Alejandro Amenábar is one of the few Spanish directors with some international fame; he is mostly known for the cult films “Tesis” (“Thesis”, 1996) and “Open Your Eyes” (“Abre Los Ojos”, 1997, remade by Cameron Crowe as “Vanilla Sky” starring Tom Cruise, Cameron Diaz and Penélope Cruz reprising her role) and the suspense/horror film “The Others”, a period piece starring Nicole Kidman that came on the tails of Shyamalan’s “The Sixth Sense” and shared a lot of its traits and tone. In Spain he is also celebrated for his drama “The Sea Inside” (“Mar Adentro”, 2004, starring Javier Bardem as Ramon Sampedro, a famous Spanish paralyzed man who wrote and fought for his right to die), he is a composer, writer and producer, he is the winner of four Goya awards (the Spanish equivalent of the Oscars), he is revered by critics and audiences alike and he is considered one of the most talented and brightest hopes of the Spanish film industry, something reflected in his escalating budgets and Hollywood-style techniques. He is, in other words, the Spielberg of Spain. He is also highly overrated and not as consistent as Spielberg has been throughout his long career.
Amenábar’s films lack a trademark, and his style could be described as processed Hollywood for Spain. His writing is decent but his characters tend to be slightly flat. People love him because he is able to do what the Americans do so well (big plots, relatively big budgets, big marketability and box office appeal) in a country where nobody else does it. But he also carries the negative side of what a commercial film can be – lacking in depth and inventiveness, and hardly ever personal. His new film, as much as it tries to be more (and Amenábar’s ambition was never more obvious than in this piece) is not an exception.
Set in Alexandria in 391 A.D, the movie follows several characters – mainly the female philosophy professor and atheist Hypatia (Rachel Weisz), her young slave Davus (Max Minghella) and her pupil and friend Orestes (Oscar Isaac), who will become Alexandria´s prefect and who is also in love with his beautiful teacher – and their relationships during a pivotal time in history when the ancient Greco-Roman polytheism, Christianity and Judaism come together and clash in one city, creating conflicts, enmities and bloodshed.
“Agora” has many elements that work, as technical aspects often do in Amenábar’s movies. The visuals are beautiful, the large amount of money spent (for a European production) is put to good use in the set designs and costumes, and the project has the large scale it aims for. It is curious, however, that for such a scale “Agora” never feels very epic. There is a constant shadow of grandiosity, as if the tale was supposed to be more, but it never gets there. It might seem close in appearance to the classic peplums, but it chooses philosophy over storytelling. The loftiness of the director’s aspirations keeps him far away from his characters (so far that at one point we are watching them disappear on an Earth as viewed from the universe). It might go with the theme of astrology, knowledge, and the humans’ limited perspective over things, but, as he engages in such elevated matters, Amenábar forgets that it is precisely those humans we are watching and that are supposed to keep us interested. His cosmic point of view works for the movie as an essay, but it runs the risk of being arrogant.
The film can be interesting. The thoughts and questions expressed on creeds and theology are appealing, and the film depicts a thorny conflict with clarity. It even offers some worthy moments of character and relationship development, especially with Davus, the slave in love with Hypatia who turns to Christianity, and Orestes, an intelligent and down-to-earth man also in love with Hypatia who sees his plans and desires shattered. The betrayals and unrequited affections are treated with a certain nuance that is pleasantly surprising. Sadly the movie’s point of view hinders those qualities. Even the plot, which is usually solid in Amenábar’s works, is less so here; as he fragments the story and uses the characters as symbols of certain ideas, Amenábar loses warmth and humanity. Worse, he becomes a little simplistic. We know that Hypatia is a symbol of light, rational thought and wisdom, but his positioning of her as such a hero because of those qualities makes the character inaccessible. Hypatia is unblemished by human matters and emotions except of the purest kind. She is a higher creature and a martyr. It is difficult to be concerned or surprised by such a flawless woman. The message that rationality and human detachment are allegedly the closest things to perfection is too glaring. Maybe the idealization of science and intelligence is unassailable, but Amenábar’s attitude is not really surprising: his own movies showcase his preference for technical perfection over flawed humanity. It is not surprising to see him interested in the rational Hypatia, but isn’t that conflicting, and slightly manipulative, in a movie that presents itself as unbiased? Faith, like emotions, has many detractors, but it is deeply and inherently human, and for a lot of people very valuable. Of course we all have our opinions, and our right to express them.
