![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
jenettI have just gotten home from seeing it (in Minneapolis, it is playing at the Uptown Theatre this week. Maybe not beyond that.)
Now, one of the problems with being me - or rather, with having my head full of a wide range of library history, clothing history, dye history, religious and theological history, architectural history, and, well, pretty much any other history one might pick up, is that going to see historically set movies can be an exercise in frustration.
This film, delightedly, gets *very* much of that right.
The story is ... well, okay, it bills itself as historical fiction, which is right, because historically, there's not a whole lot we know about Hypatia of Alexandria. That she existed, that she was a widely respected astronomer and philosopher, widely respected among her male peers at a time when women just Didn't Do That In Public. That there are a couple of legends about her which persist. That she was killed in inter-religious violence in the city, arguably. But that none of her work survived. We know that the prefect of Alexandria (Orestes) publically respected her wisdom.
But the central astronomical conceit of the movie - the development of the heliocentric model - is not historically attributed to her (the movie treats it appropriately, given that.) The details of her friendship with Orestes, ditto.
There's a lot of glorious ambiguity, and parallels of the fragility of knowledge, and the fragility of friendships, and the challenges of being a good person in a complex world. It is, as the director says, a film about the dangers of fanaticism, far more than being a film about the errors of any one particular group.
And it's a movie about what we do with knowledge, what we value about it, about whether we continue asking questions to the last, or whether we sit on what we believe and hope it will sustain us through the hard times. There are reasons that I have honored Hypatia as my ancestor-of-profession for a number of years now: there are always more questions, and I want always to continue to ask them. No one in this movie is a shining example of perfection - even Hypatia has her moments of cruelty and of blindness to the reality of her world. But the questions - the need to question - continues.
But there's also a lot of details that are just plain right, but without yelling their rightness.
There's the Pagan statues in the square, showing Serapis, Minerva, and Anubis - not just one culture, but the mingling of the Hellenic-Kemetic-Roman syncreticism of Alexandria. (The Christian churches also have appropriate details for the time period, but I find those less interesting.)
There's a lot of attention - not just in the extras, but in the main cast and minor roles - to have a huge range of skin tone, facial structure, and pretty much every other ethnic marker. Of all the details that make us believe that this is the great port city of Northern Africa, a meeting place of the Mediterranean with all that implies.
There's the fact that I could watch the movie and go "Yes, that's the right red-purple for post-Tyrian purple alternatives, for the Roman dignitaries." and "Oh, that *is* the right shade of achievable green for the period" and "Yes, that's a realistic blue" and so on and so forth. Very pleasing.
There's the little wax tabs on the ends of the scrolls indicating what scroll is which: a little historical tidbit that most people don't know. And there's the moment when they're reading from the New Testament, and it's a codex, rather than a scroll (also quite appropriate: the spread of the codex - the book - and the spread of Christianity are closely linked.) There are the moments of scrolls being tossed across and destroyed - but not tearing, because of course, they are either parchment or papyrus, neither of which tear readily.
There are the animals and the birds - local to the area (well, I had a moment with both the sheep and the horses, but I think they're both arguable.) But there's a glorious shot of what must be an ibis at one point.
And there's the fact of the Parabalani - the fanatics who start a great deal of destruction and misery, but who are also seen ministering to the poor, and tending to the dead (their historical origin.) They do have the one serious historical difference I had to peer at - they all wear very black black, which is historically a very difficult and expensive color to dye. But for cinematic reasons, it works, and better than muddy very dark browns, which would have been more likely, I think.
And interestingly enough, before distribution, the distribution company screened it at the Vatican, and they had no complaints - and made a few suggestions to improve several scenes. I like that. (http://www.scottholleran.com/interviews/alejandro-amenabar.htm mentions this, and has some other interesting bits from an interview with the director.)
Now, there is one interesting gender note here. This movie manages, despite having a female protagonist who is very firmly not romantically attached, to fail the Bechdel test, because there are no other women with speaking roles in the movie. (There are plenty in crowd scenes, and a few female slaves that she does not interact with directly.) That said, Hypatia's comfort with being female is very clearly conflicted: she refers to her fellow scholars and herself among them as brothers (i.e. "We are all brothers", not "You are my brothers"), and she is very clearly not happy with a female role in that society, and solves it by basically not seeing herself as female except in the most basic and external ways. Including menstruation, which is one of the legends about her that's continued in various sources.)
