The Man From Earth, Seen It?

[Christopher]

The Man from Earth actually has been done as a stage play. But I don't have a problem with a movie being done that way. Look at Twelve Angry Men. The film is basically the same as the stage play, with only a couple of scenes outside the jury room, the courtroom stuff at the beginning and the bit on the courthouse steps at the end. But it's still a classic movie. There's nothing wrong with a film that's just one big conversation exploring ideas and characters. No need to toss in flashbacks or special effects or anything.

People above have mentioned John Billingsley, Tony Todd, and Richard Riehle, but the film's lead, David Lee Smith, is also a Trek alumnus; he played Kes's forgettable love interest Zahir in Voyager: "Darkling."

Excerpting my review from my blog:

The Man from Earth was Bixby’s final work before he died, literally completed on his deathbed and filmed posthumously, and ironically it’s a return to the same premise as “Requiem for Methuselah,” the story of an immortal man who has lived down through the ages, changing identities as he went. Although, in fact, he conceived this idea in the early ’60s, making it almost certainly the source for “Requiem.” Fittingly, the concept endured and went through multiple lives.
...
It’s not a perfect movie. While most of the anthropology, history, religious scholarship, and the like underlying the story is pretty sound, there’s a glaring historical error early on when John claims that he sailed with Columbus and that people in that time actually believed the world was flat (a myth invented by Washington Irving and others centuries later as a way of ridiculing the traditional institutions of Europe and mythologizing Columbus as an Enlightenment hero). And the event toward the end that finally provides proof of John’s tale for at least one character is very coincidental and contrived, yet still affecting. But it’s great to see a science-fiction film that’s driven entirely by the exploration of ideas and characters rather than action and spectacle. And most of the 80-plus-minute conversation that makes up the film is quite engaging and far-reaching in its ideas.

The film even critiques some of Bixby’s assumptions in “Requiem for Methuselah,” for instance, refuting the notion that an immortal could be any more brilliant or educated than the contemporary state of the art in the world, because he’d have to gain new understandings along with them. And it dodges the notion that John is immune to death by violence, which actually feels implausible given that he’s lived more than twice as long as “Requiem”‘s Flint, and lived through times when death by violence, whether by predatory animals, invading hordes, or inquisitions, could be hard to avoid. (At first, I was almost hoping John could be interpreted as a younger Flint, but his life story was too different, and both Billingsley’s and Todd’s characters made references to Star Trek as a fictional entity.)
...
Overall, the cast was reasonably good, particularly Tony Todd; it was interesting to see him playing a calm, easygoing, bookish professor, against his usual type. I found Billingsley a little too broad and comical, Riehle a little too strident, and lead actor Smith a little bland, though reasonably effective. Still, overall the ensemble did all right with the material.

 

[Myasishchev]

I'm trying to recall the "world is flat" line--was I incorrect to interpret that as "yeah, I intellectually knew it was round, but there was this childish fear of falling off the edge I couldn't quite shake"?

The part I liked best was that his memory of his past was really cloudy, which would be true of any adult human, but even worse for him because other than truly salient events, his brain had probably been overwritten three or four times over. That is, I liked the idea that there's not much point in being immortal, besides inertia, if you're still limited to human cognitive capabilities.

I also liked the implication that this was going to be the last time he was even capable of switching identities, and that the world had gotten so well-ordered that the next time--or even this time--he was going to be caught, and that's why he wanted a friendly audience before he had to face, in a few decades, a far less forgiving one.

At the same time, you know what the best defense to being studied and vivisected would be? Going public. It's hard to vivisect a celebrity who has legal representation. I've always found it the height of paranoia that the public and the U.S. court system would permit anyone to be indefinitely detained for study or straight-up murdered just because they're immortal, but you see that nonsense in virtually every immortal-guy fiction.

Also, the fact that John Savage hasn't spontaneously offered his services to the fight against cancer and aging kind of makes him a bad person, doesn't it? All those people were pretty old. "So, I'm Richard Riehle and I'm like 125, but you're a biological, scientifically-explainable immortal and you're wasting your time teaching history? You're an asshole."

 

[Christopher]

I'm trying to recall the "world is flat" line--was I incorrect to interpret that as "yeah, I intellectually knew it was round, but there was this childish fear of falling off the edge I couldn't quite shake"?

