Sita Sings the Blues

[Mara]

Doesn't have a distributer yet, but Roger Ebert is working on it. (http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2008/12/having_wonderful_time_wish_you .html)

You can see the trailer here (http://www.archive.org/details/SitaSingsTheBluesTrailer2008) and see stills here (http://www.sitasingstheblues.com/stills.html).

This looks really interesting.

[Mara]

I guess it's showing at a film festival in Baltimore in March, but I can't find info. I really would like to see it.

And... grr. I could have seen it for $5 at a festival in DC back in September.

[Melville]

I'm constantly stunned by Ebert's refusal or inability to do basic research for his articles. He so frequently gets basic factual information, such as characters' names, wrong in his reviews (not to mention all the times he seems to completely miss the point of a movie), and here he totally misrepresents the plot and themes of an Indian epic poem. This is a poem of religious significance to Hindus; can't Ebert at least avoid misrepresenting its basic plot to thousands of readers? How hard is it to google "Ramayana"?

But the movie looks interesting.

Edit: also, why does he keep referring to the concept of "an animated version of the epic Indian tale of Ramayana set to the 1920's jazz vocals of Annette Hanshaw" as something that should be boring? Why would that be boring?

[number8]

...and here he totally misrepresents the plot and themes of an Indian epic poem. This is a poem of religious significance to Hindus; can't Ebert at least avoid misrepresenting its basic plot to thousands of readers? How hard is it to google "Ramayana"?

Maybe he's describing what he saw in the movie, not the actual poem. The movie seems to take Sita's sole POV, mainly Rama's betrayal of her.

[Melville]

Maybe he's describing what he saw in the movie, not the actual poem. The movie seems to take Sita's sole POV, mainly Rama's betrayal of her.
Doesn't seem like it:


[The director] begins with the story of Ramayana, which is known to every school child in India but not to me. It tells the story of a brave, noble woman who was made to suffer because of the perfidy of a spineless husband and his mother.
I'm pretty sure that isn't the story of the Ramayana that every school child in India knows.

Edit: or rather, he is describing the movie's version of the story (at least I presume that he is, since he's seen it), but he's not distinguishing that from the traditional story.

[number8]

Yeah, from the trailer, that looks like the movie's plot. It's focusing on Sita's heartbreak when Rama exiled her to the forest, making him a villain. I think Ebert's a bit ignorant about Ramayana in this case--which I don't blame him for--but not misrepresenting the movie in his article.

I read on the official site that the director is a woman whose husband moved to India and then dumped her via email.

Coincidence?

[number8]

BTW, Mara, because of copyright problems, the director plans to upload the entire film on http://www.archive.org for free and make money off donations instead.

[Raiders]

Edit: also, why does he keep referring to the concept of "an animated version of the epic Indian tale of Ramayana set to the 1920's jazz vocals of Annette Hanshaw" as something that should be boring? Why would that be boring?

Yeah, I'm sure to the majority of the people, especially in the US, that sounds like loads of fun.

[Melville]

Yeah, from the trailer, that looks like the movie's plot. It's focusing on Sita's heartbreak when Rama exiled her to the forest, making him a villain. I think Ebert's a bit ignorant about Ramayana in this case--which I don't blame him for--but not misrepresenting the movie in his article.
Yeah, I know what the film is focusing on (I trust that Ebert isn't that bad a critic), but I definitely blame Ebert for writing as if the movie's focus is the same as the poem's. Seriously, even if he had never heard of the poem before, which I can't blame him for, how hard is it to do a few minutes of research to determine whether or not the retelling of the poem is revisionist? That misrepresents the source material, but it also misrepresents the retelling of the material, since its revisionism is presumably an important part of it. It's like reading Wide Sargasso Sea and then saying that every English student knows that Jane Eyre is about a Creole woman living in the tropics and eventually driven mad and locked in an attic by her loathsome husband.


I read on the official site that the director is a woman whose husband moved to India and then dumped her via email.

Coincidence?
Ebert spends a couple paragraphs on this. It definitely brings in another layer of meaning to the movie's revisionism.

[Melville]

Yeah, I'm sure to the majority of the people, especially in the US, that sounds like loads of fun.
But he writes as if he expected a movie based on that concept to bore him. He's well-educated and movie-savvy; why would a playful, postmodern concept necessarily seem boring to him? Also, I would think (especially after reading the comments he gets) that the majority of people reading his blog are also well-educated and/or movie-savvy.

[Mara]

I read on the official site that the director is a woman whose husband moved to India and then dumped her via email.

Coincidence?

That is actually the frame story of the film-- autobiographical about her husband leaving her, and herself finding solace in the story of Sita.

[Mara]

It's like reading Wide Sargasso Sea and then saying that every English student knows that Jane Eyre is about a Creole woman living in the tropics and eventually driven mad and locked in an attic by her loathsome husband.

Rep for having read both books.

:cool:

[Melville]

Rep for having read both books.

:cool:
I haven't read Jane Eyre. I did, however, do a few minutes of research to determine whether or not Wide Sargasso Sea was revisionist. ;)

[Mara]

I haven't read Jane Eyre. I did, however, do a few minutes of research to determine whether or not Wide Sargasso Sea was revisionist. ;)

BOO!

[Melville]

BOO!
Boo for not having read Jane Eyre, or boo for not somehow blocking your mistaken rep? I'll rep you for your children's-book thread to set right the cosmic scales.

