Filipe Neto This film is very interesting for several reasons, but the main is, in my opinion, going over a troubled period, decisive for the construction of the modern world: in this historical period, the classical culture (Greco-Roman matrix, but absorbing cultural and religious characteristics of other peoples, like the Egyptians) will face a morally motivated Christian community, decided to lie paganism on the ground. This film deals with the collateral damage suffered by scientific knowledge, thanks to Christian fanaticism and association of classical scholars with paganism.While there were several clashes between Christians (mostly because of heresies, which are never spoken in this film), they usually had a more defensive attitude with the heathen, that history remembers as persecutors. This attitude has changed in the end of the Roman Empire, when Christians achieved to be socially important. That's what the film portrays when Christians (particularly Parabolani, volunteers caring for sick and dead without being monks, that later became the bishop's "guards") persecute and kill the heathens. They, in turn, choose to convert, bulk and quickly, to Christianity, which give us the idea that the city, in a few days, went from a pagan majority to a Christian majority. History belies the film: it is a fact that the conversion of the pagans took more than a century. When conflicts portrayed in the film occurred, probably most of the city was already Christian. Conflicts also arise against Jews, being urged by bishop St. Cyril of Alexandria (proof that a saint does not have to be an angel). The conflicts between him and other Christian patriarchs (Antioch, Jerusalem, Byzantium, Rome) are never spoken in the film. Thus, we can conclude that the script, by Alejandro Amenábar (who is also the director) and Mateo Gil, is a pale and highly partial reflection of all these conflicts.The cast, headed by Rachel Weisz and Max Minghella, does a reasonable job. Weisz plays the lead role, Hypatia of Alexandria, a mathematical and astronomer who really existed and is considered one of the brightest minds in the late classical period. Its a very good actress who has made some notable films and shows again her versatility. Minghella also made a good performance as Davus, a platonic lover of Hypatia. Finally, one word to the costumes and scenery: the costumes seem to fit the period and place, with its classical influences; however, I don't believe that Alexandria (in particular its library) were so similar to a pre-classical Egyptian temple, especially if we consider that the city was founded by Alexander the Great and the archaeological excavations reveal a deeply classical city, much like Greek or Italian cities.This film is a fairly regular film: despite neglecting the historical truth in various ways and at various times, and despite the highly partial and negative portrait of Christians, the film shows an interesting time, where a lot has changed very quickly, as well entertains the audience and tells a good story.

Badar Munir A story of fight between Thinking (Philosophy and Mathematics) vs Religion (Christianity) where holy men interprets the Word of GOD for his own gains. It revolves around a young beautiful Greek Philosopher and Mathematician (Hypatia played by Rachel Weisz) and his three students, who also are in deep love with her, in an era of high tensions between Jews, Christians and Pagans.Its 391 – 400 AD. Hypatia is the head of the Platonist school at Alexandria where she is teaching philosophy and Mathematics. Three of her students, Davus (Max Minghella), Orestes (Oscar Isaac) , Synesius (Rupert Evans) have special feelings towards teacher. Orestes has admitted his feelings publicly which was brutally rejected by her. She don't have any such feelings towards anyone of the three. Her only passion and love is Philosophy.With rise of Christianity in Alexandria, everything changes. Pagans being in power tries to power the Christians down, but was outnumbered. In result of this, the raged Christian mob burns down the great library of Alexandria and years of work with it. Hypatia has to run to save her life along with other pagans. Rage of Christians is not limited only to pagans but also towards Jews.Orestes is Prefect of Alexandria, Synesius is Bishop of Cyrene and Davus is a confused Christian. All three have accepted the Christianity in their own way and are still in love. Orestes still loves her and trusts her with all his matters. Cyril is the new head priest and under him Christians are taking liberties day after day for his own interpretations of word of GOD. With Cyril the new head priest, he has his eyes set on power as Prefect of Alexandria.One day, Cyril, while reading from the holy book accused Hypatia of ungodliness and calls her a witch and asks all present to kneel before God to reconcile themselves with Christ make all nonbelievers embrace it too. This puts all three in awkward position. All men present there kneels but one, Orestes. This outraged the Mob and they throw stones over him. Group of Davus plans to abduct her and teach her a lesson.Orestes and Synesius discusses this with Hypatia and tries to make her compromise who dismisses this and leaves the government