9.15.2010

Jesus the Irreverent Cro-Magnon

I have a big weakness for well written science fiction. It seems that sci-fi movies these days are all flash and no substance. The latest installment of Star Trek is a good example of that. I don't even know where to begin with that movie. It's more like badly written fan fiction rather than an actual Trek movie. Sure, there were lots of explosions, anachronisms, continuity errors, and the like, but at least there was some hot Uhura sexin', right? You don't need a story as long as you have a giant monster, explosions, and some sex! Stories are for losers anyway. I mean who wants their movies filled with deep questions like the nature of self or what constitutes life, when you can explode something? If you're wondering what that high pitch whining noise is, well that's the sounds of my neurons bursting at the speed of light(I may have crossed the streams).


It's often a surprise to me when I see a movie that's actually good(science fiction or not) these days. After the atrocity that was Battlefield Earth, I had lost almost all hope for the future of humanity(and cinema). So it was a mammoth surprise to me when I saw a little movie called The Man From Earth. It's a film that is stunning in its simplicity(there's not even ONE explosion in the whole thing). It manages to be completely compelling with only a single location and a small cast of characters. I found it to be not only refreshing, but totally engrossing. Even though I've seen the movie a dozen times or more, I always find myself enthralled by it and unable to tear myself away.


This movie is the last work of Jerome Bixby, who wrote some of the best stories, including some of the Original Series of Star Trek and Twilight Zone. Appropriately enough, three of the cast members of the movie are veterans of Star Trek(John Billingsley, Tony Todd, and Richard Riehle). Those of you that don't like spoilers, you may want to stop reading here. For those of you that don't care(like myself), feel free to read on.


The story opens with John Oldman, a man who claims to have lived through 140 centuries of human history. He is caught be his friends and co-workers before he can leave and start a new life. They seem intent on discovering his reasons for leaving them and his career so suddenly. As they continue to question, he begins to reveal a few bits of information. He first talks of it like a science fiction story, but gradually he starts to show that he is talking about himself. The reaction to the idea of him being an immortal "caveman" is rather divided. Some go with it while others think he is completely out of his mind.


Eventually, through the course of their discussions with John, they ask the almost obvious question: "Were you in the Bible?" Until this point everything was fairly sane, but once the you mention the Bible, things start to go a little awry. John tries to avoid the question, but ultimately he is forced answer it. He talks of how he learned from the Buddha and eventually returned west. When he starts talking about the Roman empire and wanting to teach what he learned from the Buddha, they quickly surmise who he was in Biblical history. That's right, he was Jesus. The biologist among them(John Billingsley) is completely entertained by the idea. But the devout Christian(Ellen Crawford) is utterly distraught by the very notion(naturally).


I have to say that it seems quite natural for a 14,000 year old man to be an atheist. He would have seen the birth of almost all of the modern religions. Not to mention the fact that he doesn't have one of the biggest motivators that most have for believing; the fear of death. It really weakens the whole idea of an afterlife when time can't even wrinkle your skin, let alone kill you. The fear of death is a universal thing and it is probably the single greatest hold that religion has on people. If it were to vanish, I can imagine that religion would quickly die and disappear.


In the end John decides to tell them all it was just a story, a joke. This causes a great deal of anger and frustration, but eventually it all calms down. As people are leaving John starts talking with Sandy outside(Annika Peterson) about the whole thing. She doesn't believe that he would contrive such a story and abuse the good will of others. After a few others leave, she asks him what other pun names he has used over the years. As he answers her with the name John Thomas Partee, the last remaining guest, Dr. Gruber(Richard Riehle) is shocked by hearing the name of his father. John instantly realizes that his colleague, Will Gruber, is actually his adult son. John talks to Will and shows intimate knowledge of his childhood. It is sadly, entirely too much for Will and he suffers a heart attack and dies. It becomes clear that John has never seen one of his children die.


After the the police come and take the body of Will away, John prepares to leave and move on yet again. John starts to drive away, seemingly leaving everything behind again, but he stops. The movie ends with Sandy joining John in his truck, apparently deciding to start a new life with him.


The movie deals with many ideas as it progresses. From concept of immortality and god, to that of loss and death. It's fairly easy to imagine living for 14,000 years, but reality hits hard when you start to realize all that you would lose in that time. Long life brings with it the cost of losing those dearest to you. John had not only gotten over the idea of god, but also the idea of true love. It's a sobering thought to picture the vast stretches of time from that perspective. This movie challenges the mind to think and imagine, rather than simply tell us what we should think with the same old regurgitated drivel. If you like a movie that offers up a wide palette of concepts and forces you to imagine, then this is something you might enjoy.

1 comment:

  1. I mostly agree with you - this movie is immense; and I wonder what would happen if you added all the things Eye-SciFi has on top. Would it compel the audience, I wonder? Attract more viewers?
    What I cannot agree on is the statement that you say John is atheist. The premise of atheism is to deny the existence of any form of "god": "I suffer, so where is that 'god' you speak of?"
    From his own words, the script, he is more an agnostic - one who neither denies nor believes the existence of a higher being due to improbability and disillusion.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism

    ReplyDelete