Artemisia

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?
Garrard’s main points in the article are about how the movie distorts all of the facts of Gentileschi’s life. She backs up her argument by referring to the account in the movie of the rape trial, comparing it to the documents that actually exist of the trial. The movie portrays Gentileschi as a woman in love with Tassi who would not scrutinize him at the trial, even when tortured, because of her love. On the other hand, Italian documents state that when Artemisia was “tortured by the sibille, she insisted repeatedly that she had been sexually pressured and then raped by Augostino.” (Garrard 65). In the move Tassi is portrayed as a man in love with Artemisia who would sacrifice himself for her. This is seen in the movie when Tassi admits he raped Artemisia, depicting Tassi as a chivalrous man. But in the factual accounts of the actual trial, “Tassi himself testified that he had never had sex with Artemisia.” (Garrard 65) Garrard is attempting to examine how the ‘factual evidence’ in the no where near accurate in terms of the love story and depiction of the trial and sheds new light no a feminist approach to movie making. “Merlet’s Heroine is a young girl whose courage consists of acting on her sexual impulses.”(Gerrard 65) Gerrard believes the concept of new age feminism arises in the ideas and portrayal of this movie but isn’t correctly followed through. Artemisia is shown as a woman able to make her own rational decisions in pursuit of her own happiness while also challenging societal conventions of matrimony, but one cannot tell that the movie is made and directed by a woman because it depicts Artemisia as a weak and helpless child who becomes love-sick for her tutor.
Vidal, on the other hand argues “Artemisia reveals a transhistorical narrative portrait of a woman artist that builds on the work of period reconstruction in order to produce fictional scenarios of desire and self-representation.” (Vidal 70) Vidal focuses more on the biopic structure in the film and gives the reader different options in terms of the struggle in Artemisia’s life. The author looks at both contemporary feminist, post-feminist and antifeminist views. She also shows how authenticity and fidelity contribute or detract from the views of feminist, post-feminist and antifemist viewpoints. The “authenticity and fidelity” (Vidal 73) depicted in the movie allows for the focus on how the viewpoints of the film could create multiple different images of Artemisia, without criticizing the film’s portrayal as intensely as Garrard.

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?
I stand by my opinion in the previous blog post on authenticity, I do not believe that it is right for the media to change the facts of someone’s life in order to gain recognition and money, but I do believe that the media will do it regardless of if distorting facts is right or wrong. In my opinion, Artemisia was portrayed as a genuine fool in this movie and distorting facts make her seem like a lovesick child who can’t do anything without a man. It really frustrated me that they only looked at the most controversial part of her life and just made her into a sexual object without examining her achievements and linking the trial as an influence that strengthened her artwork. The movie makes her artwork look like a big joke and doesn’t focus on portraying her as the first woman artist, her greatest achievement.