Talk:Agora (film)/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Critique of film

This blogpost offers a scholarly critique. It is not usable directly, as it does not count as a reliable source, but it provides plenty of pointers for any editor who needs background. [1]. BrainyBabe (talk) 21:25, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Wouldn't take this at face value at all, seems far too iconoclastic to be anything other than a fringe source. And he relies far too heavily on Dzielska's work (a Catholic apologist) which is considered beneath contempt by most classicists. She relies heavily on the works of Malalas (dating from the 6th century ce!!) which, to quote a recent review, 'Dzielska alone takes seriously.'The age argument is the most damning, Dzielska simply assumes the age of maturity to be 30 with no evidence whatsoever to back that claim up (the age of maturity in terms of marriage was 12-14.) This completely blows the age of 65 claim out of the water yet this blog uncritically accepts this and makes the rest of the claims untrustworthy at best.
Which review magazine is this? I've read quite a few english reviews of Dzelska's book and while there - of course - have been critical voices of some aspects of it (they wouldn't be academics if they did not have quibbles with a book), it hardly looks like they consider it "beneath contempt" which is rather unusual language in academic circles, even when they really get their blood up. Most classical review series welcomed the publication when it was translated into english. The most damning reviews - that DO use language like "beneath contempt" - I've seen have come from other, often rather kooky, sources. The parts of Dzielska's Hypatia that are especially enlightening in the context of this movie is the first part of the book, which examines her literary legend. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.9.210.97 (talk) 08:09, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
I agree with your points, however it most probably was just a figure of speech used by an anonymous poster. The person has a point. Dzielska's work has several serious shortcomings, one of which is the claim made by anon, that Dzielska assumes the age of maturity to be thirty something, and that too many assumptions are presented as fact. A scholar in Hypatia Journal (the feminist philosophical journal) has written a very good review in Vol.10 No. 4 pp.161-168 in which the problems of Dzielska are highlighted quite well. Too many people are using Dzielska's work as being seminal (such as this blog) and it most certainly is not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Boss Lad (talk • contribs) 04:00, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

That blog is better than any of the other reviews. If anything is a fringe source, it was the source used by whoever was the historical consultant the film. The author of the blog relies more on the (at least close to) contemporary source of Socrates Scholasticus.
Now I think the historical accuracy needs to include that there was not a library anymore at the time in the Serapeum. If there is no virulent opposition to this idea, if it can be substantiated of course by verifiable sources, I'd be happy to try to locate some.
Here is a sequel to the review, if anybody is interested.
For some more sourced background, why not read these series of blogs on the subject.
By no means are blogs a good source, hence there is a need for other sources, but at least these might just indicate there are some issues. Darth Viller (talk) 09:13, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Ah Mr O'Neill, the 'atheist' who spends all his time attacking anyone who mutters an anti-Christian comment. I eagerly await his rant against films like The Sign of the Cross or Quo Vadis, but somehow I don't think we will see this anytime soon. Fiction is ok if its within a pro-Christian paradigm after all. I don't see what he is so angry about. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.43.227.18 (talk) 03:56, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
Yep, I await his blogs rant against the upcoming Katherine of Alexandria (film); a 'martyr' who was never a historical figure and was clearly an invention of the later Church based directly on the example of the pagan Hypatia. Somehow I doubt he will be giving his opinions on this despite Agora at least being based on a real person. Ignore his blogs, they are not adequate sources whatsoever. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.113.245.199 (talk) 13:38, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
Unfortunately for you his (Mr. O'Neill) sources are better sourced than yours are. He is quoting scholars from late antiquity, the time period this incident took place in. Who are you quoting to back up you assertions? Some Christian monks who lived two centuries after Hypatia was murdered? As he said, the Christian scholar who wrote the primary source and who generally portrays Cyril as being an a** anyway concluded with this: "Yet even she fell a victim to the political jealousy which at that time prevailed", this is the earliest source about this incident. The scholar who wrote it, Socrates of Constantinople is speculated to have been a Novatian (Christian heretics who among other things, did not accept the readmission of lapsed Christians back into communion) since he writes extremely favorably about them. Since this here Socrates guy from Constantinople writes about the incident in way that is displeasing to those anti-theists who favor propaganda over the historical accuracy they more than anyone else should be advocating, their first instinct is to attack his credibility. This is rather odd, given that as I mentioned before, he had an unfavorable opinion of Cyril, likely because Cyril expelled the Novatians who he was so sympathetic to, from Alexandria, along with the Jews. His background is not exactly one that would leave him predisposed to speak highly of Cyril and he doesn't, yet for some bizarre reason you choose to believe scholars who lived millennia after this event occurred rather than the guy who wrote about a quarter century after it happened. So in conclusion you have done exactly nothing except for launch a bunch of ad hominim attacks on this particular atheist who you disagree with, as an irrelevant distraction from the mere fact that in this instance he is right and you are wrong.
Actually I don't recall posting any references, nor making any assertions. I simply pointed out that for an atheist, he spends an awful lot of time defending the Christian point of view against what is after all a fictionalised movie, and doesn't seem overly bothered when Christians are depicted in an extremely favourable light in other films which are equally historically dubious. But thanks for the response Mr O'Neill. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.127.75.214 (talk) 01:10, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Actually, St. Catherine of Alexandria was never actually ruled out as an historical person. Only described as "doubtful." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Splashen (talk • contribs) 23:01, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Of course there was a library, and they explained that it was just a branch. Please pay closer attention and review Destruction of the Alexandrian Serapeum: "the temple precinct housed an offshoot collection of the great Library of Alexandria." What's the problem here? Did you see the film? Viriditas (talk) 10:28, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
I'll be glad to pay closer attention. Anyway, I might have overstated it, but let's say it like this: there are indications from before 390 that there was no library anymore. The Serapeum certainly did contain a library, but whether it housed one at the time is more debatable. If you want I can try to find the Latin text somewhere, I bet Project Goethe or some other resource has it online. Darth Viller (talk) 21:14, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
You are referring to multiple, unsourced additions made by SPA IP's in 2007.[2] I'm curious if you looked at the list of experts who worked on the film, or what you think of Pollard's The Rise and Fall of Alexandria: Birthplace of the Modern Mind (2007).[3] Viriditas (talk) 08:04, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Hypatia's marriage