My point is, nobody back then, at least nobody with any degree of education or travel experience, actually believed the Earth was flat. It was common knowledge that it was round, and it had been for millennia. Anyone who'd gone more than a few miles from home could see that distant places fell below the horizon, and that the surface of the world must therefore be curved. So maybe people who'd spent their whole lives in one village might think the world was flat, but certainly any mariners would know from direct experience that the world was round, and thus would've had no fear of "falling off the edge." So having John say that here is perpetuating a latter-day myth about history, and if he'd actually lived in those times, he'd know firsthand that it was wrong.

The part I liked best was that his memory of his past was really cloudy, which would be true of any adult human, but even worse for him because other than truly salient events, his brain had probably been overwritten three or four times over. That is, I liked the idea that there's not much point in being immortal, besides inertia, if you're still limited to human cognitive capabilities.

That's the one thing that might salvage the Columbus mistake. The myth that Columbus's rivals believed the Earth was flat, invented as a piece of pro-Enlightenment political propaganda meant to ridicule the traditional institutions of royalty and church by claiming they believed something you'd have to be a blind idiot to believe, has become so pervasive in our society that there are actually history professors who believe it's true, even though it completely falls apart if you give it any thought. So maybe John's memory of those events had become overwritten by centuries of mythology about Columbus and his opposition, and he'd convinced himself that he and his shipmates had genuinely feared "falling off the edge."

Which is quite plausible. It's easy to contaminate your memories with latter-day assumptions and expectations. When you recall something, you're dredging up fragments of stored images and concepts and impressions and trying to fit them into a narrative of what happened, and every time you do that, you rewrite the narrative a little. Given centuries to do so, you could easily overwrite the whole thing until the point that your firsthand memories were no more reliable than myths.

Which actually offers an interesting way of looking at the film. John claims to be, shall we say, a rather pivotal historical figure, and he probably genuinely believes it by now, but it might not be true at all. It might just be something that started out as a speculation, or something that other people asked of him (because if his memory is flawed, we can't be sure he hasn't revealed his immortality to others before), and that he heard and thought about so many times over the centuries that he lost track of the difference between that idea and his real memories. A self-created myth overwriting the truth even within his own mind.

Of course, I'd prefer it if that weren't the case, because it would defang the film's marvelous subversiveness, but it's an interesting thought.

At the same time, you know what the best defense to being studied and vivisected would be? Going public. It's hard to vivisect a celebrity who has legal representation. I've always found it the height of paranoia that the public and the U.S. court system would permit anyone to be indefinitely detained for study or straight-up murdered just because they're immortal, but you see that nonsense in virtually every immortal-guy fiction.

Or alien fiction, or you-name-it. The secrecy is a story conceit to allow the audience to pretend the story is happening in the real world, but you're right, it often works against the best interests of the characters.

Also, the fact that John Savage hasn't spontaneously offered his services to the fight against cancer and aging kind of makes him a bad person, doesn't it?

He went by the name John Oldman. I think you're confusing him with Vandal Savage from DC Comics. Or the guy who played Captain Ransom on Voyager.

 

[Myasishchev]

You're right. Or maybe Dan Savage. Oops.

Which actually offers an interesting way of looking at the film. John claims to be, shall we say, a rather pivotal historical figure, and he probably genuinely believes it by now, but it might not be true at all. It might just be something that started out as a speculation, or something that other people asked of him (because if his memory is flawed, we can't be sure he hasn't revealed his immortality to others before), and that he heard and thought about so many times over the centuries that he lost track of the difference between that idea and his real memories. A self-created myth overwriting the truth even within his own mind.

Of course, I'd prefer it if that weren't the case, because it would defang the film's marvelous subversiveness, but it's an interesting thought.

Hm, hadn't thought of it like that. I dunno, though--"being

Spoiler: people who haven't seen movies shouldn't read discussions of those movies

Jesus

" is probably one of those salient events that would carry over when the entirety of the years 427-585 are completely forgotten.

Or alien fiction, or you-name-it. The secrecy is a story conceit to allow the audience to pretend the story is happening in the real world, but you're right, it often works against the best interests of the characters.

I guess that's true. I wonder if that's ever been done? Probably in comics, but the immortality is usually in the context of a more immediately important issues, like "Hyperion has dissolved the United States government" or "the Miraclepeople have destroyed London."

