Post 6 - Artemisia

This weeks film "Artemisia" watched like a feminist manifesto that fell way short of its goal. Firstly, the fact that the film originally pretended to be based on fact even though the director knew it was an embellishment (if not a down-right manipulation) is in poor form, and the movie reflects the directors intentions.
First I will touch upon what I did like before skewering it over a grill. I really liked how the film tried to incorporate the evolution of an artist. Artemisia started by drawing the reflection of her own body in a mirror. For the large scale paintings we saw a scene that was created almost like a theatrical performance with people hanging in the air with fake angel wings and so on and so forth. Even Artemisia's painting of Judith using Tassi as her model I really liked. The films demonstration of how an artist is created was the only authentic thing about this film.
"My Heart Belongs to Daddy" made an interesting classification. Because Artemisia is the story of the initiation of an artist it is called a kunstlerromane which is a tale of the the evolution of an artist. The only difference between a kunstlerromane and a bildungsroman is that the former includes a conflict between art and life, otherwise they both revolve around a child-like character who is forced to grow up. The author suggests that there is also a major split between stories involving boys and girls. The boys are allowed to grow up and become independent and find a sense of freedom from the world of the child, but women are condemned to a domestic role so rather than growing up, they are forced to "grow down". Often times, there is a conflict over the oppression of the female identity, especially through sexual means such as rape. In this way I can understand how the director was trying to subvert the genre into creating an empowered character but all of the included elements refuse to support her goal. The feminist portrayal of Artemisia should be one that suggests she does not need the guidance of a man to blossom, but her film opts out for a more romantic theme which places the female (Artemisia) into a subordinate role to the male (Tassi). Rather than being raped, she willingly allowed Tassi to deflower her knowing the consequences. She is a classic female protagonist by subverting the power struggle of deflowerment. The problem of course is that in history she really was raped by a not so good guy. Then at the trial their love provokes both Artemisia and Tassi to defend one another until Artemisia's art comes into jeopardy (by breaking her hands). So Tassi, the honorable love interest, saves the day. The main villain in this story is the church, not the rapist because according to the director there was no rape. Artemisia's struggle was in the face of the patriarchal religion that dominated their way of life, and according to the director Artemisia would've become a voluntary martyr for her own cause. This is course never happened. Artemisia sold Tassi out at the trial because Tassi really was a bad guy. No romance, no empowerement, simply a cruel act that forced a child to face the reality of adulthood. The director tried to subvert the standards of genre by manipulating a true historical life and have the gall to claim her story is true. If the director did this knowing that her story wasn't true but trying to prove a point then she's a liar, if the director really believed the story she was telling she's deluded, either way the film falls way short of its goal and unintentionally contradicts its own intentions of trying to create a feminist hero, a Joan of Arc for the art world. I'm just upset that the director really tried to pass off a lie as the truth. It is unfortunate that the director chose to concern the ENTIRE film with this single event of deflowerment and a fake romance rather than fully focus on her growth as an artist. Once Tassi came on the scene, her artistic pursuits really took a backburner to her "sexual liberation".
The quote Emily used from the Lent article, about women being portrayed under the male umbrella, shows the contradiction of feminist hero with subordinated woman. The inclusion of a romance, meant to give the audience an easy relation point, destroys her intentions of creating Artemisia as a feminist icon. Artemisia did not come into the world on her own, she did it under the guidance of an established male painter. It implies that she would not be who she is had it not been for the men in her life. Artemisia was willing to sacrifice her true identity as an artist for the sake of her lover. I'm not suggesting there is nothing honorable about that, but the feminist intentions become very obscured and potentially contradicted. The director chose to portray Artemisia as curious when she peeks into the room where Tassi and his men enjoy carnal relations with what could only be assumed as prostitutes. Artemisia is interested but embarrassed of her sexual curiosity. I am confused, is she sexually empowered through her open rebellion of the conservative females sexual identity, or is she childishly naive through her private fantasies of true love and romance? The former gives the film its feminist identity but alienates the necessary romantic element, but the latter contradicts the intentions for a feminist hero. I think the Director has confused the plot by trying to give the film a casual entertainment value paired with a deep feminist reading, both inherently contradicting the other.
I can understand embellishing history in a biopic as a means of trying to allude to some higher meaning, but if you manipulate the facts into less-than-half truths and the audience discovers that, then the story will be completely disregarded. The book titled something like "A Million Pieces" that was on Oprah's book club list comes to mind. I'm sure there are some elements of the guys book which were real, but those truths were totally overshadowed by the lies he told and lead to his book being disregarded as a legitimate biopic. I think the distortions of truth are justifiable to create the point the director was trying to create, but the minute that the director wanted to place a "truth" sticker at the beginning of the story was the minute all of that justification was flushed away. By leaving its validity ambiguous, it allows for the audience to decide for themselves, but the minute the director tells a lie like that, any and all justifications are disregarded.