Don't know where someone got the idea that Hypatia was married to Orestes in the film, simply not the case and in fact her father emphasises the fact that she could never be married to a man. Reverted sentence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.43.227.18 (talk) 03:46, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

You are correct that Hypatia's father says this, however Hypatia still ends up marrying Orestes later. Her father's line occurs in a scene after Orestes proposes to her publicly by playing a lute in a colisseum and she turns him down. She knows what reduced independence she would have as a wife and her father knows she wouldn't give this up and hence utters the line. But after her father dies, Davos leaves her for the Christians, and the pagans lose control of the city, she reluctantly agrees to marry Orestes. This is not shown in the film, but occurs in the chronological jump of 10-20 years after the Library is raided, in which time Orestes also becomes prefect and all the leaders of the city convert from Paganism to Christianity. Orestes ends up not demanding much of her, but she is his wife, and this plays an important role when Cyril reads from the Bible to Orestes during the public ceremony. I was surprised that she would have gotten married, but once everything went bad for her, I could understand her view that it was the only choice left for her that would socially assure her some continuation of her previous liberty. She wasn't happy about it, but it was the best option left for her. This is what I remember of the film when I saw it in theaters. Since it's not out on DVD yet, I can't track down the exact moment/wording, so I'll wait until someone else can either verify or deny that she eventually marries Orestes. -Krasnoludek (talk) 08:13, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
There is no indication whatsoever that Hypatia married Orestes in the film. None. Are we talking about the same film? Viriditas (talk) 13:12, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
From my memory, it was implied in the transition between the pagan fall/Christian rise in control, in which period Orestes also becomes prefect. They do not live together and the marriage seemed to be in name only, not practice. However, I've only seen this movie once in theaters, it's now been several months and regardless Hypatia continues to act independently (to the extent she can). I'll rewatch the movie when it comes out on DVD to be sure, but in the meantime let's leave it out and attribute this to my faulty memory. -Krasnoludek (talk) 14:13, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
BTW the film is out on DVD in many countries. I bought a copy from Spain via Ebay (in English too.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.43.227.18 (talk) 06:20, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
You are thinking of the story told by Hesychius of Miletus. For some reason, you are interpolating Hesychius into Amenábar. :-) Viriditas (talk) 14:20, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Something just occurred to me: Krasnoludek, did you watch a dubbed version of the film? Is it possible that the translation was off? Viriditas (talk) 14:31, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Nope, English with French subtitles. I was basing this on the English, which is my native language. I believe the marriage, if it was mentioned, was written in the words during one of those zoom out scenes of Alexandria and never again explicitly mentioned. But, again, it could just be my memory. :-) -Krasnoludek (talk) 15:05, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Interesting. There were three separate title rolls. First, before the film began, second during the "intermission" between the two parts, and third, at the end. So, I should be looking for the titles in the middle, right? Viriditas (talk) 15:17, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Yes, that would be where I would look if I had access to the film. -Krasnoludek (talk) 15:38, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
I'm working on this now and should have a definitive answer shortly. I want to thank you for this good suggestion, because even if it turns out to be a dead end, we can still use it in the article, so good work. Viriditas (talk) 00:44, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Ok, here's the intro bit. The translation is not my own and is not ideal:

The late fourth century A.D. The Roman Empire began to crumble...Alexandria, in the province of Egypt, still retained some of its lustre, possessed of one of the Seven Wonders of the ancient world, the legendary lighthouse, and the biggest library known....The library was not only a cultural but a religious symbol, a place where the pagans worshiped their ancestral gods...The traditional pagan worship in the city now coexisted with the Jews, and an unstoppable religion up to now banned, Christianity.

Second part:

After taking the library, many pagans were converted to Christianity. Hypatia continued teaching and researching, while her former students held important positions in the social elite....The empire was split in two forever. Many Christians saw this as a sign of the end of the world, and decided to prepare by practicing a more holy life....The Parabolani brotherhood was charged to go through the streets and watch for Christian morality, now unbalanced by the presence of the Jews.

