The Man from Earth Let’s just have a chat about the sea and sky

There is a feeling of chatting in the science fiction section, running out on a proposition with all kinds of unbelievable settings, discussions, doubts, details and situational evolution. The second time I read it, I was quite comfortable.The first time I watched it, I felt bored, one is to feel scattered, the plot (mainly the problems) to advance the evolution of no level or even no logic. The second is obvious, and many people have been criticized, the problem is not at all to question John’s identity to go, feel asked are very no standard. —- In fact, these two points can be combined into one point, since the entire film is built on a quiz test (some people also take the college debate to do than) form, then to ask questions to cleverly advance the plot is the best way, but the film as a whole to get this idea screwed up, throwing out a bunch of haphazard and unrelated issues, progression, climax, twist missing destroyed the order of telling a good story. With similar forms such as 12 angry men that tightly “logical reasoning convincing story” simply can not be compared.

So the first time I watched it, I only felt disappointed with the film that has been so highly regarded for so long (throughout 08 years there were always netizens “discovering new worlds” type in recommending this film).

But in view of the first time is really shallow impression, so that and people to discuss the film can not be carried out, I decided to delay the review again. This time the feeling is actually much better. Expectations are different for the sake of it.

I found that many of the problems set in this film still make sense —- as long as you do not look at it according to the standards of a college debate, which is to seize a problem to the end must be refuted by the other side of the standard.

For example, the setting at the beginning was actually answered by the anthropologist, archaeologist, biologist himself —- the intelligence and knowledge level of this caveman, his physical and environmental adaptability, the reason he doesn’t die —- they thought it was a science fiction setting; for example, the female student asked questions that were relatively shallow or even meaningless, which fit her identity; the psychologist came up with the first The first question the psychologist asks is always John’s self-identity —- When did you know your own identity (the first time was the caveman, the second time was Jesus), and he also later asks the classic question of how John perceived his father, as well as some questions I wanted to ask when I read it a second time: how did John overcome his loneliness in such a society (feeling lost, a great emotional lack of No real family, friends, lovers), alienation (outliers, disconnected, feeling not part of the race), boredom, etc., etc.

These questions became interesting when I stopped focusing on the plot or just being a curious person on the outside and considered them as a concerned friend of John’s —- This can also be seen as the reason why the people in the film didn’t ask very MEAN questions about the details that could easily tear John apart (like how you faked your identity, how you escaped so many disasters, etc.). So many disasters and so on). Oh, this is the benefit of science fiction fans, used to the imperfect set-up, and then just go to enjoy in a setting that already exists in the sea of yy.

Some ideas or yy points to appreciate in the film: in the age of the ocean has not yet arrived, from the southwest of France saw the British Isles, layers of mountains towering on the other side of the bottomless canyon; glacial man first realized that the low latitudes and plains are warmer; John went to the place where the sun rises, thinking it would be warmer; he experienced the birth of art — early man He experienced the birth of art – early man hunted based on a mural painted by one of his people; he experienced man’s transition from hunting to cultivation, learning, the growth of knowledge, and the emergence of cities. He traveled through different territories, impersonating different races of people, sometimes alone and sometimes having to integrate into groups. More than once he mentions looking up at the stars with the expectation and doubt of the gods and goddesses, and he likes the idea that humans could move to Mars —- made me feel good about the character.

They also discuss man’s memory of orientation — you can’t go back to your hometown, ever; explore whether man’s sense of time is an illusion; man’s perception of natural science — sometimes the conclusions of science defy our own sense, and is it possible that theories closer to the truth could defy our current scientific perception? There is so much in the world that we do not know and cannot explain, and the mind of a man, an ordinary man, cannot transcend his own time, even if he has 14,000 years of experience, his knowledge still stops at the time he lived, and even his knowledge of the time he lived through may still be only the “opinion” of a man, of a world he knows nothing about. “John also suggests that new scientific concepts are often first assumed through artistic imagination. Of course, there is also the psychologist’s second appearance to revise his own conclusion that John is not crazy when he proposes that if a person firmly believes that he is so and so, it is entirely possible for him to behave rationally and adhere to that conclusion, and it is entirely possible for a person who is knowledgeable to a certain degree to convince others (but to be honest, this IDEA is not new).

