Starring as Hypatia, the philosopher and mathematician who works alongside her father Theon (Michael Lonsdale) at the historic Library of Alexandria while teaching young charges in the ways of science and philosophy, Weisz fills in a character about whom little is known beyond her brutal demise at the hands of Christian militants. As the militants overtake Alexandria -- targeting both the Jews and clingees to the dying Roman Empire -- an ideological clash tests the bonds between Hypatia and her former student (Oscar Isaac) and slave (Max Minghella), both of whom also hold a smoldering torch for the comely thinker. The scope of the locations, the melodrama and the ideas are never out of Amenabar's sight, and to the extent he periodically tends to lose focus, Weisz is there to ground the film in the intimacy it needs -- just when it needs it most.
Weisz recently sat down with Movieline to talk over Agora, Hypatia, spectacles, the cinema of ideas, and why playing Cleopatra might not be such a bad gig either. The setting -- in a closed-door office with Weisz seated behind a desk -- lent an unusual job-interview air to the proceedings.
I like your office.
It's nice, right? Did you bring your resume?
Arrgh, I thought I sent it to you.
Oh, OK, then.
I really do feel like you should be interviewing me.
There is a role-reversal, I guess. Shall we switch sides?
No, I'm going to try to figure this out. Congratulations on Agora, which I liked. But what really blew my mind is that something this cerebral, this spectacular and this expensive could actually get made in this day and age.
I know, it's pretty amazing. We have to take our hats off to Amenabar, huh?
Seriously! What were your first impressions when you were reading it?
I didn't really think of the [size]. I just knew it was Amenabar. It was a really great story, and there were some action sequences and some fights. I didn't really think, "Can it it get made?" I thought, "Can I play this part? Can I pull it off?"
As historically accurate as Amenabar strove to be, he kind of had to take some liberties with Hypatia. In your own research--
In what sense? That she's working on this model of the planets?
Well, yes. He attributes accomplishments to her that we're not sure she actually achieved.
Well, he doesn't "attribute." Basically, what we know about her is that she was an expert in conic sections -- the shapes, the ellipses, the circles. She'd edited Ptolemy's texts with her Dad, who ran a library. She was a brilliant mathematician. There was a contemporary -- or not even a contemporary, a man from centuries before... Aristarchus. He had proposed a heliocentric model. So that was available to be thought about. So I guess the liberty that Amenabar took was to attribute that she figured this out -- this heliocentric model. Could she have done it? Yeah. Did she do it? We don't know. So that's where it becomes a fantasy.
Is that freeing to an extent? Playing a historical character, but knowing you have so much room to run with it?
There wasn't really that much to run with. Her character was pretty much about her work and her belief in stuff. I'm not an academic, I'm an actor, so I guess my job is to make her seem like a real person -- flesh and blood, blood in her veins.
You've done very well by the cinema of ideas, whether it's this or The Fountain or even The Constant Gardener to an extent. What added level of trust do you need to feel with directors of films this dense or complex -- to know that the story will get told?
I mean, a film is a director's medium. They're the ones who can cut you out, put you in, loop you, CGI you... I just do my work, you know? It was a very happy collaboration with Alejandro, who's a very inspiring person and a very strong director. It's a huge movie with huge battle sequences -- thousands of Christians and Pagans. It was a very big, exciting job. But "trust" him? I mean, yeah. I trusted him.
Well, let's take a Mummy film. The physical scale's just as big if not bigger, but it's not nearly as idea-driven. How, if at all, does that affect trust?
There's no difference. There is no difference.
Not really. I don't think it's an anti-Christian movie; I think it's an anti-fundamentalist movie. I think it shows some very beautiful aspects of Christianity. I do think it shows the Pagans as very enlightened and knowledgeable and all, but they had one huge blind spot, which was slaves. Which is really messed up. Then the Christianity came along and said: "All God's children. Blessed are the meek, blessed are the poor." Charity and giving to the poor was a radical idea. I think the film really focuses on that and shows some very peaceful aspects of Christianity and Jesus's teachings. But it is not tolerant of fundamentalists. It's an anti-fundamentalist movie. I mean, look: It tells the story of Christianity at a time which maybe some people would rather not [have] told. But it happens to be true that Christians were part of militias and armies. And they were violent. Not all of them, but there were violent Christian armies.
Well, we're watching the era that directly precedes the Dark Ages.
Yeah. It's the beginning of the Dark Ages.
Are you much of a history buff?
Not at all. I'm terrible.
Was Agora intimidating at all with that in mind?
No. No, look: I'm not an academic. I don't have to teach it. I just have to imagine I'm this person. I'm given a set to walk on to, I'm given clothes. I just have to be a human. That's my job: To be a human, and that's it. I can't act 4th century Alexandria. That's meaningless. I just have to be a human being.
Is there a historical character you would like to play -- or play against?
Cleopatra.
Why?
I don't know. She seemed like a pretty interesting dame. Can you think of any good ones?