Third part:

The body of Hypatia was mutilated and the remains were dragged through the streets and burned in a fire. Orestes was outlawed forever and Cyril took control of the power in Alexandria. Later, Cyril was declared a Saint and Doctor of the Church. Although none of Hypatia's works remain, it is said that she was an exceptional astronomer, renown for the mathematical study of conical curves. 1200 years later, in the 17th century, astronomer Johannes Kepler described that one of those curves, the ellipse, governs the movement of the planets.

Comments? Viriditas (talk) 02:38, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the research. It appears that I was mistaken about the marriage. You're right that these "intertitles" contain much useful information. For instance, the Parabolani, who become a major player in the second half of the movie, have their purpose explained. The third part also displays the connection between Hypatia's own work and Kepler's later discoveries; the filmmakers used artistic license to suggest that Hypatia herself might have been close to discovering the nature of the motion of the planets. Surviving works by other authors, at least, show that much of the necessary mathematics had already been developed. This ties into one of the major themes of the movie: the loss/halt of knowledge that comes with a revolution, and one could argue, with fundamentalism. The major event in this theme, naturally, is the raid of the library. I'll look for a source that develops these ideas, since my view counts only as original research :-) -Krasnoludek (talk) 12:13, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

No true Scotsman

The Amenábar quote seems to have been picked to highlight his fallacy, namely that "no good Christian should feel offended by this film." I'm not sure this best represents the issue or shows him in the best light. Viriditas (talk) 23:01, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Removed. Viriditas (talk) 23:05, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
I picked the Amenábar quote (the first direct quote I found) to have a response to the criticism from religious groups. I agree with you that the "no good Christian" part of the quote is not worth including. However, I don't agree with your recent full removal of the quote. Your edit summary said that film critics should be the ones used to respond to the criticism, but I find it strange to ignore a statement from the person who envisioned the film. Amenábar surely anticipated religious disapproval and criticism of his film and this expectation consciously went into his crafting of the film with debatably positive or negative results. Since he expected to face these criticisms, I feel it's most relevant for him himself to respond to any allegations of anti-Christian elements. Film critics' interpretations are also useful (e.g. your well-picked quote from Ordoña), since the director is of course biased by his own emotional/financial/artistic investment in his film, but the director's opinion here shouldn't be absent. -Krasnoludek (talk) 12:08, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Please review MOS:FILM and related policies and guidelines. Also, if you could point me to a critical reception section in either a FA or GA article that quotes the director, I would be happy to look at it, but I am not aware of any. "Critical reception" does not usually mean that the director gets to reply to it. Since the religious angle will keep coming up, it looks like another section will have to be created since you find it necessary to include the opinion of the director in the wrong section. I have no objection to including the quote in a section about religion, but since it has yet to be written, I removed it. In another issue, you restored IMDb as an inline source outside the infobox, which is generally not best practice. IMDb is rarely used as a source for content. The material you added using IMDb is generally considered a primary source interpretation. I realize that you think this material is important to include, but we generally cite secondary sources to avoid editors determining what is important and what is not. I think it is certainly reasonable to talk about the release history, but you risk falling down a slippery slope when you interpret IMDb. In this particular instance, it's not really a big deal because it can be fixed easily, but it's wise to keep an eye on how we use sources. I've addressed this in a separate section, here. Viriditas (talk) 14:00, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
In fairness, when the quote was added, it was in a section titled "Controversy", separate from "Reception". Later editors lumped these together under the "Critical reception" banner. I have now read MOS:FILM and while it does hinge upon film critic analysis (as it should), it does not proscribe directors, actors, etc. from having their responses listed. To respond to your challenge, Battefield Earth's section on critical reception has a paragraph about the film's producer Elie Samahathe's response to criticism of the film. Night of the Living Dead, has a quote from the director George Romero finishing off the Reviews section, validating a film historian's point with his own admission. These are both featured articles that indicate it's not an unusual thing to include responses from the director or other people involved.
Ultimately, however, after rereading MOS:FILM and looking at some other FA film articles with controversial elements (e.g. Battefield Earth, Cannibal Holocaust, But I'm a Cheerleader), I believe the Amenábar quote and the Observatorio protest should be moved back to a separate "Controversy" section. This seems to be standard practice and jibes with the MOS. I'd be happy to contribute to the formation of that section. You've been doing a great job fleshing out the article. -Krasnoludek (talk) 15:01, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
I support a separate section in the future, but not a controversy section. Rather the section should focus on "Historical and scientific accuracies", since virtually all of the main arguments from religious authorities are rooted in this subtopic. "Controversy" sections are highly partisan and POV, and encourage poor editing that separates topical criticism from main topics. I am strongly against a controversy section in this case unless there is an actual controversy (such as a real world controversy) separate and distinct from the historical and scientific accuracy that is being criticized. Viriditas (talk) 15:08, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

(undent) Ok, sounds like a good title for the section. Why not create it now and move the content there? It can then be expanded. The Observatorio criticism certainly belongs there, but now I'm not sure the Amenábar quote should be in that section. In fact, the quote seems more appropriate for a Themes section, which is another section recommended by the film MOS. But I would further cut the sentence mentioning Jesus from the quote, since that's only relevant in context to responding to the religious criticism from the Catholic Church. What do you think? -Krasnoludek (talk) 15:51, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Historical and scientific accuracies