There's a neat blog by a lawyer that goes into, amongst other things, how difficult it would be for an immortal like Vandal Savage to operate secretly. Of course, the thing is, it's only by about 1946 (i.e., after the Nuremberg Trials) or so that I would imagine that what I said before really holds up. Prior to that, we didn't mind putting people in camps for being Japanese, and not a long time before that we owned folks as chattel, and not too much longer before devils and witches were widely conceived to be real, or at least possible, so the idea of a court declining to accept an immortal as a person is distressingly plausible.

 

[Myasishchev]

You're right. Or maybe Dan Savage. Oops.

Which actually offers an interesting way of looking at the film. John claims to be, shall we say, a rather pivotal historical figure, and he probably genuinely believes it by now, but it might not be true at all. It might just be something that started out as a speculation, or something that other people asked of him (because if his memory is flawed, we can't be sure he hasn't revealed his immortality to others before), and that he heard and thought about so many times over the centuries that he lost track of the difference between that idea and his real memories. A self-created myth overwriting the truth even within his own mind.

Of course, I'd prefer it if that weren't the case, because it would defang the film's marvelous subversiveness, but it's an interesting thought.

Hm, hadn't thought of it like that. I dunno, though--"being

Spoiler: people who haven't seen movies shouldn't read discussions of those movies

Jesus

" is probably one of those salient events that would carry over when the entirety of the years 427-585 are completely forgotten.

Or alien fiction, or you-name-it. The secrecy is a story conceit to allow the audience to pretend the story is happening in the real world, but you're right, it often works against the best interests of the characters.

I guess that's true. I wonder if that's ever been done? Probably in comics, but the immortality is usually in the context of a more immediately important issues, like "Hyperion has dissolved the United States government" or "the Miraclepeople have destroyed London."

There's a neat blog by a lawyer that goes into, amongst other things, how difficult it would be for an immortal like Vandal Savage to operate secretly. Of course, the thing is, it's only by about 1946 (i.e., after the Nuremberg Trials) or so that I would imagine that what I said before really holds up. Prior to that, we didn't mind putting people in camps for being Japanese, and not a long time before that we owned folks as chattel, and not too much longer before devils and witches were widely conceived to be real, or at least possible, so the idea of a court declining to accept an immortal as a person is distressingly plausible.

Interestingly, the lawyer dude also points out why it would probably be necessary to have a special class of laws dealing with immortals.

Edit: John [the] Savage is the guy from Brave New World, that's what I was getting mixed up on.

 

[Harvey]

Look at Twelve Angry Men. The film is basically the same as the stage play, with only a couple of scenes outside the jury room, the courtroom stuff at the beginning and the bit on the courthouse steps at the end. But it's still a classic movie. There's nothing wrong with a film that's just one big conversation exploring ideas and characters. No need to toss in flashbacks or special effects or anything.

Twelve Angry Men is indeed terrific, but it has an incredibly strong cast, and Sidney Lumet knows how to move and place the camera in a limited space in a way that keeps things interesting. Richard Schenkman does his best in The Man Who Fell to Earth, but he's no Sidney Lumet.

 

[Nowhere Man]

The Man from Earth actually has been done as a stage play. But I don't have a problem with a movie being done that way. Look at Twelve Angry Men. The film is basically the same as the stage play, with only a couple of scenes outside the jury room, the courtroom stuff at the beginning and the bit on the courthouse steps at the end. But it's still a classic movie. There's nothing wrong with a film that's just one big conversation exploring ideas and characters. No need to toss in flashbacks or special effects or anything.

People above have mentioned John Billingsley, Tony Todd, and Richard Riehle, but the film's lead, David Lee Smith, is also a Trek alumnus; he played Kes's forgettable love interest Zahir in Voyager: "Darkling."

Excerpting my review from my blog:

The Man from Earth was Bixby’s final work before he died, literally completed on his deathbed and filmed posthumously, and ironically it’s a return to the same premise as “Requiem for Methuselah,” the story of an immortal man who has lived down through the ages, changing identities as he went. Although, in fact, he conceived this idea in the early ’60s, making it almost certainly the source for “Requiem.” Fittingly, the concept endured and went through multiple lives.
...
It’s not a perfect movie. While most of the anthropology, history, religious scholarship, and the like underlying the story is pretty sound, there’s a glaring historical error early on when John claims that he sailed with Columbus and that people in that time actually believed the world was flat (a myth invented by Washington Irving and others centuries later as a way of ridiculing the traditional institutions of Europe and mythologizing Columbus as an Enlightenment hero). And the event toward the end that finally provides proof of John’s tale for at least one character is very coincidental and contrived, yet still affecting. But it’s great to see a science-fiction film that’s driven entirely by the exploration of ideas and characters rather than action and spectacle. And most of the 80-plus-minute conversation that makes up the film is quite engaging and far-reaching in its ideas.

