In this blog post, we explore the boundaries of truth and belief raised by John’s confession in the film The Man from Earth—that he has lived for 14,000 years—and delve deeply into what stories move people and what questions make them pause.
Looking at recent foreign box office hits, most are either action films built on grand visuals or science fiction rich in spectacle. Modern audiences tend to prefer visually dazzling effects and fast-paced narratives. These films captivate viewers with high budgets and cutting-edge technology, delivering thrilling action and astonishing visual experiences. However, these elements can sometimes come at the expense of the film’s essential story or character depth. Visually rich films may grab immediate attention, but their impact often fades quickly.
Yet the film ‘The Man from Earth’ takes a completely different approach. Aside from subtitles, it contains no CGI whatsoever. The setting is simply a small house somewhere in America. The entire content consists of several university professors engaged in continuous discussion. Despite this, once you start watching, you can’t help but be drawn in. This is because the entire scenario and every single line of dialogue are so exceptionally well-crafted.
Unlike modern films that rely on visual stimulation, this film captivates its audience through the power of its story. It makes one reconsider just how crucial the element of ‘story’ is in film. A film should not depend solely on visual effects or flashy action. Rather, a powerful story and the depth of its characters can be the elements that determine a film’s true value.
The film begins with news that John Oldman, a university professor, has suddenly departed somewhere, prompting his colleagues to visit his home. The professors take an interest in the antiques among his belongings and begin piecing together the story, starting with the clue that he has barely aged in ten years. John then confesses that he was born 14,000 years ago and is still alive as a Cro-Magnon. He repeats a nomadic life, moving to new places and changing his identity whenever others start to notice he doesn’t age. Initially baffled and incredulous, the university professors, regardless of its truthfulness, treat it as an intriguing topic for discussion. They begin piecing together the puzzle, posing questions to each other as if playing a game. The professors, rich in specialized knowledge across various fields, listen critically yet intrigued to John’s story and proceed with the discussion. However, as the conversation deepens, John’s narrative becomes so logically coherent and flawlessly consistent that the thought arises: perhaps his story could be true. The discussion gradually grows serious, and just like the professors, the audience becomes engrossed in the film.
A literal translation of this film’s title is ‘The Man from Earth’. In fact, we are all Earthlings, so the reason for this title is likely to emphasize that the protagonist came from ‘Earth 14,000 years ago’. Thus, the film’s main premise is the hypothetical question: “What if a Cro-Magnon man from 14,000 years ago survived until today?” This premise is highly intriguing and provokes a somewhat shocking imagination in the viewer. However, the film’s true charm lies not solely in this intriguing premise. It lies in its ability to move audiences beyond simple curiosity, making them feel the depth of its themes. In fact, the film poses fundamental questions about human history and existence, prompting reflection on how we understand our own identity.
What’s even more noteworthy in this film is the intricate dialogue and well-crafted screenplay, rather than the grand themes. Among the many lines, the part that intrigued me most was the shocking revelation made during a serious discussion. John claims that while traveling, he happened to pass through India during the time of Buddha, met him, received his teachings, and intended to spread those teachings in Rome. In conclusion, he claims to be ‘Jesus’. Of course, up to this point, it’s simply a scenario built on the premise of assumptions about Cro-Magnon man. However, the dialogue that follows really resonated with me in many ways, largely because I’ve pondered religion and philosophy extensively since childhood, and it closely aligned with the religious views I’ve formed.
During high school, I was so interested in the nature of the world and the origin of the universe that I dreamed of becoming a physicist and spent a lot of time contemplating these questions. Perhaps because I’ve thought about these things since childhood, I’m an engineer who is also deeply interested in religion. However, trying to understand the gap between scientific thinking and religious belief has not been easy. Many people see religion and science as opposing each other, but I believe they can play complementary roles. Religion provides for humanity’s spiritual needs and moral guidance, while science reveals the laws of the natural world. Yet, I don’t personally believe in any specific religion. This is likely because, as an engineer, I tend to view religion with cynicism and analysis. Therefore, the perspective on Christianity mentioned in this film aligns very much with my own.
After John claimed to be Jesus, he began criticizing the current church and the contents of the Bible. He stated he never claimed to be the Son of God, never claimed to be the King of the Jews, never walked on water, and never raised the dead. He emphasizes that his only sacred words were ‘Human goodness on earth,’ and states the New Testament consists of fewer than 100 words. He explains that he taught faith to guide people toward goodness based on the social conditions of his time, but that faith became disorganized. His actual teachings were remarkably simple, yet they were heavily embellished with myths, fables, and miracles. Practices like rituals, worship, the Eucharist, communion with wine, kneeling, weeping, and chanting were not part of his original message.
My own thoughts on religion align closely with this perspective. History abhors a vacuum. Therefore, the people who recorded the Bible probably didn’t simply end their account abruptly with “A man named Jesus appeared and taught these things.” They likely wrapped his anecdotes in fables and myths, deifying his birth and actions to bolster the credibility of his teachings. This process itself isn’t inherently bad. It’s just that if the focus is solely on ‘enhancing credibility’… However, problems arise in the process of interpreting such biblical content.
The most problematic approach is interpreting the Bible literally. The Bible contains numerous parables, myths, and miracles—stories of heaven and hell, Moses’ miracles, the feeding of the five thousand, and more. While these may be based on historical events, they are not all factual. For instance, it is true that Moses led his people out of Egypt. However, the sea splitting to form a path is physically impossible. If a believer preaches this as fact to the general public, it actually undermines the credibility of Christianity as a religion. The crucial point emphasized in this myth is not that the sea split, but that Moses saved the Israelites and was an extraordinary figure.
Beyond this, among the various Christian beliefs, the concept of heaven and hell is what I find most noteworthy. For Christians, heaven is a place one can only reach by believing in God and Jesus. And to go to heaven, one must live virtuously in this life. But it’s worth pondering: Must one live virtuously to go to heaven? Or was the concept of heaven created to make people live virtuously? I agree with the latter. I think the following line from a movie expresses this meaning well:
“Beyond that, the philosophy of Jesus’ teachings is Hebrew-style Buddhism. Compassion and tolerance, brotherhood and love, the fleeting enlightenment of this world. The place of life is right here; heaven is about accumulating goodness, and it is achieved right here.”
What is the true ‘faith’ that Jesus desires from us? Simply put, it is “Let’s get along well with our neighbors and live virtuously!” However, contrary to this intention, we often see people interpreting the Bible in other ways to justify irrational behavior or create scenes that make others frown. I’ve always thought such people need to understand the fundamental meaning of religion. While this film is also worth recommending for its intriguing scientific subject matter, from my perspective, it’s especially a work I’d recommend for its contemplation and reflection on religion.