Deleted on 24.3.2016:

"Some reviewers have heavily criticized Agora for historical inaccuracies, heavy artistic licenses and perceived anti-Christian bias in the movie. As one major example, the destruction of the main library is already assumed destroyed before Hypatia's death when in fact it was destroyed in the aftermath of the Islamic conquest. (Parsons The Alexandrian Library Glory of the Hellenic World)"

Reasons: "some reviewers" [which?]; "historical inaccuracies... anti-Christian bias" [already mentioned]; "destruction of main library" [false information, incorrect referencing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Destruction_of_the_Library_of_Alexandria#Decree_of_Theodosius.2C_destruction_of_the_Serapeum_in_391]

(Rosenkreutzer (talk) 02:26, 24 March 2016 (UTC))

The Spanish Catholic Observatorio Antidifamación Religiosa (Religious Anti-Defamation Observatory) protested against the film for "promoting hatred of Christians and reinforcing false clichés about the Catholic Church." Michael Ordoña of the Los Angeles Times acknowledges that the film has been criticized for "perceived slights against Christians" but that "its lack of condemnation of specific dogma makes the film's target seem to be fundamentalism in general". Before release, the distribution company insisted on a screening of the film at the Vatican. No objections were reported and Vatican officials assisted in some of the religious depictions.

Several issues here. First, do we know if the Observatorio criticism came after the Vatican screening? I think it did. Also, we need to keep in mind that the Observatorio criticism is a response to the portrayal of Christians in the film. It would make sense to start the paragraph with a neutral description of this portrayal in relation to actual historical events. Also, why not just use English and call them the Religious Anti-Defamation Observatory? Viriditas (talk) 04:10, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Quick response to one of your questions: in several edits occuring in early May (not involving me), it was debated whether to use the Spanish name of the Observatory or not. What eventually stuck is that since it's a Spanish organization, the Spanish name should be present. I tend to agree with this conclusion, in particular since the organization is not well known in English-speaking countries under an English name. Compare with major place names, which have an English form, with minor place names, which tend to maintain the native country's spelling and name. Or with Alliance française and FIFA, which maintain their foreign names/acronyms, as opposed to Médecins Sans Frontières, which is commonly known in English as Doctors Without Borders. So even though having both the Spanish and English names is clunky, I vote on keeping them both. I'll reply to the other points in a few hours. -Krasnoludek (talk) 10:15, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
A sound argument; However, it fails to account for usage in English sources. From what I can tell, we only need to use the English name, in parity with the English sources who use only the English name. So, can it be shown that the Spanish name is more commonly used in English? Let's remember that the only reason we have the material in this article is because the Catholic News Agency ran a story on it.[4] Please note the name they use to refer to the group: "Religious Anti-Defamation Observatory". In other words, our usage must reflect the sources. Viriditas (talk) 04:25, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
Your argument is also sound, and since the best English sites I could find with the Spanish name first were About.com and some blogs, your Catholic News Agency trumps them. Let's go with the English translation first, as you have already done. :-) -Krasnoludek (talk) 13:35, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

(undent) Now to respond to the other points, about the order of historical and scientific accuracies. You are absolutely right about the placement of the Observatory objection; it almost surely came after the Vatican screening. The ordering was just an artifact of me having pulled the Observatory stuff into that section first, and only later built up the Vatican material and the women-subjugation reading of the Bible by Cyril. And yes, the accuracy section needs a NPOV introductory paragraph explaining the overall nature of the objections and what the makers of the movie did to maintain accuracy or consciously avoid it. -Krasnoludek (talk) 13:41, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Big scientific inaccuracy is Hypatia's discovery of eliptic shape of the Earth orbit. The orbit of Earth is near to perfect circle, with Sun in the center. Do you really think, that change of seasons is caused by Earth changing it's distance from Sun? It is possible that she could discover elliptic orbits of other planets. But to discover the slight excentricity of Earth's orbit was with high probability impossible for science of her time. --95.82.190.20 (talk) 08:06, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't think this is an inaccuracy. I'd call it artistic license. Any-way, I just saw the movie and it seemed to me she was saying the sun looked different sizes in different seasons. (Cold and hot in temperate zones are due to tilt not distance.) I don't know if the sun looks smaller in winter (in Egypt), but if it does -- even if this is due to some totally other factor -- it would be a legitimate (though false) conclusion that the sun was farther away then. Correct (or, shall we say, "better") explanations in science have not so infrequently been based on wrong interpretation or incorrect data. Kdammers (talk) 03:55, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
Actually, the Sun looks LARGER in the (Northern Hemisphere) winter and smaller in the summer, because of the eccentric orbit. The real question is this: Was it common knowledge that the solid angle subtended by the Sun varies throughout the year as is depicted in the film? -Deathmare (talk) 13:07, 13 June 2011 (EST)

Regarding the historical accuracy of the movie, there is a series of blog articles written by author Faith L. Justice which are very interesting:

I don't think they should be directly cited, but it's the best analysis of the historical accuracy of this movie that I've found so far. City zen (talk) 05:03, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