The film even critiques some of Bixby’s assumptions in “Requiem for Methuselah,” for instance, refuting the notion that an immortal could be any more brilliant or educated than the contemporary state of the art in the world, because he’d have to gain new understandings along with them. And it dodges the notion that John is immune to death by violence, which actually feels implausible given that he’s lived more than twice as long as “Requiem”‘s Flint, and lived through times when death by violence, whether by predatory animals, invading hordes, or inquisitions, could be hard to avoid. (At first, I was almost hoping John could be interpreted as a younger Flint, but his life story was too different, and both Billingsley’s and Todd’s characters made references to Star Trek as a fictional entity.)
...
Overall, the cast was reasonably good, particularly Tony Todd; it was interesting to see him playing a calm, easygoing, bookish professor, against his usual type. I found Billingsley a little too broad and comical, Riehle a little too strident, and lead actor Smith a little bland, though reasonably effective. Still, overall the ensemble did all right with the material.

As far as the Columbus thing goes, it seems like a minor point. Most people don't even know that it was a myth, I certainly didn't till now. I liked how Billingsley's character explained how one could be immortal. Although i'm pretty sure he could be killed, but just has been able to avoid danger. The only reason I would like to see flashbacks would be kinda cool to see the events as he's telling them, but it would ruin the suprise at the end. The whole movie your wondering if he's telling the truth or not, so flashbacks would give it away. I guess I will have to see the Requium movie you are talking about. I'm glad others have seen this, it was a nice break from the ussual. The more I think about it, I think I will get the DVD, it can't be that much. It was nice seeing Billingsly as a human, it makes me think he should have been Human on Enterprise. All of Star Trek is on Netflix now, so I will have to go back and rewatch those episodes that this cast is in.

 

[Christopher]

As far as the Columbus thing goes, it seems like a minor point. Most people don't even know that it was a myth, I certainly didn't till now.

Yeah, but the point is, the character in the film who restated the myth was the one who should've had firsthand knowledge that it was wrong. It was a failure of research on Bixby's part.

I guess I will have to see the Requium movie you are talking about.

"Requiem for Methuselah" isn't a movie (if it were, its title would be in italics, not quotes), but one of the final episodes of the original Star Trek, and one of the few really good episodes of its third season (though with some significant conceptual flaws). Jerome Bixby wrote several notable Trek episodes, the others being "Mirror, Mirror," "By Any Other Name," and "Day of the Dove."

 

[Mistral]

The movie is a lot of fun-and that blog is amazing. Having a great time reading the articles...

 

[Nowhere Man]

As far as the Columbus thing goes, it seems like a minor point. Most people don't even know that it was a myth, I certainly didn't till now.

Yeah, but the point is, the character in the film who restated the myth was the one who should've had firsthand knowledge that it was wrong. It was a failure of research on Bixby's part.

I guess I will have to see the Requium movie you are talking about.

"Requiem for Methuselah" isn't a movie (if it were, its title would be in italics, not quotes), but one of the final episodes of the original Star Trek, and one of the few really good episodes of its third season (though with some significant conceptual flaws). Jerome Bixby wrote several notable Trek episodes, the others being "Mirror, Mirror," "By Any Other Name," and "Day of the Dove."

Well then i've seen it, but I guess I need to watch it again. I haven't watched TOS in ages. "Mirror Mirror" of course I remember that. I apreciate your input.

 

[Nowhere Man]

As far as the Columbus thing goes, it seems like a minor point. Most people don't even know that it was a myth, I certainly didn't till now.

Yeah, but the point is, the character in the film who restated the myth was the one who should've had firsthand knowledge that it was wrong. It was a failure of research on Bixby's part.

I guess I will have to see the Requium movie you are talking about.

"Requiem for Methuselah" isn't a movie (if it were, its title would be in italics, not quotes), but one of the final episodes of the original Star Trek, and one of the few really good episodes of its third season (though with some significant conceptual flaws). Jerome Bixby wrote several notable Trek episodes, the others being "Mirror, Mirror," "By Any Other Name," and "Day of the Dove."

