Following Agora, I read up some on Hypatia, including two books by Mary Dzielska and Michael A.B. Deakin (both entitled Hypatia of Alexandria). She is Polish with a backing in Roman History, while he has mathematics background in Australia, suggested by his use of mostly encyclopedia source material for much of his historical/religious background material. Both are fairly brief accounts, her book little over hundred pages plus various notes/source information. They do the job, but I might have wanted a bit more in depth discussion of the times she lived in.
Dzielska is largely influenced by a pupil, Synesius of Cyrene (Northern Libya; gospel connection here), who later became a bishop. He is portrayed in the movie version. A third of the book is focused on her portrayal over time, particularly in various literary works as a type of archetype of the end of ancient learning.* The elitist nature of her work also suggests why she might have be an easy target by some forces. The second work focuses more on her mathematics, while providing analysis of her life and times in a more down to earth manner. Original source material is also conveniently provided. He has extended notes, often provided in a pleasant down to earth sort of way.
She is an interesting subject as are the times she lived in. The fact that a student became a bishop and -- her murder by forces in some fashion connected to the church notwithstanding -- was look upon as respectable by pagans and Christians alike. One sympathetic account, written not too long after her murder, was in fact a Christian chronicler. The reason is spelled out -- Greek philosophy, especially when not mixed with religious rituals, was intimately connected to Christianity. "The One" was a Platonic concept that many -- including Synesius -- saw as a ready parallel to God. A Jewish Platonic philosopher probably even influenced First Century Christian writings, including the opening book of the gospel of John.
Her death arose from a power struggle between a more assertive religious leader (archbishop, Synesius was appointed by his predecessor; they were not of the same rank) and the secular authority. The film has him being a former student of Hypathia, but as with much fictional accounts of her life, this doesn't appear to be based on fact. At least, neither of these books made any suggestion of the point. The bishop by the way died before she was murdered and did not visit the city any time around that time either. Also, there is no evidence he supported the idea that Hypathia could not speak in public ala pseudo-Pauline epistles. Nor, is there talk of her teaching rights in any way diminished after the destruction of the Serapis in 391.
A word on that. The film in its first section portrays the destruction of what appears to be a center of learning/library. Historically, in 391, influenced in some fashion by the local religious authority, the emperor ordered the destruction of the pagan temple in Alexandria. A successor of Alexander the Great established Alexandria as a great city and center of learning as well as establishing a new cult of the god Serapis. Dzielska touches upon his worship and how the attempt to close the temple was resisted but not by Hypathia herself, who did not practice religious ceremonies. This appears to be clear only by implication though it is somewhat more clear that she did not join into astrology, something she was accused of doing.
There was a "Museum" (center of learning) connected to the temple, the last leader being her father, and it too appears to have been a victim of the closing of the temple. The books are a bit vague on the point. Nonetheless, the movie -- with some dramatic license (Theon's accepted of armed resistance in protecting the temple is not noted by Dzielska) -- fairly represents these events. Christians were pressuring to close the temple/museum, some pagans (if the word is not derogatory) strongly opposed that (some hints of force) and this was used as a reason for the final order to destroy the temple. But, the movie doesn't really help us realize that a pagan temple was really the ultimate concern here, not the library, which was not the "great" library of antiquity.
The slave character as well as Orestes being the one who wanted to marry Hypathia (but not the use of a menstrual pad to diminish her suitor as concerned with the body over the soul) are dramatic inventions. The movie is vague about how many years past after the destruction of the temple, but it in effect jumped ahead twenty years. Also, Hypathia herself was probably closer to sixty when she was murdered, not forty-five as earlier accounts suggest. The movie appears to lean toward the latter and have her killed in her forties -- vaguely, it appears about ten or fifteen years has passed in the interim. Again, there is no evidence her ability to teach was as restricted as noted in the movie.
The movie's portrayal of the final events, putting aside the visit by the bishop, is fairly on point. The reference to a band of religious enforcers that bring to mind the morality police in Iran or even the Taliban does seem to be something of an invention. They did reflect an actual group, officially to serve the poor (as an early scene has them doing) but probably also a militia for the archbishop. Anyway, a new archbishop that clashed with secular powers and local Jews reflects history more or less. There is no note of him (Cyril) referencing her in a sermon or requiring the local officials to bow down to him. And, the former slave in effect making her death painless by smothering her first is a fictional device.
So, mixed bag, probably. The problem with the film -- other than perhaps slightly treating Christianity unfairly (even Synesius fails her in the end) -- is that after a pretty good first part, it is pretty vague about Hypathia. She in effect seems to be off center stage, which doesn't seem to reflect history (she remained a greater teacher to her death, some reports saying her popularity drawing Cyril's jealousy), and you don't really get a good sense of why exactly she was seen as such an importance personage. The film has her struggling over the earth's orbit, even perhaps imagining its elliptical nature, which again seems to be a dramatic creation.
As at least one review noted, it seems the writer/director couldn't quite handle the weight of the subject matter. I still think the film is worthwhile because of its attempt, flawed as it might be. But, viewers would be best to read more about its primary subject -- history here, as sometimes the case, more interesting and complex than its portrayal.
---
* One 19th Century work provided this eloquent passage, comparing Christian religious shallow thinking to the glorious nature of her ancient philosophy:
Cyril: Your gods are reduced to dust, at the feet of the victorious Christ.
Hypatia: You're mistaken, Cyril. They live in my heart. Not as you see them- clad in transient forms, Subject to humans even in heaven, Worshiped by the rabble and worthy of scorn- But as sublime minds have seen them In the starry expanse that has no dwellings; Forces of the universe, interior virtues, Harmonious union of earth and heaven that delights the mind and the ear and the eye, That offers an attainable ideal to all wise men and a visible splendor to the beauty of the soul, Such are my gods!
Quoted here. The movie would have done well tossing something like that in. Saying she had doubt while others rest on faith is a bit of a poor substitute.