People and ideas

We should start merging the following links into this section and discuss their importance in the film:

There's much more, of course. Viriditas (talk) 04:23, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

User:Patrick added some of this to the plot section as an addendum, but that doesn't work. It is fine to merge it into the plot but it should not be tacked on to the end. Otherwise we should focus on these ideas in another section. Viriditas (talk) 19:41, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Agreed. I thought it might have better suited the still-to-be-written Themes section or been invoked as a beginning to the scientific accuracy portion of the Accuracy section, but as it has been incorporated into the plot is fine. It also corrects a major omission of the plot: that she discovered the elliptical orbits of the planets before being stoned. This both underlines the tragedy of her death and acts as one of the film's major scientific history fictions, which will be discussed in later sections of the article. -Krasnoludek (talk) 13:47, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Clarification needed

Agora premiered at the 2009 Cannes Film Festival,[12] but the film was unable to find a domestic[clarification needed] distributor due to its large budget and length.

domestic in which country? USA? If so, "unable to find" needs to be updated to "unable to attract a US distributor then

An editor added a "clarification needed" tag to this text with the attached edit summary above. Since the film is Spanish, I'm unclear why "domestic distributor" needs to be clarified. It certainly can be expanded to fill in the negotiations that took place between the time it could not find a domestic distributor and the time that it did. I thought the use of the word "domestic" here was as clear as a bell. It's not an American film. Domestic: adjective: of or relating to the home; produced in a particular country. [5] The Variety source does tend to use industry jargon, so perhaps it should be changed. Here's the original: ""Agora," costing upward of $70 million to produce, failed to find a domestic distrib after its world premiere at the Cannes Film Festival...." The context of that statement appears in an article about the opening in Spain as a "Spanish-backed" film and about the Spanish director, so it's very clear what they are talking about when you look at the source. But feel free to change it to something that makes more sense to you. In case it is not clear, "domestic distributor" refers to distribution in Spain, where, according to the article, the "international arm" of 20th Century Fox later picked up the rights and distributed it in Spain. This was after the film was trimmed down from its original 141 minutes and appeared at TIFF. Other sources also refer to this strange situation, where the film lacked domestic distribution rights for 5 months or so. Viriditas (talk) 13:42, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Aha. I thought "domestic" *should* apply to Spain, but was not aware of any difficulty with distribution in that country, only with the USA and Italy. I think what threw me off was the phrasing, which can alternately be read as having a more permanent nature, that a distributor was never found. I'll add an "initially" to eliminate this possible reading. Point clarified, thank you. -Krasnoludek (talk) 15:18, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Release info added back contrary to MOS

From its success in Spain, the film followed a country-by-country release schedule through late 2009 and the first half of 2010, opening in a most European countries, some Middle Eastern countries, Argentina, Hong Kong, Singapore and Indonesia.

An editor added release info back into the article again. MOS:FILM on "Release" says: "Do not include information on the film's release in every territory[6]....If other release dates are found to be notable, it may be appropriate to include them in the main body of the article."[7] So, this information should be deleted. Viriditas (talk) 13:57, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Point taken per MOS. Will remove. -Krasnoludek (talk) 15:36, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Need verification

There's a list of consultants from the film article on es that would be interesting to add, but I haven't been able to confirm the list except for Pollard:

  • Antonio Mampaso Recio, PhD in physical sciences, astrophysicist and researcher at the Instituto de Astrofisica de Canarias.
  • Javier Ordóñez Rodríguez, Professor of History of Science at the Universidad Autonoma de Madrid, BA in Physics and a doctorate in Philosophy.
  • Carlos García Gual, Professor of Philology Greek in the University Complutense of Madrid and a specialist in classical antiquity
  • Elisa M. Garrido González,Professor of Ancient History from the Universidad Autonoma de Madrid and a specialist in the history of women in classical antiquity
  • Justin Pollard, historian , television producer , writer and screenwriter. Co-author, with Howard Reid of The Rise and Fall of Alexandria: Birthplace of the Modern World

Any sources confirming this list would be appreciated. Viriditas (talk) 10:29, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

I have found sources confirming three out of the four other people mentioned in that list. Here's an interview, in Spanish (my native language), with Antonio Mampaso: Antonio Mampaso: 'El mejor legado de Hipatia es su propia historia'
I think this should be enough to include the list of advisors in the article, right? City zen (talk) 03:08, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Critical reception

Critical reception section needs significant expansion, and I've added several critics for consideration in the further reading section. Viriditas (talk) 20:55, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Appropriate Use of CE

Looking at the movie poster supplied for the article, you will notice that the notation for A.D. is used and not CE. I think that the article should be consistent and use the connotation used in the movie poster and in the movie. sullivan9211 13:06, 9 August 2010 (CST)

A few things. First of all, movie posters aren't sources for our purposes. Second, that's not a release poster, and few if any of the release posters used a date. The synopsis on the film's website does use the AD form, and I believe this is true with the title cards as well. In that case, it looks like we should use the AD style. Viriditas (talk) 21:30, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Original research removed

A new user has been adding OR into the article and I have removed it twice now. User:Linceo claims that the observations about accuracy are important because the film is pretended to be "historical", however the lead section clearly indicates that this is a historical drama film, in other words, fiction. Linceo is welcome to use the sources listed in the article to expand this section, but OR is not appropriate. Viriditas (talk) 10:57, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

I will address the problems with this new content line by line:

1. One problem with the historical accuracy of this film is that, according to Gibbon, Hypatia was not mercifully strangled: "On a fatal day, in the holy season of Lent, Hypatia was torn from her chariot, stripped naked, dragged to the church, and inhumanly butchered by the hands of Peter the reader (alias Peter the Lector) and a troop of savage and merciless fanatics: her flesh was scraped from her bones with sharp oyster-shells, and her quivering limbs were delivered to the flames."