Well then i've seen it, but I guess I need to watch it again. I haven't watched TOS in ages. "Mirror Mirror" of course I remember that. I apreciate your input.

 

[RAMA]

One of the best movies of the decade, I loved it. I highly recommended it to friends.

 

[RAMA]

I bought the DVD. There's some cool extras.
Great movie. Would work perfectly as a play. The dialogue though definitely seemed like it was written by a science fiction writer. A bit stilted, not what people would really say. Not all of it, just some.

I've seen academicians speak that way in social conversations.

 

[Nowhere Man]

I watched " Reqiuem for Methuselah " last night, very good ep. This episode very much encompased everything Trek. A good ep and I found it interesting that Spock says, "forget". I wonder if this where the inspiration for the end of TWOK where he say, "remember" to Bones?

 

[Agent Richard07]

I finally saw this last night and loved it.

Spoilers ahead...

It was one of the best scifi movies I've seen in a long time. Having a long conversation in a single setting works perfectly. I didn't feel that it needed flashbacks or anything like that. Some of my favorite works of scifi use the single setting/conversation-between-characters format. Babylon 5's "Intersections in Real Time" is probably my favorite episode of the series for example. Anyway, the movie is very meticulous, well thought out and thought provoking. I especially loved the big revelation halfway through. As I listened, I thought to myself... "Jesus Christ!", "My God!" "Talk about a big revelation!" And when Will came back, I couldn't help but think that he missed the greatest story ever told. Speaking of Will, his attitude really bugged me at first since I don't take well to that kind of fear mongering, but after he simmered down, I managed to come around to liking him. His being John's son didn't feel contrived at all. Maybe John settled where he did just to check up on him and be around. Before seeing the movie, I heard that there was some proof that his stories were true, but as I watched, I didn't know what they could do. In the end, I think this little reveal worked quite well even if it was a little mundane. Reading this thread, I didn't know that this movie was written by the same guy who wrote "Requiem for Methuselah". Methuselah was the one who came to mind when he was about to reveal what biblical character he was. I also liked two other bits in the movie... 1) When John talked about some of the universe's big mysteries being correctly deduced by artists before scientists and 2) the acknowlegement that as you get older, time passes more quickly. Lots of good stuff in this film.

 

[Orac]

Did Jerome Bixby write the Twilight Zone episode "Long Live Walter Jameson" as well? Or did he just steal the plot?

If Harlan Ellison wrote that episode he would have sued Bixby by now.

 

[Christopher]

Did Jerome Bixby write the Twilight Zone episode "Long Live Walter Jameson" as well? Or did he just steal the plot?

That was written by Charles Beaumont, and it's hardly the same plot. It shares the concept of an immortal man, but the way he gained his immortality and the events of the story are very different. And it's not like the concept of immortality hasn't been around for thousands of years already.

 

[Orac]

True, the plot was different, but the story setup was very similar: an immortal man posing as a history teacher. There is enough similarity that if Charles Beaumont were as litigious as Harlan Ellison he would have grounds to sue Bixby.

 

[Christopher]

True, the plot was different, but the story setup was very similar: an immortal man posing as a history teacher. There is enough similarity that if Charles Beaumont were as litigious as Harlan Ellison he would have grounds to sue Bixby.

Oh, I hardly think so. Do you really think these are the only two stories ever written to have an immortal character playing a history teacher? I mean, it's kind of obvious, isn't it? I gather that was one of the jobs of Duncan MacLeod in Highlander: The Series, for example. It's a cursory similarity at best, and hardly distinctive enough to invite litigation.

Besides, a setup is not a story. Any story you've ever read likely has character types or setups in common with other stories. What makes a story is the way its elements are put together, the things the characters do. Look at Psych and The Mentalist -- both shows about fraudulent psychics who become police consultants. But that's not enough of a similarity for anyone to sue over, since they're clearly very different in other respects. By the same token, "immortal history teacher" isn't a story, just a trope. Tropes are universal and nobody has a claim to them. The story is in what the immortal history teacher does, or what other characters do in response to him.

 

[The Master of Tarquin Hill]

I consider it to be one of the best sci-fi movies that I have ever seen. As an Atheist I love how religion is handled in this movie. I kind of see the movie as a critical thinking primer for believers.