Vidal’s essay begins by discussing the films about film artist and establishes that her main intention in the essay is to discuss the roll of the film Artemisia in looking at the greater canon of how female artist are depicted in cinema. She discusses the relevance of viewing this particular film in stating, “Artemisia poses a significant example of the post-feminist revisions of women’s histories, as it deals with issues of feminine agency through the lens of romance. However, such acts of revision need to be understood in the light of the aesthetics of the contemporary period film, and through its modes of spectatorial address. In this respect, Artemisia works intertextually as much as narratively, foregrounding new formal variations on well-known cultural themes and images that are reinvested with new meanings in every new performance (Vidal 70).”
Vidal discusses how the theme of a sexually liberated Artemisia is supposed to be indicator of her feminism, but how that can ring false when a man is still given the power-role within the relationship. She also attempted to determine the role of feminism in the discussion of the film.
Tina Lent’s article focuses on what she refers to as ‘artist fictions’ and the story of Artemisia. Lent delves deeper into the history of Artemisia in comparison to fictionalized accounts of the artist. She discusses the common theme of Gentileschi’s father as a driving force in her life, and how these themes are both complex and indicative of the patriarchal society at large. Themes of both incestual and filial love arise, and are slightly disturbing to the reader of the text. Garrard essentially reiterates what the two other authors stated, drawing on the discrepancy between fact and fiction within the film. Of the three authors, Garrard appears to offer the most passionate frustration over the false depiction of Gentileschi.
What struck me the most is that they all seemed to cite one another. Garrard, Fellman, Griselda Pollock, Lent, and others all seem to cross paths in each article, to the point that the reader may feel they all jointly wrote the same thing. Each article displays a discontent over the depiction of Artemisia in the film, and all seem to find something anti-feminist in a film that is supposedly feminist. It is also interesting to note that each author is a noted feminist scholar.
The authors’ view of the film on fueled my frustration and antipathy for the film. It would be crass of me to say that all of the film was horrible; it was beautifully shot with an abundance of wide-shots that made the viewer almost feel as if they were in the scene. Also beautifully lit, the cinematography alone can entice a viewer to fall in love with the picture. But the story was so god awful, that even the appeal of the well crafted mis-en-scene of the picture is completely lost. No matter what the director Agnes Merlet may state, this is not a feminist film! The placement of power always resides with the male-figure in Artemisia’s life, and ultimately, the film derides into competition between her father and her lover/rapist. The film predominantly features Artemisia holding some sort of fascination concerning the men around her. She must either be drawing them, or placating them sexually. This so deeply minimizes her value within the confines of the film and the context of the real artist that is almost disturbing.
As far as the reimagining of the relationship between Artemisia and Tassi is concerned, nothing seems more offensive than trying to alter an act of rape that actually occurred, to a consensual act with the realm of film. It does a disservice to both Artemisia and anyone else who has suffered a sexual trauma. It is not the case that film must always be historically accurate, but in the handling of sensitive real life occurrences, it seems irresponsible of a supposed feminist to depict Artemisia in such a way. It feels analogous to someone remaking Roots with the Africans rushing to get a space on a cruise to
No comments:
Post a Comment