Title: Sunshine |
Release Date: 2000 |
Nationality and Language: Uk/Canada/Hungary/Germany: English |
Running time: about 180 Minutes |
MPAA Rating: R |
Distributor and Production
Company: Paramount Classics, Aliance-Atlantis
Pictures, Seredipty |
Director;
Writer: Istvan Szabo, music by Maruice Jarre |
Producer: |
Cast: Ralph Fiennes, Rosemary Harris,
Rachel Welsz, Jennifer Ehle, Deborah Unger, Molly Parker, William Hurt |
Technical: 1.6 to 1, Digital CD
on Milan records 7313835992-2 |
Relevance to doaskdotell site:
epic historical film-making with emphasis on freedom |
Review: The most important virtue is to see clearly and to be seen
clearly.” Welcome back to epic filmmaking, on the scale of earlier
films like Dr. Zhivago and Reds. I
don’t’ know why this hasn’t been marketed for wider studio release. Today’s
younger audiences don’t realize what happened in the generations that led to
today’s prosperity. The audience, when I saw this film at the
Uptown in Minneapolis, was older. The story follows three generations of a Hungarian Jewish family, Sonnenschein (“Sunshine”)
through three male protagonists, all played by Ralph Fiennes., as narrated by
the youngest of the three men who first tells the story of his grandfather
and father before his own. The three generations dealt with the
corruption fall of the Austro-Hungarian Empire, leading to the shell-shock of World War I, to the Nazi era and the
concentration camps, to Stalin and the crushing of the Hungarian revolt in
1956. In all three stories the Fiennes character compromises
somewhat with his sense of morality in order to “fit in” and enjoy the
trappings of success, only to have to deal with the consequences of his
choice. The oldest Sonnenschein,
having brought up his siblings after his father was killed in accident, gets
his doctor of laws and joins the establishment as a
judge, but only after changing the family name to a Hungarian
one. Much is made of the “liberal” empire and of fitting in,
overlooking the corruption, while the brother brings risk to the family by
his outspoken socialist activities. Despite the “liberalism,” early 2-th
Century Europe had tremendous differences between the well-to-do and the
poor. Fiennes always notices a twang of discomfort in himself, but goes a long and gradually becomes corrupted.
In the second episode, the protagonist becomes a fencer at the 1936 Olympics,
but only after learning to fence left-handed and to take himself the way he
is. He changes his religion to Catholicism, and
is apparently exempt from all the anti-Jewish laws, which were designed to
keep the Jews out of a position to write and publish and exert cultural
influence as well as most other professions. But the Nazis
eventually come after him anyway, and in a chilling scene he is tortured,
while maintaining his identity and success, and frozen to death inside a
mummy created by freezing rain as he hangs from a pole. The youngest one becomes a policeman in iron
curtain Hungary, but then becomes disenchanted when asked to hunt down
fellow Jews. He finally participates in the 1956 revolt and is
imprisoned. After getting out, he changes his name back to Sonnenschein and walks the quaint streets with
pride. The treatment of entrenched anti-Semitism reminds me of
the cultural attitude towards gays today in some people. The
suggestion is constantly made that the Jews somehow disrupt the cultural
order with their sophistry and with their ability to create a cohesive
intellectual culture at tugs at the society around it. The Jews
are also accused of cultural “freeloading,” of demeaning average working
people. Indeed, the eldest Sonnenschein warns his
sons of intellectual conceit, of feeling superior because one knows more of
the interconnections of things than do average people. Personal ambition must
be tempered by allegiance to God. And another question remains: do
people really get their identity from their cultural group, or identity
something developed within the self, and when is the sense of self inappropriate
or disruptive to the community? This film has been criticized for simply presenting too
much history for three hours, but I think that it tells a cohesive, Do Ask
Do Tell-type epic mutliple-decade story
about the evolution of personal identity against a background of rapidly
evolving political culture. This is filmmaking in the tradition of
Spielberg and even Ken Burns. One revolution will destroy what
went before it, pretend to implement moral answers based on a new ideology,
and then institute its own system of corruption and
privilege. Only the embracement individual freedom—as proclaimed
by Mel Gibson at the end of BraveHeart, can
really let moral order settle out. The casting of Ralph Fiennes as all three characters does
have the effect of merging them into one soul with successive incarnations, a
kind of vicarious immortality. The viewer develops a strong rooting interest
(the kind literary or movie agents like to see for box office prospects) only
for the last character, when he is willing to drop the charade of being
something he is not or speaking for something he really does not believe, yet
that is more a perception of hindsight. The demands of “real life”
make a lot out of adaptive choices. The music score by Maurice Jarre plays
through my head frequently. Some of it appears to be based on the obscure
f-minor piano Fantasy by Franz Schubert (not to be confused with the Wanderer
Fantasy, which I have not been able to locate yet on CD, as of 2000). When I saw this film, there was a serious situation at
work, which resolved. But that is
another reason to remember it. Here is a monologue from the film (play on YouTube). This film does give a good example of how a film can have
multiple protagonists, without losing the focus in the audience. But the example is relatively
transparent: a film that traces
generations in a family (or a film franchise, like “Godfather” movies) can
achieve this in a straightforward manner, and in that matter “teach history”
in an entertaining and captivating way.
