Bests & Worsts Reviews from Amazon

Alexandria was one of the most glorious cities of Eurasia, a hybrid of three sets of cultures, European, Nubian and Asian created by Alexander and the Ptolemy dynasty around 320BCE. Its heyday was probably around 200BCE and it lasted well over a millennium. Alexandria was eclipsed by the dark ages around 415 when the whole of Egyptian history in the classical mould came to an end as Theodosius, the Emperor of a dying Rome imposed Christianity on Egypt. Most temples, their gods and writings were destroyed or defaced, from Zeus in Olympia to the temple of Artemis at Ephesus in modern Turkey. In Egypt the Seraphium was destroyed, a daughter library to the famous library of Alexandria that was probably largely destroyed around 50BCE when Julius Caesar took over Alexandria and Egypt fell under Roman sway. This film is very much an encapsulation of the Christianisation of Alexandria and the destruction of its ancient ways, making it ripe for ruin and decay. The one structure that did survive that forms a backdrop to this film is the Pharos lighthouse, created in 250BCE that survived all the way into around 1280 by which time Alexandria was part of the Islamic Empire. As a satellite city of Rome, Alexandria still enjoyed a cultural and educational reputation at the time of Hypatia, a neoplatonist philosopher who had studied in Athens and Italy. She taught at the Seraphaeum representing a sort of University/Library scholastic complex dedicated to learning. Hypatia was part scientist and mathematician but also and no less importantly a philosopher. She probably believed in transcendental modes of consciousness as taught by Plotinus. She worked with her farther Theon and together they edited several works, clarified various mathematical books added their own contributions, none of which have survived (though some of Hypatias editing may be present in Greek mathematics that she helped transmit). Hypatia invented or devised several scientific instruments. She was obviously a person of importance, not merely a noted academic. Towards 415AD there was a power struggle between the Roman prefect Orestes and the Roman Archbishop Cyril of Alexandria. Orestes was allied with Hypatia and Cyril probably engineered her elimination as a symbol of paganism and witchcraft. What facts we have come from the letters of her students among other works, including clergymen and the historian Socrates Scholasticus. We know very little about whether the Serapheum had a large book collection and how much of the library of Alexandria had survived there into the time of Hypatia. This film encapsulates the facts available in the context of a triangle of rivalry between Judaism, Christianity and Paganism and also a struggle between the Church and State. It objectifies Alexandria seen from space. The restoration of the city is very good but perhaps does not do justice to the glories of the city that once was that probably possessed more colour, rather than the dusty restoration the film presents. I was disappointed that there were so many candles shown. They did not use candles. They used lamps of olive oil and we know much about these lamps from surviving examples. So much more could have been shown about Hypatia herself, even as a semi fictitious character. Maybe a vignette of her writing with a quill pen in lamp light, and how she travelled around in a carriage rather than on foot. Here we do get glimpses of her with her students and a famous incident of her rebuffing one of them who declared his love for her. This incident did take place. More is shown of Hypatia the astronomer and scientist and less of her as a spiritual being, a philosopher though some indication is given. My favourite line is concerns Hypatia stating that her father would have celebrated a conjunction between Mars and perhaps Jupiter in Aquarius. Hypatia was no atheist secularist though she would have been a rational thinker who questioned dogma as the film tries to show. I believe that given the limited resources the film commanded they have done the best they could. Indeed certain details of the script reveal a depth of reading and research that is new to me to deserve exploration. They concentrate on Hypatia formulating a heliocentric view of the Earth's rotation as stated by Aristarchus from one of his books. We hear about this book from the "mother library" that once was in Alexandria of which the Serapheum, associated with Hypatia was a satellite. In this film they indicate bloody conflicts arising between the pagans and the Christians. I think that most of the aggression came from the Christians given they were supported by Rome and there isn't much evidence for the pagans attacking Christians in cold blood as indicated (though blood was probably spilt one way or another). We are aware that the Serapheum was destroyed and the film recreates this incident on the basis of a precedent which is questionable. Later we see another scene where the Jews rouse the ire of the Christians. What is clear from history is that the Jews of Alexandria were attacked and dispersed, again rendered in unholy detail in this film. The ancient anti semitism is portrayed very realistically and may arouse emotion. The conflict between Orestes and St Cyril is dramatized extremely well leading to a rather tragic climax. Rachel Weisz gives a good performance where Hypatia stands out like an English heroine. The real Hypatia may have been a bit more tanned (and theoretically a lot older when she died) but Weisz is believable. If only the props were a bit better, with lamps and a carriage for her. Her face looks pained and haunted as she is lead to her death, dealt with rather sensitively if a touch unconvincingly given Hypatia's slave who softens the blow. Dramatic license is acceptable and much of the context is very powerfully served up. I could have watched a film an hour longer if necessary if more history was introduced. We see the theatre and overall the city comes alive, about as close as a film could ever take you to classical Alexandria. The fanaticism of emergent Christianity is I believe faithful enough though this film is not an attack on religion per se. Indeed, it always tries to create a precedent to indicate why the Christians became hostile, precedents not always contained in history though the hostility was clear. Overall, the film does a good job. The greatest tragedy of this film is that despite covering its costs it has had a poor audience in the USA and the UK. As far as I'm aware the film was only largely shown in London in two cinemas and rather tentatively at that. I get the impression there is a conspiracy to suppress this film that mirrors the conspiracy to suppress Hypatia. Far more deserves to be shown of Alexandria as a centre of learning and humanity at its finest. Egypt was far more glorious then than it even aspires to today. However the glories of Alexandria continue to emerge from the sea. Above all the Egyptians could learn from this film, though the bulk of them will probably remain unconvinced. The flavor and power of this film is sufficiently strong and convincing for it to be considered very significant. At least as significant as the old Cleopatra film (with Elizabeth Taylor) that happened to be a cinematic flop. I just hope this film helps to keep the lamps and the light alive for civilisation to continue without getting bogged down in dogma.