Artistic license in a historical fiction film is not a "problem", nor is Gibbon's account apparently the only one, IIRC. You will need a source about the film that discusses the "inaccuracy" to include it. We don't write articles based on editorial observation. Viriditas (talk) 11:02, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

2. Moreover, the scientific questions raised by Hypatia are absurd and unfounded, in fact the elliptic orbits were discovered by Kepler in 1609, only by mean of Brahe data.

That is, apparently found in sources about the film, and should be added back in with the appropriate source. As it stands, it is uncited. Viriditas (talk) 11:04, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

3. Finally, although the movie highlights Hipatia's history as a reflection on the relationship between religion and science, contemporary historians of science say the political struggle in which Hypatia got caught up was not related with scientific ideas. In the words of David Lindberg, "her death had everything to do with local politics and virtually nothing to do with science".[1]

Again, find a source about the film that makes this observation. Viriditas (talk) 11:06, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
The appropriate sources of the scientific errors of the film are in the whole paper of Kepler, Astronomia Nova, where he explains the reasons because he cannot use the equant with Mars orbits with Tycho Brahe data (and not with the Sun, like Hypatia in the film pretends.--Linceo (talk) 15:25, 7 February 2011 (UTC).
Please review WP:NOR. On Wikipedia, we don't rely on primary sources to make observations about another subject; we use secondary sources. In view of the above, (2) is the only one I recall seeing in secondary sources, but it will require you to look at the references listed in the article. Viriditas (talk) 19:51, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
Your request is ridiculous, it has nothing to do with an ORIGINAL RESEARCH, (1609 ?? ) it is SIMPLY WRONG!! Are you afraid to tell that AGORA is an UNFOUNDED scientific history ? --Linceo (talk) 20:17, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Linceo, I also don't like the fact that this "historical inaccuracies" section is completely misleading the readers, but it seems that Viriditas has a point as far as Wikipedia policies are concerned. The best way to keep the info in the article is to find a good source that makes direct comment on how much the movie is inaccurate. (e.g. maybe an interview with an historian you can find on the Internet, or even a comment in this direction by a critic... I'm not used to edit this kind of article, so I don't know what kind of source would be considered reliable enough). --Leinad-Z (talk) 20:51, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
I concur with Viriditas. We have guidelines about "Historical accuracy" sections here, and we cannot play armchair historian here. A drama film based on history will have innumerable differences from reality, so we should stick to analysis independent from ourselves. Erik (talk | contribs) 21:04, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
This article, also in the Wikipedia article's "Further reading" section, talks about the film and its historical accuracy. That is the kind of reference that can be used for the section. Erik (talk | contribs) 21:17, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
I really don't understand you, the link you show is just a PUBLICITY, and not a SCIENTIFIC article. Is Wikipédia an encyclopedia or just PUBLICITY ? In this case be the voice related to the film should be cancelled. I can found other links like the one you show, explaining how the film is historically incorrect, and of course you will say you don't agree, simply because you don't want that people knows. But I am a scientific, and I see that this film offends the memory of scientific men who worked hardly centuries and centuries to understand the solar system --Linceo (talk) 23:45, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure if I understand. You say you have links that explain how the film is historically incorrect. Are you talking about something like the New York Times but more of an academic publication? Or are you talking about using references that only talk about history, and you would compare these references to the film to draw your own conclusions? Erik (talk | contribs) 23:51, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Dear Erik, I strongly echo to your suggestion: as you particularly mentioned about the desire " to use references that analyze history and film independent of us", I have provided, with the book of Evans, a first step. You should not delete my words, but continue by adding other solid references. James Evans who wrote this book is an expert: he is associate editor of the Journal for the History of Astronomy. His book has a numerous of elogious comments: "... the History and Practice of Ancient Astronomy... The Bredth coverage is encyclopedic, from Babylonians and Greeks, .. through Arabic astronomers of the middle ages, to Copernic and Kepler." M.N. Swerdlow, Professor Emeritus, University of Chicago. This is why I decide to put the information that you have deleted. Please be constructive. Don't delete very good reference and continue what you proposed.--Linceo (talk) 07:50, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Linceo, have you read Wikipedia:No original research? Viriditas (talk) 10:52, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
Linceo, WP:FILMHIST says, "If analysis is limited, links should be provided to historical or scientific articles so readers can read about topics based in reality after reading about the work of fiction that uses these topics with dramatic license." What we can do is create a "See also" section that can link to the historical articles, where you can use references like Evans to talk about the historical events. This is a fictional work after all; we cannot import the historical details (of which there are many). We need to provide the reader access to these historical articles instead, so they can read about the real history after reading about this fictional work. I understand that you dislike how historically inaccurate this film is, but that is the reality of such products. They are pretty much never like history. Erik (talk | contribs) 13:15, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Page 9, (1st chapter) in: Ronald L. Numbers (ed.) Galileo Goes to Jail, and Other Myths about Science and Religion (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2009). Note: the first tree chapters of the book can be found here.