“Agora” is an interesting concept of a movie, but the result is more package than content. The large scale turns things cold instead of grandiose, and the fights are less thrilling than we would expect. Amenábar seems to want to achieve depth, and the ideas and notions he presents are complex, but what is lacking is another kind of depth -that of humanity. Amenábar’s message idealizes what his movies stand for – the cult of rationality – but it would have been nice to see him give up some control.
A very thoughtful review and, I agree, the film was beautifully shot. Amenabar distorted some history in service to his art (Hypatia and the Library didn't end that way and Synesius wasn't a jerk), but that's what artists do. I don't go to the movies for history. For people who want to know more about the historical Hypatia, I highly recommend a very readable biography "Hypatia of Alexandria" by Maria Dzielska (Harvard University Press, 1995). I also have a series of posts on the historical events and characters in the film at my blog <a href="http://(http://faithljustice.wordpress.com)” target=”_blank”>(http://faithljustice.wordpress.com) – not a movie review, just a "reel vs. real" discussion.
A very thoughtful review and, I agree, the film was beautifully shot. Amenabar distorted some history in service to his art (Hypatia and the Library didn't end that way and Synesius wasn't a jerk), but that's what artists do
I agree with virtually nothing in this review by Clara Viola (whoever she is). It is petty and pretentious, and in its own way more "grandiose" than anything in Amenabar's film. I can't agree with other commenters that the review is thoughtful. It is nothing but condescending disdain, which she must have worked long into the night to achieve. If the film was that empty and shallow, it wouldn't have gained the response it did at Cannes, or from viewers around the world. I often think that reviewers, when faced by talent and accomplishment they could never achieve themselves, feel an urge to bring others down to their own level of mediocrity.
Earl Doherty
If you judge movies by awards then your judgement will be pretty limited. Was Brokeback Mountain a poorer movie than Crash because it didn't win the Oscar? And Cannes can't be a go-to measure of quality if a master of cinema like Hayao Miyazaki, as well as plenty of top-notch directors around the world, have never been recognized there –does that mean their work is inferior to Agora? Everyone is free to have their own opinion on the film – I believe – but the fact is all the focus on Amenábar distracts people from a lot of other Spain's offerings, interesting movies and directors who, dare I say, might deserve the same notice than Amenabar, and the fact they don't receive it or are not as popular doesn't mean they have less talent. The fact is the Spanish film industry is suffering and desperately needs the attention Amenábar and Almodóvar get, but young and promising directors like Daniel Sánchez Arévalo or Nacho Vigalondo and other aspiring filmmakers also deserve a chance. And I have talked to several people who didn't like the movie because of the same lack of focus and/or coldness. Reviewers as well as audiences are entitled to their opinions. But it is ok if you disagree.
I can distinguish that you are an mavin at your field! I am launching a website soon, and your report determination be profoundly valuable in behalf of me.. Thanks in search all your alleviate and wishing you all the success.
I agree with virtually nothing in this review by Clara Viola (whoever she is). It is petty and pretentious, and in its own way more "grandiose" than anything in Amenabar's film
Boa tarde!, o meu nome é Vera estudo Psicologia e adorei imenso do teu blogue! Muito linda muito bem!
Concordo imenso tudo aquilo que aqui li.Hoje por vezes muito que falar nos blogues!Nada nada mais desafiante do que implementar a nossa ideia na net!
Até amanhã
Thanks for your exciting article. Other thing is that mesothelioma cancer is generally brought on by the inhalation of fibers from asbestos, which is a positivelly dangerous material. It really is commonly found among personnel in the construction industry that have long experience of asbestos. It is also caused by moving into asbestos insulated buildings for a long time of time, Genetic makeup plays a crucial role, and some consumers are more vulnerable to the risk than others.
I additionally believe that mesothelioma is a rare form of cancer malignancy that is commonly found in individuals previously exposed to asbestos. Cancerous cells form inside mesothelium, which is a protective lining which covers the vast majority of body’s bodily organs. These cells usually form inside lining of the lungs, abdomen, or the sac which actually encircles the heart. Thanks for discussing your ideas.