Alexandria

I was familiar with the Hypatia story because a certain category of people in my native country choose to present here as a martyr from a bygone golden age of reason, rapidly receding before the encompassing waves of Cristian barbarity and obscurantism. I think in general this is also the view this movie takes.

The character of Hypatia is presented as logical, brilliant, prudent with thirst for learning for it's own sake. The only problem that a modern sensibility could find with her is her attitude towards slaves, which seem to reflect the ideas of the educated elite of the times(of antiquity in general because even people of the calibre of Aristotle shared such conceptions). Otherwise she is perfect.

In a very imperfect world one must note, because the society she lives in is convulsed by civil strife and feuds between Christians, Pagans and Jews.As the movie progresses they eventually become Christian and Jews because Pagans convert to Christianity because of the attitudes of imperial authority and political expediency. Although this is not fully explained, how a very powerful pagan element becomes impotent in the second half of the movie. I think the scenario is problematic there.

Also the beliefs of the group in which Hypatia belongs are not really clarified. There were pagan, believers of the aegypian Gods(there is a statue of Serapis), of Greek Gods of Roman Gods or just agnostic rationalists(as Hypatia seems to be) belonging to a pagan upper class environment? On the other side, the Christian, the "Parabalanoi" whose existence I have not verified as a social group or lay monastic order or something in between, are presented as a bunch of idiotic thugs, the equivalent of modern hooligans with a religious veneer, keen to kill, pillage and rape(although this is hinted rather discreetly)supposedly in the name of Jesus.

The leader of the Christians Cyril-a historical personage who became a saint, as the final titles of the movie correctly state, is portrayed as a power-hungry(there is scene in which he avidly takes the bishop's ring from the hand of his dead predecessor), manipulative bigot. His aim is to become master of Alexandria and Christianity is his tool, while the Prefect-the political authority- stands in his way.The Prefect, being a former student of Hypatia is advised by her, thus she earns the enmity of Cyril- with fatal results. His portrayal matches with a sketch of him by Bertrand Russell in "History of Western Philosophy":"St Cyril, the advocate of unity, was a man of fanatical zeal. He used his position as patriarch to incite pogroms against the very large Jewish colony in Alexandria. His chief claim to fame is the lynching of Hypatia, a distinguished lady who, in an age of bigotry, adhered to the Neoplatonic philosophy and devoted her talents to mathematics." The way he is in the movie seems inspired by this passage, as if the makers of the movie were based on that. Nevertheless it was effective since they made the viewers find despicable a man dead by 1.600 years.

There is only one scene where the Christian religion is presented with some sympathy and that is where the slave(who is secretly in love with his mistress Hypatia) is convinced to exercise the virtue of charity, by an otherwise negatively portrayed zealot(Ammonius), through giving food(bread)to the poor, who are many and needy. It is a moving scene and the sole in movie akin to present Christianity in a positive light.

Religious struggle is presented as a power struggle, which may be correct when one leaves the realm of individual conscience and enters the public arena. Pagans, Christians and Jews(both people and leaders) are equally bad, the worse being the Christian zealots "Parabolani", to which a freed slave of Hypatia now belongs. Orestes, the Prefect, a former student of Hypatia, is better as a character than Cyril or Synesius, another student of Hypatia, now a high-class Church dignitary.(One though is left with the impression that Hypatia operated the Harvard of her times!) The end of the movie, presents a view of events censored compared to the one we have from historical sources, as to what exactly happened to Hypatia.

I think that the actress playing Hypatia is fine and convincing as a free spirit in an age of bigotry and also good is the performance of her two unconsummated would-be-lovers the aristocrat and latter Prefect Orestes and the slave and latter Christian zealot, Davus. The actor playing Cyril conveys the aura of sliminess and bigotry of a religious power-player.

Scenery and costumes are superb to watch but I do not know enough about Alexandrian geography and clothing habits to vouch for their historical accuracy.

It is a movie worth seen although it leaves a bitter taste in the end and tries to say and mix too many and too weighty matters in the brief span of a cinematic exhibition.

Leave it to the church to exalt a slimy bigot like Cyril (Sami Samir) to sainthood. he was not interested in anything but power.

This is the story of the Taliban and the Tea Partiers, and the Christian Right in America set in the time when the Romans controlled Alexandria.

First, the Christians drove those who worshipped Greek and Roman gods out of power, and deemed them unworthy of converting. The they went after the Jews. Having driven out all the other religions, the went after women and children. Does all this sound familiar? These bigots justified their murder and hatred by saying it is what God wants. It was obvious that it was what they wanted, and only used God to justify their hate. We see that today.

Rachel Weisz was fantastic as the voice of reason. A lost cause against those who abandoned knowledge and reason for their personal glory.

A beautiful film with outstanding cinematography, costumes and sets, and an excellent job of direction by Alejandro Amenábar.

Muddled film that has its sights set high in the right course but lacks focus and a direct script that can handle the subject matter. Alejandro Amenábar tries his best but comes up short in many ways with his narrative. The movie is a little too long and the script wavers from time to time but Rachel Weisz's performance is Oscar worthy and deserving of a better film that respects the effort she puts in it. She makes you stay with the movie, even when It sputters out of control during the last half of the film. She gets good support from her leading men (Max Minghella and Oscar Isaac) but its hard for the three of them to connect with how unfocused the script is and that's the film's biggest problem.

