10/13 blog post

1) What are the main points of difference between the Mary Garrard article on "Artemisia," and the Belén Vidal article? Do you think Vidal offers viable insights into analyzing the film from a feminist point of view?

2) Has this movie altered your view about whether it's acceptable for a biopic to stray from the facts of a person's life?

The main differences between the two articles on the film Artemisia were that the Garrard article focuses mainly on the discrepancies in the film’s portrayal of Artemisia’s life, as well as her exploitation and sexualization by the director, while the Vidal article focuses on how the viewpoints of the film create a certain image of Artemisia, without criticizing the film’s portrayal as intensely as Garrard. Garrard highly disapproves of Merlet’s film, stating that it replaces Artemisia’s art and creativity with sexuality while trivializing her artwork. For a film directed by a woman, Garrard find’s the director’s viewpoint to be masculine and objectifying of women, even though Merlet argued that the film was feminist. Garrard’s argument is that Artemisia’s factual life was much more empowering; her art focused on women in powerful situations as well as unwanted sex, whereas the film sexualizes her creative process and trivializes her artwork. She argues that by eroticizing her, the film attempts to contain the actual social threat she posed. Vidal, however, argues for a more open-minded approach to analyzing the film. Vidal states that women throughout the eras of feminism have used Artemisia as a representation of their beliefs, projecting their various feminist and post feminist characteristics onto her. Vidal’s analysis of the film is much deeper than Garrard’s, and discusses the viewpoints and changing perceptions of the biopic, as well as the aesthetics of art cinema versus the industrial pressures of mainstream circulation. However, Vidal does not choose to veer as deeply into feminist territory as Garrard, omitting the facts about her life and paintings that give her feminist power. Garrard discusses the aspects of Artemisia’s trial, as well as her artwork, that made her a feminist pioneer, while Vidal does not offer any such insight. In this way, Vidal’s article lacks a true feminist viewpoint.

I stand by my statements in the previous blog post, that it is sometimes acceptable to alter the facts of a person’s life when adapting it to film, however I believe that this film crosses the line. Artemisia was marketed as the true story of the artist’s life, while the actual events in the film were so far off the truth. While some sexualization is to be expected in films meant for public consumption, this film veers from the territory of biopic to a work of erotic fiction. Artemisia’s life and art were hardly the focus of the film, it centered on her relationship with Tassi and her transition into adulthood. Her creative process is seen as a product of her relationship with him, rather than something innate. I believe that while some biographical films can skew some aspects of their subject’s life, Artemisia goes too far, and instead of creating a compelling story of the artist’s life, it trivializes her art and her strong femininity.