As Sunshine and Icarus II hurtle ever faster to their destination, the plot's twists lean ever more towards the demands of cinema than those of solid science. But you don't go to a blockbuster film to be entertained by two hours of fastidiously researched plausibility.Emphasis mine. I could not agree more. And I did enjoy the film, but it drags behind other Boyle's jewels.
Danny Boyle makes it to nature
Eva pointed me to this nature feature on Danny Boyle's new film sunshine. My favourite bit:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
"you don't go to a BLOCKBUSTER film to be entertained by two hours of fastidiously researched plausibility".
Blockbuster movies are just one sort of movies. Plausibility can be asessed on many grounds. I would say every movie sets its own verisimilitude standard, mostly on emotional terms. Plausibility is, then, located in the characters and their actions: do they make sense emotionally? This goes mostly for blockbuster movies. However, many other films set either higher verisimilitude standards for their own construction, or higher "suspension-of-disbelief" requierements for the audience. Take, for instance, von Trier's "Manderlay". It is both very strict towards its own plot, and very demanding from the audience. Of course, there are also films that throw away the whole reference to reality, and depend only on their formal construction. This is another matter.
Blockbusters are usually much less crafted - they sure use some techniques, but in a rather hurried and clumsy manner. Not only do they fail to display any (scientific) plausibility, they usually also lack emotional verisimilitude. I have not seen Sunshine, but I have seen the trailer and some tv discussion on it. It does appear to be quite contrived.
shoegazer
May 18, 2007 at 3:35 AM