Task: Sentiment Analysis
Input (English): Personal truths and loyalties . I read all 33 of the other reviews here to get other perspectives - a lively debate.  There were so many brilliant things said about the film, that I found myself passing out "Helpful" votes (to both positive & blisteringly negative reviews) like they were candy.  The movie is an evocative work of art.  I encourage people to read all the reviews if they want to enjoy the movie from many different points of view.  I agree with many of the positive and negative comments that have been made by other reviewers, but I will limit my comments to items not previously mentioned.    The DVD cover gives the false impression that this is a love story about two young lovers, a sort of "Blue Lagoon" from the Renaissance.  It is not.  It is misleading.    I concede a) the story is probably not historically accurate, b) statutory rape occurred and probably rape under any definition, & c) Tossi was probably inconsiderate, conceited, and immoral.  But the quality of a film is not judged solely on historical accuracy and the high morality of the characters.  Having said that, I do object that the movie, according to the rape trial transcript and some of the best evidence available, is not just inaccurate, but oppositional to what probably occurred.  Therefore, I critique the film for portraying itself as the story of a real person.  The movie stumbles internally because it tries to justify actual historical effects with fictional (or incorrect) causal factors.  And those cause-effect relationships don't seem to ring true.    Having said that, I agree with some of Richard Burt's review comments that "historical accuracy" may still be subject to interpretation.  It is reasonable that Artemisia may have been more adversarial speaking in a public rape trial (defending her freedom and reputation) than she might have been with Tassi personally.  And it seems too easy to just paint Tassi as a purely evil character as other reviewers have done.  There is usually more complexity and diverse/conflicting interests in most people, especially artists.    One strong objection - near the end of the film, Artemisia says, "No one dies of sorrow."  While there is probably some intended sarcasm in the comment, the line frustrated me.  People DO die of sorrow.  My limited experience has suggested that some of the smartest, most sensitive, artistic, and caring people I've encountered were the same people most threatened by sorrow.  And the people I have admired the most are the same people who have been mortally threatened by sorrow.  Not selfish, controlling, or passive-aggressive sorrow, but rather sorrow that comes from other less obvious motivations - often unidentified & misunderstood misconceptions.  Sorrow can lead to literal death and deaths of the spirit, character, the soul, & creativity.  Sorrow is not incidental.  Sorrow can destroy health.  Or as the Angel of America in "Angels in America" says, "The body is the garden of the soul."  Sorrow is worth full attention.    The movie tries to examine the effect of Artemisia's loyalties to her father and her teacher.  The screenwriter is not bent on us assessing those relationships as simply "good" or "bad"; both relationships are drawn as having both good or bad effects on Artemesia.  Her loyalties encourage her artistry and her expression.  They work to create an environment that does not inhibit or conceal her gifts.  At the same time, they are so intrusive that they almost certainly affect her choices, privacy, and pacing beyond her desired level of influence.    Artemisia realizes she would probably not be the painter she becomes except for her father's drive and design.  At the same time, she also laments that his constant intervention narrowed the occupations she could participate in - in polite society.    May your loyalties encourage seeking and speaking the best personal truths you can find.  And may the best personal truths you can find shape your loyalties.    Compare Caravaggio's "Judith Beheading Holofernes" to Artemisia's version of the same painting.  Her version is more violent, realistic (less idealized in posing, dirtiness, lighting, etc.).  Her version has the female servant actively helping Judith.  Artemisia's paintings show a palpable understanding of hate, violence, sexuality & compassion.  Artemisia likely became expressive of the personal feelings and experiences she knew best.  That's why people care about whether a movie about her life characterizes her experiences accurately - because we want to know what led her to her creative decisions
Output (English): NEG