1. 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 budget
(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
would probably be significantly lower than the original film dialogue and only attract Sunshine
enthusiasts or those interested in physics.
1

2. Jack Oughton Sunshine SP1S09
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.
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
2

3. Jack Oughton Sunshine SP1S09
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
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.
3

4. Jack Oughton Sunshine SP1S09
The science communication may have needed improvement, but Sunshine’s visuals were astounding.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[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/article1598953.ec
e. Accessed on 01/12/2007
[5]http://film.guardian.co.uk/News_Story/Critic_Review/Guardian_review/0,,2060703,00.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
4