On Aug 28, 6:22 pm, "tooly"
bellsouth.net> wrote:>> On Aug 28, 3:50 pm, zinnic
gate.net> wrote:>>> On Aug 28, 5:08 pm, Immortalist
yahoo.com> wrote:>
>>>> On Aug 28, 11:25 am, zinnic
gate.net> wrote:>
>>>>> Just watched Jerome Bixby's film "Man from Earth". Not seen it
>>>>> discussed on alt.philosophy.
>
>>>>> Retiring professor claims he is 14,000 years old and answers
>>>>> questions
>>>>> from other faculty members concerning his long history. Well
>>>>> written and I highly recommended its rental. Trailer and details
>>>>> available on Google. I got it from Netflix but believe it is
>>>>> available
>>>>> at other rental outlets.
>>>>> Interested in comments from others who have seen it.!
>>>>> Zinnic
>
>>>> The film tells a story of John Oldman, a man claiming to be a 14,000
>>>> year old Cro-Magnon caveman, who survives until the present day.
>
>>>> This part sounds interesting, just conversation no special effects;
>
>>>> The entire film is shot in a small house and its porch, relying solely
>>>> on the conversation of the characters to keep the plot moving, with no
>>>> special effects, actions, or fancy music as the whole film is no more
>>>> than an intellectual discourse between the 14,000-year-old Cro-Magnon
>>>> and his professor and teacher friends at his farewell party.
>
>>> Yep! But you have not confided what you think of it?.
>>> A low budget, fascinating, educational film that may be an arbinger
>>> of things to come in filmdom, or a flash in the pan that will be
>>> obscured by high budget films in which the messenger (dazzling special
>>> effects ) pre-empts the message (e.g Wall-E)?
>
>> I suppose the things I elaborated upon were the reasons I want to see
>> it. I really want to see how interesting a film of a conversation
>> about some other times could be. Maybe it emulates someone telling me
>> a story in person and how I can get totally lost in that.
>
> I haven't seen the movie, but it sounds like a certain genre I find
> suspicious.
>
> The problem is that one gets a movie espousing the views of the movie
> creator. Who cares about what one person or group thinks unless it is part
> of a much larger discourse. Movies however are powerful influences to how
> we are taught to think. We've seen the effectiveness of visual arts ever
> since Archie Bunker came along to start the change of a nation.
>
> The converstation is really between the producers and YOU, the viewer [more
> like a lecture really]. There will be a subliminal demarcation about what
> is 'authority' and what is the 'inferior' view. But all the while, only an
> OPINION [and like AH's, of course we all have one]. Of course the unawares
> viewer goes away thinking they have been enlightened. Am I wrong?
You know the sub-genre or sub-plot device for telling prose stories,
someone is with a group of people and says something like, "well it
all started when..." and in movies the screen blurs or fades into the
story and the narrative usually disappears. That is what I am
interested in with the description of this movie. The movie would
reflect a situation where in real like someone telling the story
causes the listeners to disappear into that scene.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narrator
