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?

Vidal’s article mainly tries to sympathize with the movie Artemisia, and does not critic it as harshly as Garrard does. Garrard had a strong opinion about Merlot’s depiction, describing how even though this was supposed to be a feminist movie, one could not tell that it was directed by a woman. The movie did not follow the actual events of the trial, and made Artemisia look like a love-sick child; under a spell by her passionate teacher. Garrard would have liked the movie to stay to the historical facts rather than confuse the public about how fierce a woman Artemisia really was. But Vidal understands that sometimes, love stories and sex sells more than the historical truth. Merlot showed Artemisia’s strength by her NOT speaking during the trial. Her complete devotion and love for Tassi are what make her a strong woman. Vidal takes about how “reconstruction”, “visualizations”, and “illustration” are problematic features to every biopic movie. A director has to worry about how to reconstruct a movie to please the masses, how to make it visually appealing to an audience, and to somehow show the public their artistic abilities as a creative director. All of these aspects may not have been able to be shown had Merlot stuck to the real facts of the trial. And perhaps a love story seemed more feminist than anything. A woman, standing up for her lover, even though she knew she would be punished. Although Garrard could not see the strength it takes to not speak, Vidal understood that there is strength in staying quiet.

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?

After learning that Artemisia did not stay true to the events of the trial, I am left feeling a little disappointed in the movie, and I think my view on acceptable information in a biopic has been altered somewhat. I think before watching this movie, I had settled on knowing that movies have the ability to change events and information about actual people, just to please an audience and to make money. But after learning that Artemisia actually stood up for herself and did not stay quiet like so many woman have, I feel that Merlot should have shown that, to give Artemisia a stronger name for herself. The movie would have seemed more feminist if Artemisia had been shown as an outspoken woman, not afraid to speak her mind in whatever situation, rather than having her start out with a bang, and have her fizzle away only to have a man become the hero, like the movie portrayed. I think that Merlot would not have had so much controversy surrounding her movie if she had stayed to the facts, and visually reconstructed Artemisia as the woman we dream about when we read the events of her trial. She should have been strong, unafraid, and determined to win back the honor to her name, not hide behind the words of a man.
I think after watching this movie, I have a new way of thinking about biographical movies. I think that directors to stay to the facts, and show historical figures as they truly were. They should not have to create a character just to amuse an audience. If the person did not have an exciting life, then why make a movie in the first place. Create movies about people who are interesting to begin with; don’t falsify real people just to make a couple bucks. Make people realize that these figures were important back then, and figure out a way to make them important now.