The film of Artemisia may be considered treason, or as true artistic license. Which might one aver?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.In the movie, under a different torture, she refused to condemn her lover/violator.How may a movie deviate so much from received history, yet still inform the human heart?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.That led to a conclusion that differs from the record.So be it. I find _both_ the record and the movie to be compelling.In both the movie and (it seems) in history, Artemisia was a painter, before all else.For that vision, framed in ravishing (sic) film composition, I am truly grateful.Seldom have I seen a movie that so compelled my eyes.David Broadhurst