Creative fact-ion...

Post for 10/6
Is it ever appropriate for a director or author to distort the facts of someone's life in a biographical work?


A human life much like a movie because is follows schematic structure. The rising and falling action of the plot of a movie, coincides with life changing events in a person’s existence, and depending on how the story unfolds, cumulates with a happy ending or even utter tragedy.

The reading “My heart Belongs to Daddy” describes the fictionalization of Baroque artist Artemisia Gentileschi in contemporary films and novels. The author of the article, Tina Olsin Lent argues that these novels and films are “Artemisia fictions” that take this female artists life and construct into a dramatic narrative. She goes on the say how these fictionalized accounts of her biography focus on the emotional troubles (because in mainstream society being feminine means being emotional unstable etc) in her life especially her rape and the physically (and literally) trial that followed. However these were events that actually happened to the artist.

After thinking the question over I can’t say that I believe distorting facts is completely wrong. More importantly, I believe that the genre of film and the extent to which the facts are distorted should be taken into consideration.

Movies like people use disclaimers. How many times have the opening credits included the words “based on real life events”” or perhaps if the film distorts the facts or completely creates fictional situations that “fit in” but are based on nothing but a writers creativity they flash a “based on a true story”.

Biopics produced by large studios such as Miramax will have a higher budget then a film by an independent artist. Along with that big budget comes the pressure of the film making covering its’ costs. Therefore a film produced by Miramax is created first and foremost for the purpose of making money, and in order for a movie to make money it has to be entertaining. Based on what I believe to be our society’s definition of entertaining a movie especially period films usually include sex, power struggle, and or violence. In order to appeal to all members of the audience the characters are sometimes more sexualized then they were historically known to be.

I believe that when an individual’s life is depicted in film the audience has to take into account that they are watching the director’s interpretation of life events of person’s whole lifetime- in the course of two hours. We have to understand who she is so important life movements have to be cut and patched together in some order so that the audience is able to empathize (helped by sound, setting etc) with the heroine before the first climactic event. (I remind myself of this every time that background music makes me tear up… there’s no background music when its happening) The types of facts you are meant to illicit from the film aren’t the same ones that you would get from reading an article from J-stor, and the film is certainly not citing page numbers.

Film is art and art is up for personal interpretation. If we are free to interpret the works of the artist (especially when we relate them to their psychological state ) I think it is acceptable for another artist to interpret and express the artists life and work so long as they call it what is it, artistic interpretation.