Sources for the historical accuracy section

This article could be much improved if it explained the historical inaccuracies in the film. A comprehensive review of the topic is this article, which focuses on how the fictional licenses of the movie were designed to convey a specific message regarding science and religion. --Leinad-Z (talk) 16:08, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

...Just noticed that a similar article from the same author has already been discussed in another section. BTW, the unsigned criticism of Dzielska's work in that discussion is nonsense. --Leinad-Z (talk) 16:33, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
We generally avoid using blogs as reliable sources. Published works subject to editorial oversight are ideal. Please take a look at the further reading section. Viriditas (talk) 16:51, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
Previous discussion on this topic found here. Viriditas (talk) 17:22, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
Well, for what it's worth, according to this, the author of the article I mentioned above has Masters in medieval history. He certainly seems to know more about history than random critics from magazines and newspapers. --Leinad-Z (talk) 17:53, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
Why not start a thread on the RS noticeboard? Viriditas (talk) 18:12, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

On the whole, this is a sad situation: David C. Lindberg, (which is probably the major living scholar on the topic of medieval science), clearly states that "[Hypatia's] death had everything to do with local politics and virtually nothing to do with science".(See here, in page 9) But apparently this information cannot be in the article since Lindberg was not specifically referring to the film. Meanwhile, there are some reviews (such as the one I mentioned) specifically criticizing this and other inaccuracies, but it appears that they can't be used as well. --Leinad-Z (talk) 17:53, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I believe you will find what you are looking for in the further reading section. If not, let me know. Viriditas (talk) 18:10, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. The further reading section was indeed helpful. I mean, it would be great to have the leading historian of science commenting in the article, but, for now, a Catholic professor will do. --Leinad-Z (talk) 04:39, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, Leinad-Z, for now a Catholic priest will NOT do. I will re-undo your addition. Please don't start a cat and mouse game here. Let's refrain (all of us) to adding this kind of opinions until we actually have the opinion of a leading historian about the film, or at least someone with the proper academic credentials. I mean, I wouldn't cite Richard Dawkin's opinions on the film in this article, why would someone add the opinions of a Catholic priest? I can understand adding the "official" opinion of the Vatican about the film, but that's all. The section is called "Historical accuracy", not "Opinions and impressions". Let's find an authority in history of the period (which is not the Middle Ages, since Hypatia was killed a few decades before the Middle Ages began) and then add what he/she has to say about it.City zen (talk) 04:06, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
City zen, please don't edit war. The source Leinad-Z chose to use is classified as reliable. The question is how should it be used? You say not at all, but I think there is room for it here. Viriditas (talk) 04:33, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
Hi, City zen. It is great to want the best references... but look at the state of the article right now, without the text you removed. All you left in the section is an interview with the director of the film saying it was screened in the Vatican and that: "from what I heard, no one said anything". In the end, hearsay reported by Amenábar is a source of lower quality than the one you removed. Alone in the section, it leaves the false impression that there are no complaints regarding historical accuracy. --Leinad-Z (talk) 17:43, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
Viriditas, thanks for your message. Leinad-Z, let me better explain my reasoning for removing that text. Agora is a historical fiction film which, due to its content, may be somewhat offensive to *some* Christians (and maybe Jews too?). As I see it, it's quite obvious that someone from the Christian hierarchy (in this case, a priest who also happens to be a media personality, according to his Wikipedia page) will complain about the film. Catholicism being a hierarchical organization, I think the preferred source to quote regarding that religion's complains about this movie is obviously the Vatican, which is cited in this article. I would be in favor of including some "official" Jewish opinion/complain about the movie and also from some relevant non-Catholic Christian/s, but I'm not aware of any (not that they don't maybe exist, I simply didn't look for them). But citing a priest, to me, adds nothing relevant to the article. I don't think he has the academic credentials about History that would warrant including his opinions about the film. I read his article criticizing the movie and, while he does refer to the historical inaccuracies included in Agora, his main objections to the movie come from the unfavorable depiction of Christians, rather than from those historical inaccuracies:
"But none of this gets to the heart of why I object to “Agora.” In one of the most visually arresting scenes in the film, Amenabar brings his camera up to a very high point of vantage overlooking the Alexandria library while it is being ransacked by the Christian mob. From this perspective, the Christians look for all the world like scurrying cockroaches. In another memorable scene, the director shows a group of Christian thugs carting away the mangled corpses of Jews whom they have just put to death, and he composes the shot in such a way that the piled bodies vividly call to mind the bodies of the dead in photographs of Dachau and Auschwitz. The not so subtle implication of all of this is that Christians are dangerous types, threats to civilization, and that they should, like pests, be eliminated."
