So, I should be grading papers and reading Titus Andronicus but I just watched Sunshine instead. It was, an interesting movie. Better than I expected, I won't lie. I don't know that I would call it great, but perhaps good. I think it is worthy of a B at least, perhaps even a B+.

The music was surprisingly moving, and it was as depressing as I thought it would be. What's more, after watching the movie and conducting a little bit of research myself I've discovered that the science isn't all bad. That was a pleasant surprise. It assumes certain theoretical principles to be true, but I can accept that under suspension of disbelief. When I first saw the preview I thought it was about detonating a bomb in the sun to reignite it because...just because. All of a sudden the sun was burning up a few eons early. Not to mention, if the sun were just running out of fuel it wouldn't really be reignitable. Thankfully that was not the case. Nope, they used some theory that I'd never really spent much time considering, but I can buy it for the purposes of the movie.

It didn't quite succeed at the moral/ethical dilemma, however. Specifically because the situations presented don't have enough gray area to provide a true morality issue--at least, in my opinion. Should they kill one crew member so that the rest can live long enough to deliver the payload, after which time they will die too? Everybody's going to die, one crew member is mentally incapacitated. Call me cold, but there isn't much of a dilemma there. You're trying to save humanity after all, and you all already willingly entered into the situation.

Now, on top of that, there isn't really any back story into the characters at all, and yet it somehow manages to provide an incredibly well done character-driven plot. I have no idea how this is accomplished myself. It wasn't even until most of the movie was gone that I realized I wished I had more story on some of the other characters. Somehow the use of archetype was done originally enough that I accepted it, didn't realize I accepted it, and moved past it. Surprising. I couldn't even bring myself to look away long enough to grade papers--how crazy is that?

This movie did cause me to rethink the position of hero. Well, not so much rethink, as to revisit previous thoughts. I've decided there really is no benefit to being a hero. Humanity, civilization, people, however, need them. Sometimes someone has to do something to save everyone else, almost always at the cost of their own life. That is not a great job. Sure, you're remembered forever, but you're dead however many years prematurely. It's an unfortunate side effect of heroism. And this makes me consider the role of heroism in our society. Why are heroes lauded so publicly? Self-sacrifice is praised above all else while we all simultaneously strive to find ways to prolong our own lives. We love icons like James Bond who somehow, always find a way, but part of that (for me certainly and I would guess for others) is that he survives.

And this thought plays directly into the concept of nobility. There are certain behaviors in which I have to engage in order to be able to stand myself (see the previous post on freedom) but are these behaviors inherent or learned? And does it matter? And is it a good thing one way or the other? My cousin and I had an ongoing debate for years after she posed the question "are people inherently good or evil?" I claimed, and would still maintain, the answer is both, but that nurture significantly affects nature. Due to my spiritual beliefs I don't believe we are all blank slates, but I do believe we are malleable. So, what happens if our malleability results in a willingness to sacrifice ourselves for the greater good? Is a willingness to die for others an evolutionary benefit?

It's sort of a weird thought, I'll grant you. And perhaps the problem isn't a willingness to sacrifice one's self for their beliefs or others, but the prevalence of others to exploit that. Perhaps in this particular era when propaganda once again graces the silver screen demanding that you do what is asked of you, my questioning of social inspired nobility is only natural. And then I have to wonder, are there different types of nobility? Obviously there are, but what I mean is, are there people who would do what they have to do no matter the situation, and are there people who do it because society has brainwashed them into thinking they must? This is becoming significantly more complex than planned. And I don't have any answers.

Perhaps my answer is that I do believe in both. If only because of the presence of rebels who thwart society at every turn, but would throw themselves in front of a bus to save an old lady, and people who swallow all that is told to them whole pill, and interact "appropriately" because they are too scared, or too stupid, to consider otherwise. I've known both of those people, and perhaps at some point in my life I have been both of those people. Which is better? I would say the second is better for society, but which is better for humanity? And which do you want on a ship flying to reignite the sun, humanity's last hope?