeing individual symbols and putting them together??
Andy
|
|
|
|
Post by untitled on Aug 5, 2008 17:45:13 GMT -5
The problem with religion and atheism both is that they have an internal logic that is incontrovertible.
If you buy Pinbacker's precepts -- which most people wouldn't, of course, but we have a vested interest in our own survival -- than his actions are perfectly logical.
Also, the fact that Capa is ultimately victorious does not render Pinbacker's perspective as inferior. If Pinbacker succeeds in destroying Icarus II, would we think Capa was wrong to try? Of course not.
Don't get me wrong -- arguing on behalf of Pinbacker is purely an academic pose. I don't and would never agree with him. But I can see why someone would think the way he does.
|
|
|
|
Post by critter on Dec 29, 2008 2:42:30 GMT -5
the strength of 'sunshine' is shown in the fact that its story needs no
embellishment or hint of "meaning". 'sunshine' is the most successful
sci-fi space epic of all time because of its simplicity : tell the story of a
group of humans in a drastic, dangerous and uncertain environment.
if it ain't broke, don't fix it.
|
|
|
|
Post by kagmi on Jan 1, 2009 17:23:13 GMT -5
I wondered about the science versus religion thing when watching the movie. On one hand, it seemed to pit the two against each other very starkly in Pinbacker--but at the same time Pinbacker was such an extreme character that he could hardly be representative of all religion. And religion was hardly the only thing that could have corrupted a man to that degree.
I agree both that this is a pro-atheistic movie and that it's a pro-spirituality movie. Spirituality, in my mind, does not necessarily mean injecting some outside, inhuman, supernatural force. Physics can be a deeply spiritual discipline, as we see with Capa.
|
|
|
|
Post by james5 on Aug 1, 2009 19:09:18 GMT -5
Ultimately, it’s a movie about human strength. Religion is a bane to human strength. Religion teaches us to be “humble” (where humility assumes the perpetual comparison with God—making one weak and unintelligent by comparison). It teaches that God will determine our world’s fate, and that it will be what is best for us. And perhaps beyond the perspective of this movie, it tells us what is moral and immoral. Ultimately, it is a relationship of intellectual submission and weakness. Wow. That has to be one of the smartest paragraphs about religion that I've ever read. I wish the author could offer some literature for further reading. |
|
|
|
Post by perfectsoul on Aug 1, 2009 19:43:06 GMT -5
Ultimately, it’s a movie about human strength. Religion is a bane to human strength. Religion teaches us to be “humble” (where humility assumes the perpetual comparison with God—making one weak and unintelligent by comparison). It teaches that God will determine our world’s fate, and that it will be what is best for us. And perhaps beyond the perspective of this movie, it tells us what is moral and immoral. Ultimately, it is a relationship of intellectual submission and weakness.
Wow. That has to be one of the smartest paragraphs about religion that I've ever read. I wish the author could offer some literature for further reading.
ROFL yeah i do agree with you james5
|
|
gn pp
