10/13 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?

One of the first differences between the Garrard article and the Vidal article is that Garrard was concerned with analyzing all the historical flaws in the movie "Artemisia." Vidal, however, says that "by exaggerating the emotional aspects of her life, they reinforce familiar ties between creativity and passion." Vidal is finding the positive side of the exaggeration of the "Artemisia fictions," while Garrard is discrediting the portrayal of Artemisia in the film. Vidal also focuses on other parts of "Artemisia fictions" and not just Merlet's film (i.e. other books that have been written about the artist). To me, it seems that Vidal is offering the reader of the article about how the film displays, and also lacks, feminist qualities, instead of offering critique on how the film "Artemisia" has an "insensitivity to feminist issues" like Garrard believes. Vidal also assesses the movie on aspects that are included in the film. Garrard criticizes Merlet for skewing the facts and not including some facts/exaggerating certain details of Artemisia's life. However, I think Vidal doesn't do good job offering insight into analyzing the film from a feminist point of view. The author discusses how Merlet "positions the male artist as the creator, teaching and awakening the creativity of his female student." This makes it seem that without that dominate male figure in her life, perhaps Artemisia would not have any creativity to paint on her own. Vidal also discusses how Merlet's Orazio is the "author of Artemisia's life script. He made her into a painter." All of this analysis doesn't make it very convincing that Artemisia had a strong feminine power on her own. It also doesn't make it seem that Artemisia climbed up into the artistic world on her own. Instead, this analysis suggests that the men in her life-her father and Tassi-were driving factors in her success as an artist.

After watching the movie I still think its acceptable that movie alter some of the history of a person's life. "Artemisia" is about an artist. If the movie had spent more time focusing on her artwork and less time on the drama that was surrounding her life I don't think the movie would have been as successful. Viewers of the film might have thought that the focus of the artistic aspect of Artemisia's life was being drawn out. Merlet didn't want to make the rape trial very gruesome. Rape is a sensitive subject in today's society still. By including graphic details or drawing out the trial some people might have been turned off by the lack of sensitivity towards the issue of rape. The directors of movies have to hold onto Hollywood standards and know that they are trying to appeal to a difficult audience.