Mike says when I watched
Man From Earth for the very first time, I was in awe. I had never seen a sci-fi movie quite like it. In the beginning, when John first begins telling his story, drum beats appear in the background. When I heard this, I sat waiting for a flashback, as years of sci-fi viewing had prepared me for. Imagine my immense surprise when, instead of a flashback, John sits down and continues to tell his story.
The presentation and format of the movie astounds me as does the acting. The film is crisp, imaginative, and original in its take. And John's realistic, everyman approach to the topic is very cool. But the movie is not without some flaws.
You know, Kate, I have to agree with you: the movie does decline a bit once John moves from watching history to influencing history. The "big twist" in the story is fairly controversial, and I had to say I saw it coming when John talked about some of the things he had done to switch identities. The turn in the plot was a little disappointing to me because it moved the story from speculative fiction to preachy, political fiction. John didn't just have an interesting story but also a message and a moral to teach.
While I'm sure a man that old would have some collected wisdom, I too find it hard to swallow that he would have such a clear and defined message, especially, as Kate said, one collected from so many famous characters in history.
To be fair, though, celebrities of history were rarely so when they were alive. I think most stories focusing on immortality feel it's expected, or even required, to throw in some historical figures to add historical landmarks and credibility to the main character's story.
Though I can also see someone living that long and missing most, or all, major historical events.
In the end, I do love this movie. Despite the heavy-handed political message, the film is wonderfully unique and bold and finds a way to give the viewer so much story while showing them so little. While watching this movie, I felt that I was in the cabin with John and his friends, a stunned spectator, made mute by the sheer boldness and immensity of John's claims. It takes a special film to do that, and because of that,
Man From Earth remains one of my favorite films.
Kate says I found the concept and presentation of this film very compelling. I've always been partial to play-like films (
Rear Window,
Rope, etc.), and the dialog, especially in the beginning, is very natural. The people gathered are believably friends/colleagues/students.
And the film's concept brings up many interesting ideas: The idea of a man claiming to be 14,000 years old may not sound like much, but it introduces a lot of questions: Is a long life worth it? What does a person really remember from the past? What constitutes proof? How do people react to the unbelievable? Is John joking or is he trying to communicate who he really is?
I especially liked John's (early) distinction between knowledge and retrospect: things precede reality. He knows NOW what he was (Cro-Magnon), but he didn't know until the term was invented. I find this a fascinating idea. I liked the insider's perspective of history being what we can actually deal with on any given day. We don't see patterns until that day/week/year/decade/century is over. Likewise, John isn't a genius; just because he has lived a long time doesn't mean he can stay ahead of the experts in any particular field. The actual experience of living in a body will be limited, no matter what the conditions.
And then (I'm so sorry, Mike!), the movie and I stopped riding on the same wavelength.
I can actually pinpoint when it happened--it was when John claimed to know Van Gogh and then Buddha.
My reaction was exasperation. Why is it that people with past lives or people who have lived forever always have to know famous people? Why don't they just know that guy who ran the fish stand in Istanbul? Why aren't their day planners filled with "Bobs" and "Jills" rather than Columbus and Attila the Hun? Even if I lived 10,000 years, I doubt my circle would enlarge to include Hollywood magnets and political personalities, especially if I had to establish a new identity every few years: networking is based on who you know over time, but you have to go on knowing those people!
The movie begins with John trying to explain what life means from the perspective of living 14,000 years as an ordinary, every day guy. It actually ended this way too, which I appreciated. But in the middle, John becomes
that guy: that wise guru guy who is speaking truth to people who don't want to listen. (Basically, the film turns into "The Grand Inquisitor"). Despite John's disclaimers, both the camera and his listeners treat him this way. That is, we, the audience are supposed to be awed by him.
I was disappointed partly because I thought the idea of living through history as a nobody to be really fascinating and partly because the wise guru stuff was something of a let-down. When Art says, "This is all textbook," he's kind of right, not only in terms of the history but in terms of philosophy.
I guess I expected John's perspective to be a little more unusual, a little less world-weary, a little less cynical about the things modern people are acceptably cynical about, a little less revisionist, a little more . . . caveman. I expected him not to be
unmodern but
amodern.
I don't want to give too much away, but Jerome Bixby, the writer, was a Classic
Star Trek writer.
Star Trek--which I love!--promotes the sci-fi idea of a continually improving world. That is, we are constantly evolving into better human beings in a better society. I kind of agree with this--medicine, American democracy--and I kind of don't.
Part of what I don't agree with is the idea that we modern people can see through the falsehoods of the past. That idea is tied into the assumption that the modern perspective IS "the way things are." There's never this niggling doubt that in 100 years what we consider to be "the way things are" will seem totally erroneous to our descendants. I guess every generation has to remake itself by beating up on the generation before, but I don't get into that any more than I get into glorifying the past. Life is just . . . life. Human nature is human nature. We have more information than our ancestors; that doesn't mean Aristotle was wrong.
Man from Earth definitely promotes the skeptical, modern perspective of the past, and I found this a tad disappointing. I feel more sympathy with the cavemen in GEICO ads: we're not all modern like you people, but we can still sue you!
On reflection, I think there are actually two stories in this movie, both of which are interesting: the caveman story and the "The Grand Inquisitor" story. Since the movie started with the caveman story, that's what I went with; consequently, the second story was kind of downer. It's possible that if the second story had been presented by itself, I would have gotten into it more. As it is, I thought John should have had a better understanding and appreciation of his own complex history.
I'm glad I watched the movie; it got me thinking about stuff!!
