Although Vidal managed to write over twenty pages, analyzing various Artemisia protrayals, Garrard's Artemisia Trial by Cinema managed to grasp a message and stick to it. This personally was the best of the three essays which is why I will lead off with its summary. Basically, this article starts off and concludes with its opinion that the film was historically inaccurate. Not only is this referring to the painting, but more importantly the rape trial. As the movie changes Orazio's background, Artemisia claimed that he had been married once, but did not get into any detail of his real life. For instance, the article explains that a 1981 Italian and 1989 English document proves Orazio had raped Artemisia. Also, the article dives into an even more harsh truth which I was not aware of. Orazio had impregnated his sister-in-law and had already been in trouble with the law for a prior rape charge. If this was in the film, would the scenes have been shot the way they were? In other words, would this romantic feeling that director was obviously trying to get exist? This only gets worse as this short 3 page article even manages to point out that the film gives Orazio a 2 year in prison sentence. In reality, he was offered five years in prison or five years exile from Rome. The movie leaving this out practically changes everything.
While Garrard did a great job, Oslin's My Heart Belongs to Daddy focuses on the same aspects of truth vs. false facts. However, the article also gives notice to who Artemisia was and why this film didn't focus on what was important. Rather than explaining how Artemisia reached her level of fame as the film should have done, the movie focused mainly on a trial and her alleged love with Orazio. As the truth was not covered completely, Oslin makes a serious note that this late 1990's portrayal as well as previous films always dedicate her fame to her master Orazio. "In all of the 'Artemisia fictions', Orazio emerges as the true artist: he is Artemisia's master, the source of her talent, her inspiration, her love." (Oslin, 3).
Vidal, as stated before, put the most effort into the article and lays out the previous Artemisia fictional stories. While these were interesting, my main focus is on the 1998 feature that has neglected to mention many of the historical facts. Similar to the other two articles, this one lays out the feminist issues, as well the historical inaccuracy of the rape charges and the paintings. However, more importantly, the Judith paintings were done much later in time in relation to when this film took place. This article takes notice to such inaccuracies, but what intrigued me the most was the most important aspect of Artemisia. This was a woman who began painting erotic images that were illegal at the times. Women unfortunately were not allowed such privileges and the film slightly covers this, but not enough. Vidal makes a statement, claiming the movie does not focus enough on how large of a breakthrough this was. She broke the law and still managed to make it through her life. The article discusses that she didn't follow the rules and still made money as a female artist. Realistically, she was one of the first to do so and the film just doesn't portray these facts as they should be.
Although I have just stated the areas the film neglects to mention according to Vidal's writing, there were some areas of support that Vidal focuses on. For example, Vidal focuses on the false landscape of the film, but not does not necessarily make fun of these ideas. Rather, Vidal notes this is an aspect of spectatorship and good thought, but just isn't realistic. The director most likely acknowledged there were some false facts regarding this film, but sometimes false stories create more interest. Honestly, would anyone have enjoyed watching repetitive rape scenes and more borin visions of art? Artemisia didn't just paint in a day as this movie tried to claim. Rather, she took her time and would this have been fun to watch? The film is historically inaccurate as well not focused enough on feminism, but manages to be entertaining for the most part.
Moving into some personal views, this movie probably should have reconsidered before its release. I a gree with the idea of not focusing as much on the rapist tendencies of Orazio, but there were some historical issues regarding her paintings. As previously mentioned, the Judith Paintings in relation to her relationship with Orazio just didn't work. We all know that she didn't really ask Orazio to lie on the bed and spread his arms as if he was in agony. This never happened, but personally, this was a cool idea. The director most likely realized there is too much to cover, leading him to the idea that mixing painting with relationship could be considered creative and genius. However, critics were so upset with the false identification of who she was that such ideas can't be supported at this point. The director focused so much on the relationship of Artemisia, her father, and Orazio that the paintings didn't seem to be what the film was about. Rather this movie was a similar portrayal to that of Shakespeare in love. In other words, Shakespeare was portrayed as a lover who seeked other things than writing plays. It's too hard to tell, but the many flaws of the film overpower the movie's creativity. Historically, this film should have done a better job. If such inaccuracies were corrected, people could look at the film's ideas (e.g. looking at the outdoors with her eyes closed) with more appreciation.
Was the depiction of her relationship with her father and Orazio justifiable? The answer is yes and no. Orazio was portrayed as someone different than who he actually was, but if this film was completely made up and not based on a real female artist, there was some genius in the director's ideas. Also, the father's constant gurading of Artemisia and his broken friendship with Orazio just didn't seem close to the truth. Most likely this issue with Artemisia and Orazio was dealt with differently from the vision of the father. However, I was not alive in the 1600's and don't really know how to interpret something as bold as this. Therefore, the genius of this film is in a way hidden forever as the film's lack of historical accuracy in the relationships and the paintings. Artemisia was a good FICTIONAL film, but rather lacking in historical ideas.
