ARTEMISIA
(In French with sub-titles)
What’s a poor artistically gifted 17 year old daughter of a renowned painter in 1610 Italy to do when she has an uncommon curiosity about the naked body? She can trick the local randy young men into taking off their clothes, sneak around the local brothel in the dark of night to watch the writhing bodies, spy on lovers at the beach, or study her own mirrored bare reflection - all for the sake of art. All Artemisia wants to do is study the human body - to capture every muscle in it’s natural state - to see how they connect, from head to toe, so she can bring truth to her paintings. "Artemisia" depicts her youthful struggle to establish herself as a respected artist.
The award winning director, Agnes Merlet, depicts the art world of early 17th century Italy as a male dominated industry where a girl can’t catch a break. Merlet wastes no time in pegging Artemisia as a woman possessed with a talent that can’t be suppressed.
It’s in the genes! Her father is Orazio Gentileschi known for his frescoes and naturalistic style. The nuns at her convent school are outraged by Artemisia’s seemingly erotic drawings, but the head priest knows talent when he sees it and declares that she is her father’s daughter. He sends her packing home.
The rest of "Artemisia" is devoted to her early rejection by the art establishment because of her gender, her tutelage under her father, her love affair with her mentor, Agostino Tassi, and finally the scandal that erupts because of it. All the performances in "Atemisia" are good, but the material they are given to draw on is disjointed. Valentina Cervi, who had a muted part as John Malcovich’s obedient daughter in "The Portrait of a Lady", is anything but that in the title role. Her Artemisia is artistically precocious, naïve about sex, and adventurous enough not to worry about either one. Miki Manojlic is Agostino Tassi, a man who wants to experience the sensuousness of life so he can put it in his work. He falls in love with Artemisia because her zest for life as well as her art is equal to his own. The outstanding acting honors have to go to Michel Serrault as Orazio Ganteleschi. He is at once a proud doting father, who would do anything to advance his daughter’s career, a businessman forced to make ends meet by playing second banana to the up and coming Tassi, and a proud patriarch forced by a betrayal of trust to protect Artemisia’s honor and the family name in an open court of inquisition. (Serrault is best known as Mr Raymond in the classic French thriller, "Diabolique", and as Albin in the "La Cage aux Folles" movies.)
The writing and direction never capture the emotions that push Artemisia to succeed in the face of overwhelming odds. Merlet merely lets her plod along with the ambience of a curious child. "Artemisia" lacks a point of view. It succeeds more as an historical document of the times rather than a feminist tract on the plight of womanhood in the 17th century which I think is its primary purpose.
Merlet chooses to show naked bodies, the way artists used them - as props. In her hands, a brothel becomes a place for men to discuss business, and a place for an artist to study the human form. It is totally non-erotic. In direct contrast the view of body parts in the love making scenes is restricted to the woman’s breasts, as if to say that love is much more than the co-mingling of bodies. Naked women can be seen by the male artist but naked men can’t be seen by women of quality. To show what art is, there are passages in "Artemisia" that show how the use of perspective can lead the eye though a ceiling painting, and how shadow and light are used to create mood. In a few interesting scenes, models pose amidst a created environment in much the same way scenes are set up by a movie director, drawing a parallel between the director as artist and the artists of the past. It reminded me of Martin Scorsese’s discovery about paintings during the making of "The Age of Innocence". Before the birth of the cinema, they were often used as a form of spectator entertainment to be looked at and discussed much like today’s motion pictures. "Artemisia" left me with the same impression, except that the paintings of her time were made for the prestige and entertainment of the ruling class. This marriage of art and commerce was most often in the form of patronage by the Catholic Church who was the final arbiter of public taste.
At best, "Artemisia" seems incomplete. I never felt the flowering of her powers as an artist that were somehow supposed to be influenced by her affair with Tassi and their treatment by the ecclesiastical authorities. I felt her father’s pain, but not hers. It may seem unfair to compare "Artemisia" to "Lust for Life" or "Moulin Rouge", but those movies, respectively about Vincent Van Gogh and Toulouse-Lautrec, bring to life the surroundings that became the subject matter of their paintings. "Artemisia" does not link her experience to her art and therefore suffers because of it. That Artemisia’s talent was too enormous to be laid to rest, despite the times and her gender, is made more evident by the postscript at the end of the movie, than anything in the movie itself. She was the first woman in history to be admitted to the Academy of Art in Florence and the first woman to be commissioned by the church and state to create original works of art.
Some of Artemisia’s work can be seen in the Louvre and the New York Metropolitan Museum of Art.