How should we, as consumers of art, assess responsibility for artistic choices that we don’t like? We are quick to blame filmmakers for all kinds of things that we consider flaws. But what if they made the “flaw” on purpose. What if the “flaw” is the point? Seeing Artemisia finally brought this issue to a head for me. The Miramax Zoe film has caused a stir in New York, the stomping grounds of Gloria Steinem, who was livid at what she says is the historical inaccuracy of the film. The movie is about the very real Artemisia Gentileschi, who became the first woman in history to be commissioned to paint. History says Artemesia was raped by her teacher, Agostino Tassi, a crime to which he ended up pleading guilty. Filmmaker Agnes Merlet takes quite a different tack, suggesting that Artemisia was forced to cry rape by her father, and that Tassi was her chosen lover, who confessed to rape only to keep Artemisia from being tortured by the judge who wanted to force a confession from either her or Tassi.
Watching the film, I could well understand why Steinem and her legions were pissed off. Merlet had taken a 300-year-old story about a feminist icon and allowed her to take complete responsibility for her life, earn the respect of those who knew her and, ultimately, take responsibility for her “rape” as well. Anti-feminists who claim that women often cry wolf about rape couldn’t have made a film that made their case any better. However, the filmmaker is a self-proclaimed feminist herself and one of the very few female directors working in this industry. Does she deserve to be attacked for having a different point-of-view? After all, given that this story is far enough back in history to be a little murky, who’s to say that Merlet isn’t right in her assessment? And even more to the point, does Merlet have a responsibility to be historically accurate in her work? Tough questions.
Oliver Stone is known as the King of the History Benders. JFK was notoriously paranoid about the U.S. government, while Nixon was surprisingly generous to Tricky Dick. But he’s hardly alone. There were many historical inaccuracies in Amistad, including one of the most moving moments in the film, the meeting between Cinqué and John Quincy Adams. Did Spielberg and Co. do the right thing? Did changing history make the point that Spielberg wanted to make? And a good point it was. But, did he do the wrong thing?
What about Titanic? Jim Cameron was obsessed with the details, yet he based his movie around two fictional characters and their adolescent romance. Should he have stuck to reality?
Scorsese has made numerous movies based on real-life stories (GoodFellas and Casino amongst them), making heroes out of what would traditionally be called “bad guys.” It’s all point-of-view. His Last Temptation of Christ was boycotted for suggesting that Jesus ever had moral doubts, even though he never succumbs to them in the film.
There are even bigger taboos. Pedophilia exists, yet Lolita is still scaring the heck out of studios and politicians alike. Kids made the hideous error of admitting that teens smoke pot and have sex. MASH, a film (and TV series) about Vietnam, had to dress up in Korean War sheepskin in order to make it into public view. Disney has a closet-full of short films that have been locked away because they are so offensive to today’s multicultural world. Song of the South is tame (Zip-a-dee Doo-Dah!) in comparison. Italian superstar Roberto Benigni took a load of heat at Cannes this year for his Chaplin-esque comedy Life is Beautiful, in which his character shields the horrors of World War II Germany from his child, with comedy. (Benigni ended up winning a jury prize for his daring.) Jerry Lewis made a concentration camp dramedy (The Day the Clown Cried) in 1972, and the film went unreleased and hasn’t been screened again to this very day.
Maybe I’m just getting soft in my old age. (Well, I guess 33 isn’t that old, but it’s been a long 33 years.) Maybe I’m sick of the Godzilla fight. Maybe it’s having to examine these issues six days a week for this column. But, I want to support every truly artistic choice, whether I agree with it or not. There are some terrible “artistic” filmmakers out there. But it is my responsibility, as I think it is yours, to separate the choice from the execution. Our sense of morality from the point that a morally questionable stance is trying to make. The value of art from the value of accuracy. Who should we blame for art that we don’t like? There shouldn’t be any blame. Just thought. Lots of thought.
X-FILES: If you haven’t started downloading the software to join us for The X-Files premiere tomorrow night, now is the time. Trust no one. Except for rough cut.
READER OF THE DAY: From Aaron: “I saw The Truman Show this past Sunday in a Burbank, Ca. multiplex, which was packed to the gills, of course, and 20 minutes in, a baby started to wail. I blocked it out, and really didn’t even notice its cries anymore when a viewer across the theater said, ‘Would you please take your baby outside?’ The mother replied, ‘I paid my $7.50, just like you.’ ‘Well, you should’ve paid for a babysitter then.’ ‘You pay for the babysitter.’ ‘Your baby, lady.’ So by now, this was a full-blown conversation, and it was loud. Loud enough to block out the movie. ‘That’s right, it’s my baby, and my baby’s staying here!’ ‘You’re ruining the movie for everyone.’ ‘So be it.’ Long silence. Maybe 20 seconds. The baby still crying. And now, from way in the back, a new voice, ‘I’ll pay for the babysitter.’ The theater erupts in raucous applause and cheering. I skipped into a screening of A Perfect Murder right after, and same thing — baby crying. A man says, ‘Could you take care of your baby, please?… Please?’ He was very nice about it, and the mom took the baby outside. It seems, the more this happens, the more people are feeling comfortable about saying something. I just wish it was that easy on airplanes.”

Be Sociable, Share!

• 
•