The film of Artemisia may be considered treason, or as true artistic license. <br /><br />Which might one aver?<br /><br />In documented history, Artemisia Gentileschi was subjected to the thumbscrew, and still affirmed that she was r***ed, as Mary Garrard and Gloria Steinem have eloquently affirmed.<br /><br />In the movie, under a different torture, she refused to condemn her lover/violator.<br /><br />How may a movie deviate so much from received history, yet still inform the human heart?<br /><br />The answer is not so hard to find. In the movie, the director and cast had filled a gaping hole in the historical record, with the power of imagination.<br /><br />That led to a conclusion that differs from the record.<br /><br />So be it. I find _both_ the record and the movie to be compelling.<br /><br />In both the movie and (it seems) in history, Artemisia was a painter, before all else.<br /><br />For that vision, framed in ravishing (sic) film composition, I am truly grateful.<br /><br />Seldom have I seen a movie that so compelled my eyes.<br /><br />David Broadhurst