While Garrard did a great job, Oslin's My Heart Belongs to Daddy focuses on the same aspects of truth vs. false facts. However, the article also gives notice to who Artemisia was and why this film didn't focus on what was important. Rather than explaining how Artemisia reached her level of fame as the film should have done, the movie focused mainly on a trial and her alleged love with Orazio. As the truth was not covered completely, Oslin makes a serious note that this late 1990's portrayal as well as previous films always dedicate her fame to her master Orazio. "In all of the 'Artemisia fictions', Orazio emerges as the true artist: he is Artemisia's master, the source of her talent, her inspiration, her love." (Oslin, 3).
Vidal, as stated before, put the most effort into the article and lays out the previous Artemisia fictional stories. While these were interesting, my main focus is on the 1998 feature that has neglected to mention many of the historical facts. Similar to the other two articles, this one lays out the feminist issues, as well the historical inaccuracy of the rape charges and the paintings. However, more importantly, the Judith paintings were done much later in time in relation to when this film took place. This article takes notice to such inaccuracies, but what intrigued me the most was the most important aspect of Artemisia. This was a woman who began painting erotic images that were illegal at the times. Women unfortunately were not allowed such privileges and the film slightly covers this, but not enough. Vidal makes a statement, claiming the movie does not focus enough on how large of a breakthrough this was. She broke the law and still managed to make it through her life. The article discusses that she didn't follow the rules and still made money as a female artist. Realistically, she was one of the first to do so and the film just doesn't portray these facts as they should be.
Although I have just stated the areas the film neglects to mention according to Vidal's writing, there were some areas of support that Vidal focuses on. For example, Vidal focuses on the false landscape of the film, but not does not necessarily make fun of these ideas. Rather, Vidal notes this is an aspect of spectatorship and good thought, but just isn't realistic. The director most likely acknowledged there were some false facts regarding this film, but sometimes false stories create more interest. Honestly, would anyone have enjoyed watching repetitive rape scenes and more borin visions of art? Artemisia didn't just paint in a day as this movie tried to claim. Rather, she took her time and would this have been fun to watch? The film is historically inaccurate as well not focused enough on feminism, but manages to be entertaining for the most part.
Moving into some personal views, this movie probably should have reconsidered before its release. I a gree with the idea of not focusing as much on the rapist tendencies of Orazio, but there were some historical issues regarding her paintings. As previously mentioned, the Judith Paintings in relation to her relationship with Orazio just didn't work. We all know that she didn't really ask Orazio to lie on the bed and spread his arms as if he was in agony. This never happened, but personally, this was a cool idea. The director most likely realized there is too much to cover, leading him to the idea that mixing painting with relationship could be considered creative and genius. However, critics were so upset with the false identification of who she was that such ideas can't be supported at this point. The director focused so much on the relationship of Artemisia, her father, and Orazio that the paintings didn't seem to be what the film was about. Rather this movie was a similar portrayal to that of Shakespeare in love. In other words, Shakespeare was portrayed as a lover who seeked other things than writing plays. It's too hard to tell, but the many flaws of the film overpower the movie's creativity. Historically, this film should have done a better job. If such inaccuracies were corrected, people could look at the film's ideas (e.g. looking at the outdoors with her eyes closed) with more appreciation.
Was the depiction of her relationship with her father and Orazio justifiable? The answer is yes and no. Orazio was portrayed as someone different than who he actually was, but if this film was completely made up and not based on a real female artist, there was some genius in the director's ideas. Also, the father's constant gurading of Artemisia and his broken friendship with Orazio just didn't seem close to the truth. Most likely this issue with Artemisia and Orazio was dealt with differently from the vision of the father. However, I was not alive in the 1600's and don't really know how to interpret something as bold as this. Therefore, the genius of this film is in a way hidden forever as the film's lack of historical accuracy in the relationships and the paintings. Artemisia was a good FICTIONAL film, but rather lacking in historical ideas.
1 comment:
Hale- I think it is interesting how you thought that recognized Artemisia as a good fictional film and the idea that the "fictional concepts added into the biopic allowed for interesting discussions." While at the same time recognize that the film could have done a better job with historical accuracy. I think that the discussions in the articles about the film are interesting but that it would have been better for Miramax to correctly portray Artemisia for its viewers who might not know anything about her life or art.
Post a Comment