All in all, I don't think Barron is a source we should include in the "historical accuracy" section. Please do take a look at the links I previously posted in this same Talk Page (section "Historical and scientific accuracies") about the articles written by author Faith L Justice. While she also seems to lack academic credentials on History (same as Robert Barron), at least she has done a lot of research about that exact period of history for her historical novel "Selene of Alexandria". And her review of "Agora" and its historical inaccuracies is much more informative and unbiased than Barron's.
Please tell me what you think about this.City zen (talk) 18:47, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
City zen, please keep your comments brief and to the point. If you must add an extended comment, link people to a subpage in your user space, or open up a report on the reliable sources noticeboard and link people to it. Few editors are going to have the time to read through lenghty comments, so we want to keep the person on the other end in mind. Now, to the point: you twice removed edits by Leinad-Z.[8][9] These edits quoted Robert Barron, Catholic Professor of Faith and Culture at University of Saint Mary of the Lake, in an article published by Catholic New World about the film.[10] While there is room to discuss exactly which part of Barron's article to use here and which to leave out, I believe your outright deletion is not supported. Viriditas (talk) 20:25, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
Viriditas, sorry for the long comment. Why do you think Barron's comments are more relevant and unbiased than Faith L Justice's? City zen (talk) 21:14, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
I do not think that, and we should find a way to use both, if they are needed. When we use RS on Wikipedia, we generally don't evaluate for bias, which is unfortunate. This is unusual, as you may have realized by now. This is because Wikipedia operates under the assumption of NPOV instead of other POV that might be used to write an encyclopedia. This view allows for the use of biased sources, provided they are not fringe or self-published, which is interesting because we have the opposite problem with Justice as a source. She's an expert on the subject of historical fiction, but she published in a blog. We should look for an exemption to selfpub here, avoid citing her opinion, and pay attention to her use of and representation of primary sources. This is also true with Barron. Can you point to material from both that you would consider adding? We may be able to find better sources that say the same thing. Viriditas (talk) 21:41, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
After some research, I have not been able to find a respected historian's article on this movie. I don't think there are any published online, so we'll have to do without them. The two best analysis on Agora's historical accuracy are unfortunately published in blogs and not republished elsewhere, the previously mentioned by Faith L. Justice, and this one: Armarium Magnum: Hypatia and "Agora" Redux. If a self-publication exemption could be made, I'd suggest including excerpts from both texts in the main article. The interview with Antonio Mampaso (in Spanish) that I mentioned in the "Needs verification" section of this Talk page also includes a paragraph about the historical accuracy of Agora, and by one of the movie's scientific advisors, no less. Maybe this could be included in the "Historical accuracy" section too? In short, I suggest the following structure for "Historical accuracy":
  • Keep the Vatican reference
  • Add relevant excerpts from Faith L Justice and Armarium Magnum articles (if exemption can be made)
  • Add mention to Mampaso's interview
  • Add mention to reaction from Christian sources, for example Robert Barron (Catholic) and Irene a. Artemi (Orthodox)
Your thoughts? City zen (talk) 04:26, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
Including the material from Justice might be doable, considering she is an expert on historical fiction. However, I'm not so sure about Armarium Magnum. If that is the site run by independent scholar Tim O'Neil,[11] and I think it is, it might be a hard sell on the RS board. I think we should set aside all self-published works for the moment until we have a good policy-based argument for using them and we've brought this to the attention of the RS board. Can you remind me where Mampaso's interview was published? Viriditas (talk) 11:17, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
This is Mampaso's interview: Antonio Mampaso: 'El mejor legado de Hipatia es su propia historia'. Google's automatic translation of the page to English is quite understandable. Regarding the article from Justice, I have no idea about how to submit something to the RS board, will you be able to do that? City zen (talk) 17:50, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. Mampaso was interviewed by the Scientific Information and News Service (Servicio de Información y Noticias Científicas - SINC), and the interview is hosted by the Organization of Ibero-American States. This appears to be reliable. I can help with the RS board later today. Could you add Mampaso to the article, and perhaps one or two items from Robert Barron and Irene A. Artemi? I will attempt to get permission to use Justice and O'Neil, but it may not be easy. Viriditas (talk) 21:35, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
I've added Mampaso, Barron and Artemi to the article. Please take a look, as I'm not sure about the style. BTW, should I add to the article the list of advisors that I have verified? (Mampaso, Ordóñez and Garrido) City zen (talk) 06:59, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
Richard Carrier has relevant qualifications (ancient history, history of science) and has reviewed the film on his blog (so, as a self-published source by a relevant expert, it is usable). He also has a strong bias completely opposite to (most of) the other sources, namely in favour of atheism and against religion, especially but not only Christianity (so I would describe him as "atheist activist" in addition to his qualifications in the article, just to make his bias apparent). Spoiler alert: He doesn't think the historical inaccuracies are all that great, even if the film took liberties when it comes to Hypatia's heliocentric theory, for example. He also disagrees with the assessment of the film as depicting a struggle Christianity vs. science, saying that all religious factions in the film are portrayed as fanatics, even the pagans, and simply indifferent to science. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 11:57, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Agora_(film)/Archive_1&oldid=1174614776"