protections. Davus tries to find her but his group finds her first. Group ridicules her, strips her naked and decides to skin her alive. Davus intervenes and convinces them not to color their hand in her impure blood and suggests to stone her. While the group finds the stones, he suffocates her with his bare hands.The movie shows us in a brutal way that blood was shed in the NAME OF GOD then as it is now. Nothing has been changed. Few radical people interprets the Holy word of God as they want and lure common innocent people into the web of cunning and lies and uses them to their own gains. The plot has uncanny resemblance to the current state of radical Islam and other sectarian conflicts going on these days in middle east. But it avoids to dwell into other romantic subplots and keeps its focus on the fight between science and religion, men over women.It also shows a true love of a genius women for truth. This in itself is hard to digest by the big egoistic holy people. Wrongly interpreted lies, by these SO CALLED HOLY People, feel threatened and in return they do all in their power to save them. They even stop people from questioning and imposes their OWN thoughts by presenting them as word of God. It was clearly evident in the conversation between Hypatia and Synesius where she tell him that "You don't' question what you believe, You cannot. I must". In reply Synesious tells her that its a Pity. This sums up the whole movie.Rachel Weiz was great in role of Hypatia so as Max Minghella and Oscar Isaac. Sets are amazing and take you back to the ancient Greek world. All in all a great movie. A real treat to watch for all those who like to think with open mind.

theamayafamily Where does one begin to take to task this fictional diatribe against Christians and the early Imperial Church. Alexandria was known to be a city that often was embroiled in heated riots that cost lives even before the Common Era and the advent of the Church. The film portrays the Christian church of the period to be violently intolerant and zealously misogynistic in their religious zeal and ensconced in superstition. The events in the film never happened. In 48 BCE, it was Julius Caesar (a pagan) who invaded Egypt and destroyed part of the Alexandrian library in his war against Pompey. Strabo, a pagan historian, who died around 23 CE, spoke of the main library as a thing of the past. What was left of this main library was probably destroyed in Aurelius' wars of Imperial unification when the Great Museum to which the main library was adjunct in 272 CE. By 391 CE, the library was not in existence. Yet, many post 18th century scholars and historians state that Christians destroyed the temple under the direction of Bishop Theophilus' in 391 CE confusing clashes between pagans and Christians as part and parcel of the main library's destruction. This is a clear untruth and what is sad it is a deliberate one at that.However, in 391 CE, the Serapeum was destroyed. Christians were captured and murdered in the temple of this secondary library by pagans. Since the murdered Christians were to be considered martyrs there was a call for restraint so as not to taint their sacrifice so there was no riot or clash. The Emperor Theodosius ordered the complex to be demolished while letting the murderers go free. The Christians were allowed under Roman governmental oversight to participate in the dismantling of the temple but no other structures were harmed. Additional damage to the building itself probably took place in 7th century by Muslim invaders. However, there was no burning of the library's collection by Christians. Both a goodly number of Christian and pagan accounts of that day exist and there is not one mention of such a burning of the library's collection. Even Eunapius of Sardi who had no great love for Christianity makes no such claim and there are even hints that by this time the secondary library had no collection. Pagan historian, Ammianus Marcellinus, describes the Serapeum as being no longer a library just a few years before its destruction. There is not one written source before the 18th century that has claimed that Christians were responsible for either the collection's destruction for either the main or secondary library nor is there any other evidence proving such. The idea that Christians and the Church were responsible for destroying the Library(ies) of Alexandria in 391 CE is a fiction made up by English historian Edward Gibbon in the 18th century.As to the murder of the brilliant Platonic philosopher, trained scientist, and author of mathematical commentaries, Hypatia. While a woman of note, there is no record of her making any important contributions to her fields of expertise. Just as the recent Cosmos series totally mislead its viewership concerning Giardano Bruno, this movie (and so many others) have created a fictional heroine to dovetail with the fictional history of banal, anti-intellectual Christians on a murderous rampage against pagans especially one pagan woman. Hypatia, who was sixty at the time, was indeed murdered and dismembered, by a Christian fraternity founded to help the poor. She was killed not because she was a woman (female intellectuals were not uncommon in Eastern Empire in