And yet, she is reliably referred to as "Lady" in a way that - if you know the Greek of the time - has an undertone of Kyria underneath all of it, the Lady set apart, separate, distinct, one-of-us-and-yet-different, the term used to one you respect, one who you see as above you in some way, whether as teacher or as mistress of the house or something else of the kind. Those of you familiar with some forms of Christianity will know the masculine of that: Kyrie, used to refer to Jesus. The 'Lady' in its repetition takes on a lot of that echo for me.
In short (or not so short) a very excellent movie, highly recommended. I should note that there's a fair bit of violence, though it mostly avoids being as gore-driven as historical events make it. (There are a lot of cut-aways and after-effects of injuries rather than moment-of-where-you-see-everything.) There's also one scene that may make anyone who's had a stalker deeply uncomfortable, and one scene of very uncomfortable sexual aggression: both have consequences in the story that are resolved in ways consistent with the story.'
Finally, I add three links for people interested in digging into the history, from author Faith Justice, who's written a novel about Hypatia, and therefore dug into the history in great detail. Part 1 is about some of the myths and legends that appear in the movie, Part 2 is about the historical background, and Part 3 is about the individuals mentioned by name in the movie.
Now, one of the problems with being me - or rather, with having my head full of a wide range of library history, clothing history, dye history, religious and theological history, architectural history, and, well, pretty much any other history one might pick up, is that going to see historically set movies can be an exercise in frustration.
This film, delightedly, gets *very* much of that right.
The story is ... well, okay, it bills itself as historical fiction, which is right, because historically, there's not a whole lot we know about Hypatia of Alexandria. That she existed, that she was a widely respected astronomer and philosopher, widely respected among her male peers at a time when women just Didn't Do That In Public. That there are a couple of legends about her which persist. That she was killed in inter-religious violence in the city, arguably. But that none of her work survived. We know that the prefect of Alexandria (Orestes) publically respected her wisdom.
But the central astronomical conceit of the movie - the development of the heliocentric model - is not historically attributed to her (the movie treats it appropriately, given that.) The details of her friendship with Orestes, ditto.
There's a lot of glorious ambiguity, and parallels of the fragility of knowledge, and the fragility of friendships, and the challenges of being a good person in a complex world. It is, as the director says, a film about the dangers of fanaticism, far more than being a film about the errors of any one particular group.
And it's a movie about what we do with knowledge, what we value about it, about whether we continue asking questions to the last, or whether we sit on what we believe and hope it will sustain us through the hard times. There are reasons that I have honored Hypatia as my ancestor-of-profession for a number of years now: there are always more questions, and I want always to continue to ask them. No one in this movie is a shining example of perfection - even Hypatia has her moments of cruelty and of blindness to the reality of her world. But the questions - the need to question - continues.
But there's also a lot of details that are just plain right, but without yelling their rightness.
There's the Pagan statues in the square, showing Serapis, Minerva, and Anubis - not just one culture, but the mingling of the Hellenic-Kemetic-Roman syncreticism of Alexandria. (The Christian churches also have appropriate details for the time period, but I find those less interesting.)
There's a lot of attention - not just in the extras, but in the main cast and minor roles - to have a huge range of skin tone, facial structure, and pretty much every other ethnic marker. Of all the details that make us believe that this is the great port city of Northern Africa, a meeting place of the Mediterranean with all that implies.
There's the fact that I could watch the movie and go "Yes, that's the right red-purple for post-Tyrian purple alternatives, for the Roman dignitaries." and "Oh, that *is* the right shade of achievable green for the period" and "Yes, that's a realistic blue" and so on and so forth. Very pleasing.
There's the little wax tabs on the ends of the scrolls indicating what scroll is which: a little historical tidbit that most people don't know. And there's the moment when they're reading from the New Testament, and it's a codex, rather than a scroll (also quite appropriate: the spread of the codex - the book - and the spread of Christianity are closely linked.) There are the moments of scrolls being tossed across and destroyed - but not tearing, because of course, they are either parchment or papyrus, neither of which tear readily.
