For those of you with an inquiring mind, there’s a movie out there that’s been made, wholeheartedly, just in your name.
For those of you who like independent yet high-concept and, therefore, consequently low budget Sci-fi, there’s a movie out there that’s been made, in complete sincerity, just for you.
And that movie is the 2007 indie Sci-fi flick known as ‘The Man From Earth’…
Beautifully written, so rich in its dialogue and so pristine in its historical basis, The Man From Earth is truly a treasure to witness.
When I say that it’s true to history – if only in textbook terms – I mean that as a genuine compliment.
The movie does bend history somewhat, yes, but only to convey the central characters’ very Sci-fi heavy life story – which might just be the greatest story ever told!
What the film doesn’t do is try to ‘Hollywoodise’ its presentation of history for audience entertainment or to convey a certain agenda.
And that can be quite a glaring problem for mainstream audiences.
You see, the version of history the film presents is so rich, so meticulous and so intellectually testing, that it’s simply not ‘low key’ enough to be presented as anything other than pretentious exposition for that type of audience.
Many of them simply don’t have the time or the patience to listen to exposition.
Then again, this entire film is simply one long conversation set within one room.
And it’s glorious!
That, combined with its risky – maybe even disrespectful – acknowledgement of historical (and religious) events, are among the many reasons why I adore this movie.
And this is also where my synopsis for the film comes in…
The Man From Earth is essentially about a 14,000 year old cro-magnon (a type of caveman) who has survived until the present day.
Every 10 years, before people start to notice he’s not aging, he decides to ‘move on’ and relocate.
Now at the end of another 10 year cycle, he’s decided to throw a goodbye party and invite over a group of university lecturers who he’s come to think of as friends.
As a favour to them – and himself – he’s now decided to tell them the truth.
None of them believe him at first, but then as his explanation starts to sound more and more credible – through his incredibly accurate accounting of historical events, of which he claims to be a part of – the more the other intellectuals start to see eye to eye with his story.
And in the end, the characters, and the audience, are left wondering whether his story was true or not.
Nothing was glamourised. Nothing was forced down your throat.
All that was presented was one man’s version of events.
You can either side with him or you can side with the intellectuals he’s in conversation with throughout the film.
And that, ladies and gentlemen, is why I love this movie. There’s no solidarity, just pure historical subjectivity.