either pagan or Christian circles) or a philosopher/scientist (this class of people in Alexandria included both pagans, Jews, and Christians and there was no Christian prejudice against science or philosophy). Hypatia was not perceived as an enemy of the Christian faith and counted many of the educated Christians of Alexandria as her friends, many of whom were students. The Christian historian Socrates, who admired her, states that she was killed because she embroiled herself in a political war between the Imperial prefect and the city's patriarch and it was the denizens of the city's slums that took matters into their own hands without any Church approval (even though the movie lays the blame at the feet of St. Cyril of Alexandria) and was more about her social class and standing and belonging to the wrong side of a political war where this murderous mob was concerned. While the higher, educated classes participated in each other's lives no matter their religious and philosophical differences, the lower classes before and after Christianity's advent were tribal and violent. These Christian lower-class denizens could be rightly compared to Europe's soccer hooligans and the cross was simply one more banner to wave. Such is the truth while the movie and its attempt to paint the Christian Church as a violent, banal, intolerant, and misogynistic community is anti-Christian propaganda and a deliberate lie.

chaos-rampant Here we have a film about center, meaning, different pathways to truth. So let's find our own.The film caused an uproar about its historical accuracy. The obvious thing to say is that Christians did not burn the Library and I suspect more scholarly knowledge than mine will turn up inaccuracies at every step. It should be also noted that the film is careful to point that the Library being destroyed is not the world famous monument, but a smaller one at the Serapeum that survived the first, though the outcome is the same: the loss of classical knowledge.It seems clear however that the dramatization is used to sketch a broader shift of world from antiquity to the middle ages, and this shift was no less violent and arbitrary across the Eastern Empire than what is essentially shown in the film. If we can accept that the specific events are of course fictional, all films are, yet the broader sketch captures a model that is not far from recorded truth we are a step closer to what this is.In its dramatic fabric the film is for the most part ordinary Gladiator- fare. Sorrow and sacrifice, bonds snapped by violent pulls. But if we pull further back?What attracts me here is the filmmaker's attempt to find a more cosmic view. The film opens with a majestic shot of Earth rolling in space and we swoop below to find the petty human world where people despair about love and debate god. We have several aerial shots of the destruction where tiny particle-like figures of rioters flush through the stark geometric order. The film is all about finding pattern in human madness. Primitive religion against primitive science, different paths to pinpoint a universal center. Here we need to say something clearly. The film promulgates a distinction between a science of pure reason and a more or less blind religious impulse. It aims to show a fanatical, irrational religion at work, this of course has been a reality, still is. It does give a wonderful impression of the appeal of early Christianity as a communist revolution of the poor and downtrodden against the smugly powerful, both vital and senseless, and the process of its turning into another hierarchy.This common distinction between science and religion however obscures an interconnected truth. That both, before petering out in institutionalism and scholastic debate, are driven by a profound cosmic feeling to describe the human experience. And although the observations differ, both have to construct their center.This was the great concern behind attempts to model the solar system up until and including Newton, just where to place the center and the metaphysical implication this carried about life. Both Kepler and Newton were deeply religious, the heavenly mechanics they uncovered didn't banish god, merely pushed him at a greater distance. There was great joy that precise and knowable mathematics resided in the mind of god, but the laws were still god's. Newton spent inordinate time trying to calculate absurd things like the exact area covered by the Biblical heaven.What this all means is that science turns up facts, reason finds symmetries and coherence, but it always falls on us to construct a framework of understanding that, hopefully, jives with the way things are in a fundamental way. In terms of the film (and every film), it means you have to find your center, if any, and decide on the value. Here for me it's not the specific history, forged or not. It's not the dramatic arch. It's that cosmic view of a broader human journey through the ages caught between the profound awe of looking up at the sky and the horror of how controvertible our concepts can be at the hands of people. It's not a matter of science against religion, science can be as fanatic about its findings and as obstinate to change. It's a matter of clarity against ignorance.