Something else that derides academia: in every field there are “guys you want to strangle who disagree with you”; “it won’t be long before you question what you’re hearing and think I’m mentally ill or annoyed by the joke” —- People’s resistance to things beyond their understanding is so profound. “We knew so little.”

There are also some very worthy of yy dong: would such a person purposely try to keep anything (no); how he sees the evolution of the whole human race (slowly, humans always repeat the same mistakes); his emotional appeal, watching other people in his life pass one by one, numb or painful? Time flies faster and faster, always turning another hundred years. (I like the description, “Those people are like the waves of the sea, the tide comes and goes, and like the waves of wheat, rolled with the wind.”) Also, one sailed with Columbus, sought advice from Sakyamuni, and was friends with Van Gogh. Ah… Such a person’s life. One can 5cent buy AT&T stock and countless histories of bigamy….

One’s self-awareness, from realizing that one is different, then questioning oneself, to turning to faith for answers as to whether one has a mission. This process seems very real.

Another scenario that also seems very real is that when one meets someone who is perhaps like oneself and reacts to each other, one actually doubts, and doubts multiple times (it’s strange that he would believe me). Fortunately, this conception of the film gives the answer, that person is also likely to be real.

There are also some points/topics (topic) that I think are clumsy for the film to do: such as human jealousy, rejection and even hatred of people/things that are different from their own/those they cannot understand. Although in the process, about each other’s trust, “are you secretly laughing at us” and other small topics from time to time inserted, but the overall attitude of each person to John changes due to the “crowded mouth” or the problem set in a disorderly or simply do not want to Anyway, the process of change is very unconvincing. In addition is some very subtle environmental tendencies.

Oh, there are many wonderful little tricks, such as jonny walker, such as psychologists always start with “talk about your mother,” cavemen like fireplaces from childhood memories, ignorant teenage students to break through the sky: oldman is a pun. In addition, the biologist is obviously used to regulate the atmosphere, his riddles, ten words of the Ten Commandments, the co-existence of multiple religions within the family are very interesting.

Finally, about religion, religion is obviously a big topic of the film, the first half of the section is only occasionally inserted into the formation of some of the primitive human view of the gods ah, faith is the way to explain the first driving force (the source) ah, the origin and evolution of religion and other small gimmicks, until John threw out the big surprise, the film is considered to enter the climax. The topic of criticism of religion is not new, and there is nothing special about the views and arguments, but the final point is very interesting: 1) religion > is a kind of cognition > is a kind of cognition

1) Religion > is a kind of cognition > for what we can not explain > no, that is just that we can not explain, everything has its laws > so what is more contrary to the laws than the existence of people who have lived for 14,000 years?

2) The creation of religion, “Belief in doctrine does not bring piety, it is misunderstanding that leads to it (people feel they have to be pious to do so).”

3) Apotheosis – the “deification” of man, like the evolution of other things in history, is just a work of time.

4) Faith comes from thinking, and people who don’t think don’t have faith.

(5) Religion always sells something, hope, a code of survival, etc. The Old Testament sells fear and sin, the New Testament sells the moral code of being good to people.

6) Once the faith is cracked, once the doubts appear, even if they are denied for a while, they will never stop bothering.

I treat this film with the same feeling as the anthropologist in the film treats John’s statement: we have two simple choices, we can be angry about it, or we can be rational and challenge the logic, or we can simply relax and enjoy, I can stay and listen critically, but I don’t have to accept anything.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Proudly powered by WordPress | Theme: Funky Blog by Crimson Themes.