There are the animals and the birds - local to the area (well, I had a moment with both the sheep and the horses, but I think they're both arguable.) But there's a glorious shot of what must be an ibis at one point.
And there's the fact of the Parabalani - the fanatics who start a great deal of destruction and misery, but who are also seen ministering to the poor, and tending to the dead (their historical origin.) They do have the one serious historical difference I had to peer at - they all wear very black black, which is historically a very difficult and expensive color to dye. But for cinematic reasons, it works, and better than muddy very dark browns, which would have been more likely, I think.
And interestingly enough, before distribution, the distribution company screened it at the Vatican, and they had no complaints - and made a few suggestions to improve several scenes. I like that. (http://www.scottholleran.com/interviews/alejandro-amenabar.htm mentions this, and has some other interesting bits from an interview with the director.)
Now, there is one interesting gender note here. This movie manages, despite having a female protagonist who is very firmly not romantically attached, to fail the Bechdel test, because there are no other women with speaking roles in the movie. (There are plenty in crowd scenes, and a few female slaves that she does not interact with directly.) That said, Hypatia's comfort with being female is very clearly conflicted: she refers to her fellow scholars and herself among them as brothers (i.e. "We are all brothers", not "You are my brothers"), and she is very clearly not happy with a female role in that society, and solves it by basically not seeing herself as female except in the most basic and external ways. Including menstruation, which is one of the legends about her that's continued in various sources.)
And yet, she is reliably referred to as "Lady" in a way that - if you know the Greek of the time - has an undertone of Kyria underneath all of it, the Lady set apart, separate, distinct, one-of-us-and-yet-different, the term used to one you respect, one who you see as above you in some way, whether as teacher or as mistress of the house or something else of the kind. Those of you familiar with some forms of Christianity will know the masculine of that: Kyrie, used to refer to Jesus. The 'Lady' in its repetition takes on a lot of that echo for me.
In short (or not so short) a very excellent movie, highly recommended. I should note that there's a fair bit of violence, though it mostly avoids being as gore-driven as historical events make it. (There are a lot of cut-aways and after-effects of injuries rather than moment-of-where-you-see-everything.) There's also one scene that may make anyone who's had a stalker deeply uncomfortable, and one scene of very uncomfortable sexual aggression: both have consequences in the story that are resolved in ways consistent with the story.'
Finally, I add three links for people interested in digging into the history, from author Faith Justice, who's written a novel about Hypatia, and therefore dug into the history in great detail. Part 1 is about some of the myths and legends that appear in the movie, Part 2 is about the historical background, and Part 3 is about the individuals mentioned by name in the movie.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2010-08-03 02:35 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-08-03 09:55 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-08-03 01:23 pm (UTC)('Specially from a Librarian? I mean, really!)
no subject
Date: 2010-08-03 02:50 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-08-04 02:35 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-08-03 01:00 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-08-03 01:23 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-08-03 02:09 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-08-03 02:14 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-08-03 04:26 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-08-03 01:09 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-08-03 01:23 am (UTC)There are some other very grim bits of violence elsewhere in the film, but like I said, it's mostly crowd-shots and after-effects-of-violence shots, rather than massive on-screen gore.
no subject
Date: 2010-08-03 01:41 am (UTC)And I still don't think I would call it a "pagan" film, even though it is a film that I think all modern pagans ought to see. Unfortunately, I think too many of them may take the wrong lesson from it.
no subject
Date: 2010-08-03 01:47 am (UTC)ETA: It's a film that I think is very much like _Dangerous Beauty_, which is another film I deeply adore. (The rather more fictionalised story of a poet and courtesan in 16th century Venice, but still incredibly thoughtful and well-done, if a bit more heavy handed.)
no subject
Date: 2010-08-03 05:40 am (UTC)suzanne
no subject
Date: 2010-08-03 05:44 am (UTC)suzanne
no subject
Date: 2010-08-03 02:37 pm (UTC)If you choose to see this film, you will NOT leave the thater without having been deeply moved.
no subject
Date: 2010-08-03 08:23 pm (UTC)