I watched AGORA last night...

[and-justice-for-all]

I stongly recommend it.

A couple of scense almost brought me to tears, it is clearly a good reflection of how thuggish the new cult of christianity was at the time and their assault on reason has not waivered much since 300 AD. From the saking and buring of the most important library in history to the sickening murder of Hypatia, two instances where I almost lost it. This film also reenforces my distain for religion and their assault on reason and facts based on emmpirical evidence. Hypatia was an Atheist and the film clear shows that. 5 Stars

[salvorhardin]

1. You might want to read this review. Agora is a fine film, but dicey history

I liked the film, especially the stunning cinematography, but Amenabar took many liberties with the historical record. Some of them quite major. Here's a good review by an atheist and historian.
http://armariummagnus.blogspot.com/2010/05/hypatia-and-agora-redux.html

Brief excerpt:

The final major invention by Amenábar which also suits his agenda is the rather fanciful idea that Hypatia was on the brink of not only proving heliocentrism when she was murdered but at establishing Keplerian elliptical planetary orbits into the bargain. The film makes reference to the fact that Aristarchus of Samos had come up with a heliocentric hypothesis in the 300s BC, and mentions a couple of reasons it was regarded as making "no sense at all" (though doesn't mention the primary one - the stellar parallax problem). But it invents a series of scenes depicting Hypatia pressing on with this idea despite these (then) not inconsiderable objections. The whole purpose of these sequences is to make the murder of Hypatia seem like more of a loss to learning at the hands of ignorant fundamentalists. Hypatia was certainly renowned for her learning, but there is actually no evidence she was any great innovator, let alone that she had any interest at all in Aristarchus' long-rejected hypothesis. Once again, it's Amenábar's invented elements that work to support his agenda of simplifying the story into one of "ignorance and fanaticism versus scholarship and inquiry".

The movie also heavily implies that Hypatia was entirely non-religious or even an atheist - something else not found in any of the source material. Confronted with the accusation that she is without any religion ("someone who, admittedly, believes in absolutely nothing") Hypatia replies, rather vaguely, "I believe in philosophy". Later Cyril describes here as "a woman who has declared, in public, her ungodliness". Yet again, Amenábar invents something that has no basis in any of the evidence that suits the sermon his movie is preaching.

Over and over again, elements are added to the story that are not in the source material: the destruction of the library, the stoning of the Jews in the theatre, Cyril condemning Hypatia's teaching because she is a woman, the heliocentric "breakthrough" and Hypatia's supposed irreligiousity. And each of these invented elements serves to emphasise the idea that she was a freethinking innovator who was murdered because her learning threatened fundamentalist bigots. The fact that Amenábar needs to rest this emphasis on things he has made up and mixed into the real story demonstrates how baseless this interpretation is.

[and-justice-for-all]

2. I still like it none the less....

It may not be a pure view of history, but the basic premise is fitting. Religion has always been wanting to cut the throat of reason, and I can actually see how their mentality even then, was brutish. The stoning of the Jews in that theatre and a few other scenes were surely added for purely (not sure how to say what I want to say here) "entertainment" purposes perhaps?

We obviously can not know everything down to the last detail about things in the ancient world, 300 was not an accurate dipiction of history either. Because we have to fill some things in with assumptions, not entirely, but if you want convey a story within a film you have to fill it with something.

[salvorhardin]

3. Like I said, I liked it too

As I think I may have said in this forum when I saw it last year, it's perhaps the best anti-theist film ever made. While I'm not personally anti-theist, I do understand why some people are and I think films like this one might be capable of communicating that message to people who wouldn't normally even try to understand.

Still, I do think it's important to realize the historical deviations that Amenabar made in this film. Unlike 300, I think people are viewing it as an accurate representation of the history. Similarly to The DaVinci Code, Oliver Stone's JFK, or D.W. Griffith's Birth Of A Nation, they get a distorted picture of reality. That stays with them because very few people are likely to investigate further.

[and-justice-for-all]

4. I never expect films to be highly accurate....

but I fully understand that most people can not grasp that concept. If moves were made with education in mind, no one would go an see them...I think they are called lectures.

[Deep13]

5. So it's not about the rabbits with the long, white hair...

...that people use to knit sweaters?

[onager]

6. !