In a screenplay of mine based on the DADT books (“Williamsburg and
Charlotte”) the protagonist shifts from my parents in the first half (how the
handling of my WM expulsion ambushed and affected them) to me for a second
half (after a critical personal incident in the movie middle) but I take over
also as narrating, a kind of Op. 111 structure. I think there are times this can work. The idea can work with “buddy movies” (Hauge) like “Bonnie
and Clyde” or “Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid”, where there is
comedy-like appeal. I personally think
it can work if a protagonist and pseudo-antagonist come together as
protagonists. In such a situation,
the filmmaker may be able to make the idea of making it a “novel” work, and let the audience in from behind as omniscient
observers (presenting separate knowledge sets for characters who will later
come together). I know screenwriting
teachers will discourage it (for less experienced writers)
but I think it can work. Sunshine (2007, Fox Searchlight / DNA, dir.
Danny Boyle, 108 min, dir. Danny Boyle, UK, R). This film is a bit like
a stageplay, with
the two spacecrafts (Icarus I, and then the
previous strip abandoned on Mercury) as the stage, giving essentially two
acts, and an epilogue. Rather than a simplified "Alien" movie,
although the story introduces a similar surprise element toward the end, it
is rather like the Hans Werner Henze opera
"The Raft of the Medusa." You know the set up -- the
payload is a huge nuclear weapon the size of Manhattan, as some sort of prion matter has infected the Sun and started
converting its helium to something non fusionable. I wonder if that is possible, in some
of these end-of-the-world scenarios we could bring on ourselves by accident.
You want to know more about how Earth could cope at all (remember the
horrible TV film "Ice"?) At the end, you'll find out at Stonehenge.
This is a British art film, of course, and I wish Cilian Murphy spoke in his native accent.
Chris Evans (ironically, the firefly in Fantastic Four) I can understand, and
he looks as compact and virile as ever. The other nationalities represented
could have spoken more idiomatically. How the crew gradually finds
out what it is like to Play God -- with each other, and with the Earth -- and
then find out another "power" of sorts plays God with them (and
wants to, whatever his hideous transformation -- there is a point to turning
into a monster movie). There is some horror -- some arms roll, and Murphy
gets ripped up but he still is around to push the
final button. There is no spoiler here; this is no Apollo 13, and there is
really no chance that they can survive as individuals. It would be an interesting
speculation what would happen if a strangelet hit
the Sun. It might convert it to
strange matter in a matter of seconds.
A (folding protein) “prion” the biological equivalent of a strangelet and can cause neurological degenerative
diseases. Oratorio-style concert
presentation of Hans Werner Henze’s “The Raft of
the Medusa” (1968), on DG; I have
the recording somewhere; YouTube. The
very end, in loud percussion, is interesting.
Here is a trailer for the film
(play on YouTube). This is unrelated to the 2000
film of the same name from Istvan Szabo (above). |