Post 6

The Film Artemisia is plagued by historical inaccuracies and the falsifying of facts in order to create a better movie. In doing so the filmmakers and miramax cut out the most important fact concerning Artemisia Gentileschi, that she was one of the first great women artists to gain fame. The three articles only perpetuate the fact that by creating a film focused on sex and the influences of men, they are essentially reducing her to someone that owes all of her talent and credit to other people. 

In the essay Artemisia's Trial by Cinema by Mary D. Garrard she examines how Agnes Merlet depicted Artemisia Gentileschi in her 1997 film biopic on her life. She looks at how by choosing to focus on only a two year span in her life and fictionalizing and changing the account of what happened during her rape trial, she does a disservice to Artemisia and to women everywhere. The account of how the rape trial took place between Artemisia and Tassi as portrayed in the film is a very different account compared to the actual trial transcripts that are available in English and Italian. One of the most important things that she points out is that the pivotal scene in the film when Artemisia is being tortured and Tassi stands up for her because he loves her, did not actually take place. In reality she voluntarily signed up for the torture in order to prove that she was telling the truth that he raped her. This version as Garrad points out "is also more genuinely feminist....she broke larger rules. She was one of the first women artists to make a living from her art." In showing almost no attention to her art and faking the way that she developed her artistic talents, Merlet is trivializing the life of Artemisia and making it about sexual awakening, instead of focusing on her talent. She is playing into all the stereotypes when artists have to overcome, men being the ones that are responsible for creating women's talent and that they need a male mentor. Garrad essentially believes that by not paying attention to her work and only focusing on the sex and fictionalizing her life that she is changing the way that Artemisia is meant to be seen. 

In the article Tina Lent is meant to underscore the fact that by producing a biopic, that Merlet took a interesting and important woman and made her no different than any other typical artist out there. In doing she is essentially reducing her to her sex. She says that the "fictionalizing of Artemisia's life...molded into popular conventions...reiterate women's creativity as exceptional and the result of male influence." She claims that the film makes it out to seem that she owes all of her talent to her father and to Tassi, when in reality there is no evidence that Tassi as ever her teacher. She compares the films to other works that had been done about Artemisia and fines that most of them deal with her in the same way that the film does, attributing her success to that of the males around her for teaching her to paint. This treatment does nothing to show the brilliant painter and innovator that she truly was.

The article by Vidal talks about Artemisia in relation to post-feminism, saying that it is told through the lens of romance and does not claim to be anything else. That in doing a historical biopic on a painter one had to make allowances for the fact that it is a treatment for authenticity and does not claim to be the real deal. It does not take the feminist stance that it could of considering the way that the film starts but it takes a direction that concerns her sexual awakening. Vidal speaks about how this creates the problems of historical accuracy and authenticity in the films that many people believe they are getting. Miramax should have been more proactive in making sure the truth was being represented and not a fictionalized version of the truth. 

Personally I believe that this fictionalized version of the events that took place does a disservice to Artemisia and to the people watching the film. They are not sure what is the truth and what is not, so many people will walk away thinking that this is all there is to her, a rape trial and forget that she was one of the first women painters in art history. The film pays no attention to her painting and focuses entirely on her relationship with Tassi. I think that in fictionalizing her story they are wronging her memory and all the people that come to see the film. I do not think that the distortions concerning Tassi and their relationship was the right way to take this film. In the real rape trial documents it is easy to see that the entire portion of the movie related to the rape is historically inaccurate. This is not justifiable, because it changes the details too much. This film should be considered a work of fiction and not a work of historical accuracy.