For Weisz's Oscar effort and the solid performances of her leading men, the movie gets a 7 but with out their performances, the movie would be much lower.

I remember hearing of Hypatia's tragic tale from Carl Sagan in his "Cosmos" TV series way back in 1980. I was appalled by the tale, and shook my head as any good reasoned young man would. It was a story that stuck with me for much of my life. And I often wondered if such an important biography would ever be published about this mysterious and remarkable historic figure. I truly did not think so, and believed that Hypatia's memory would have to live on with what little history there was written about her, and the blurb mentioned once or twice by Carl Sagan as he recounted the once magnificent library of Alexandria.

People are stupid. I agree with Ridley Scott on this. They really and truly are. Whether it's the zealots portrayed in this film, or the Christian who sat behind me commenting on the film (he ACTUALLY APPLAUDED the Christians in the film), or just people in general, they really are stupid. It's how we get things like religion, and place not just some whimsical desire in them, but a devout belief, a serious conviction of some entity that is displeased by earthly decadence. Hence the crux of the story in "Agora".

We have the absolute mind numbed moronic thinking of the masses verse the practicality of those who know they do not know everything, but have a thirst for knowledge, and to share that knowing with others so that they can live a life free of fear.

But, we see that it is fear that wins out. Not reason. Not logic applied to a simple problem with a simple solution. But pure, unmitigated fear. Everyone from the heads of state, the heads of religions, the heads of mobs, the heads of any social entity in Roman Imperial Egypt is gripped by fear. Knowledge. Reason. Logic. Understanding. Education. Those are the true weapons that can assail the most ardent of foes.

But fear is primal, and infects everyone and everything like a plague spread by rats. The notion of imaginary beings who, in spite of being all powerful and all knowing, are vested in a patch of desert and how its human female population dresses should be a warning sign. Does this not sound familiar? We have the same concerns today, and although codified and addressed by legislation for local morays, and investigated and codified by alleged behavioral experts, people are still pretty touchy about anything remotely informative that doesn't gybe with their ideals: as a for instance; sex in this case.

Hypatia thinks like a man, despite her sexual makeup. She is the one who calls reason, as any good leader or scientist would. The rest merely cower to the polity dominating the social terrain. But she is optimistic. Even so, the times tragically overwhelm her.

The story of Hypatia has been somewhat elongated, no doubt for dramatic effect. Regardless, it's a good watch. Buy yourself a ticket, or grab the DVD when it comes out. You won't be disappointed.

Enjoy! :-)

I saw this today at the Toronto International Film Festival, and overall it was quite an interesting experience for me. I will first comment on the pros, and then the cons.

The Good

From the beginning, the film's exquisite detail is evident -- costumes, sets, props, hundreds/thousands of extras, etc --, reminding me especially of HBO's Rome series. CGIs were amazing, and the sound effects used in certain scenes with large numbers of people were thunderous and powerful -- surely the best I have seen from a film. It is by far the most ambitious project in the bringing to life of an ancient city that I have seen on screen. I only wished that they would have had the actors speak in Greek, but that would be asking too much I suppose :p

Also, I liked how the film did not focus so much on portraying any one religious group as "the bad guy". Naturally, one would have assumed that it was going to be the Christians (after seeing the trailers), but in fact the goods and the bads were exposed in all religions, which added to the realism and historical accuracy of the film.

Above all, this director ought to be commended in his attempt to capture the society in the city of Alexandria of late antiquity. This has never yet been done in cinema, and Amenabar clearly attempts to do this out of extraordinary passion for his work. Agora presents to the audience a glimpse into a world that is little known outside of the circles of ancient historians and classicists, and the film's portrayal of religious strife between the different groups in Alexandria successfully shows a very complex ancient society.

The main character, Davus, also serves as an important figure, by representing the common man living in Alexandria at the time who must face the challenges of an ancient society in transition. However, I feel that the subtleties of Davus' character, who is indeed a source of much important historical information, would be misunderstood and ignored by the audience, which would be in search of something more direct and "in- your-face" from the film.

Overall, the film was at its best when it subtly hinted certain elements/themes to the audience -- this is when it showed the most sophistication in the portrayal of history, and skill in terms of artistic merit.

The Bad

I think the biggest mistake that the director made was to focus too much on the religious conflict. Without a doubt, during the first 45 minutes the audience was engulfed and captivated with awe by the strife between the pagans and the Christians (probably because such a time in history is little known today, and rarely portrayed in art or discussed), but the film does not give a break to its constant references to religion. Throughout the two hours, the script continuously shows the characters' endless preoccupation with religious matters, which takes away from development of their individualities. Amenabar tries to differ attention toward other things, through the love triangle between Orestes, Davus, and Hypatia -- which works well at times, but could have been developed far more (especially between her and Davus). He also gives some attention to science; a big mistake IMO, because in such scenes, one feels like the film turns into a lecture. If Amenabar had tried to use CGIs to demonstrate some of the scientific concepts discussed among characters, he could have added something artistic to the bland dialogue of those scenes.

I was also somewhat disappointed by Dario Marianelli's score. HAving heard his compositions for "Pride and Prejudice", "Atonement" and "V for Vendetta", I was expecting a musical score that was more intense and thought-provoking, rather than a more or less typical and primitive symphony that one often hears in "epic" historical films.

8/10