[Mara]

Boo for not having read Jane Eyre, or boo for not somehow blocking your mistaken rep? I'll rep you for your children's-book thread to set right the cosmic scales.

Ha! For not reading Jane Eyre. It doesn't get enough respect on this board, I think.

[Mara]

Oddly enough, I had a dream last night that Sita was in, so I decided to see if this film was available yet.

It is, (http://sitasingstheblues.com/wiki/index.php?title=SitaSites) and in several formats. I watched the high-def upload on YouTube, and the quality was excellent.

As a film, this has a great deal to offer. The visuals are extraordinary, and the back-up blues soundtrack is actually quite fun. I'm not sure how well it works as a cohesive whole, though. Essentially, this is the story of a particularly devestating and baffling break-up; that of the filmmaker and her husband (who comes across as a colossal douche.) That story is wrenching and pathetic, and doesn't always coincide too well with the tongue-in-cheek tone of the rest of the film.

The rest of the plot-- based on the story of Sita and Rama from the Ramayana-- is fascinating. The best parts are animated reenactments featuring three modern-day people from India, who come across as charming, funny and insightful as they try to delineate the story.

As a viewer, the insight that struck me most powerfully while watching the film was our compulsive need to understand the motives of other people. We become frustrated and sad when actions strike us as nonsensical. Nina's douche husband dumps her in a needlessly heartless way, with absolutely no explanation. If she had understood why, she probably wouldn't have felt compelled to make this film.

Likewise, the three modern-day people trying to tell the story of Rama and Sita sometimes quibble about the facts (Did she drop jewelry? Did she have jewelry?) but the real discussion comes from them trying to understand why people do the things they do to people they theoretically love. I assume that the Ramayana, like most ancient literature, doesn't take the time to psychoanalyze its characters, but simply presents a series of facts. As a post-modern audience, thought, we have trouble accepting that. Near the end of the film, the female narrator and one of the male narrators get into a somewhat heated disagreement of what is "unconditional love" and whether or not it is a virtue at all. Given the heartless way that Nina and Sita have just been treated in the film, his analysis is discerning and wrenching.

"That's the part of the female perspective I disagree with," he concludes, somewhat exasperated. "They say, 'Oh, yeah, she loved him,' but you know, it's like, she shouldn't love someone who doesn't treat her right."

The earthy and no-nonsense narration lifts what might otherwise have become a pity project into something interesting and empathetic. I'd recommend it.

[Mara]

And, could we move this into the regular film forum?

I forgot I was going to drop in a couple Shakespeare allusions to prove that the Western world also has a preoccupation with unconditional love (as it appears in SStB, i.e., love for someone who doesn't deserve it.)

We have Desdemona, dying in bed, after being strangled by her husband:


EMILIA
O, who hath done this deed?

DESDEMONA
Nobody; I myself. Farewell
Commend me to my kind lord: O, farewell!

In Twelfth Night-- which is a comedy, for goodness' sakes-- the Duke declares he will kill Viola over a misunderstanding.


VIOLA
And I, most jocund, apt and willingly,
To do you rest, a thousand deaths would die.

OLIVIA
Where goes Cesario?

VIOLA
After him I love
More than I love these eyes, more than my life,
More, by all mores, than e'er I shall love wife.
If I do feign, you witnesses above
Punish my life for tainting of my love!

Love is not love, we are told, that alters when it alteration finds. If that's true-- and I certainly don't consider myself expert enough to hazard a guess-- well, then, I am glad I never fell in love.

[Mara]

Love. Psh.













Yes, I'm still stuck on this.

[balmakboor]

Yeah, I'm sure to the majority of the people, especially in the US, that sounds like loads of fun.

:)

[jesse]

This is my favorite film of 2009 so far. Such a good film.

[Mara]

I forgot to mention a part I really love, which is when the shadow puppet people are trying to figure out why Sita wanted to be rescued, instead of escaping. They took a point in the story that I probably would have glossed over and gave it some serious thought, that is very revealing about Sita's character.

[Grouchy]

Yeah, I know what the film is focusing on (I trust that Ebert isn't that bad a critic), but I definitely blame Ebert for writing as if the movie's focus is the same as the poem's. Seriously, even if he had never heard of the poem before, which I can't blame him for, how hard is it to do a few minutes of research to determine whether or not the retelling of the poem is revisionist? That misrepresents the source material, but it also misrepresents the retelling of the material, since its revisionism is presumably an important part of it. It's like reading Wide Sargasso Sea and then saying that every English student knows that Jane Eyre is about a Creole woman living in the tropics and eventually driven mad and locked in an attic by her loathsome husband.
Ebert is apparently famous enough that he doesn't have to mind writing unresearched rubbish. Has done so for years now.

The movie looks very interesting. I'll check it out soon since it's available.

[jesse]

Here are the thoughts I wrote up a few weeks ago:

Sometimes I get “stuck” on things that I obsess over endlessly for a period of time—it’s mostly music and songs, but also on occasion films and poems and images, and this last week that “thing” has been Nina Paley’s Sita Sings the Blues (2009), a much-praised hit on the festival circuit that, due to copyright concerns over its soundtrack, had fallen into that perilous no-man's land of film non-distribution. Now available online (PBS falls under different copyright standards), everyone has a chance to see it, and quite frankly they should—personally, I’ll be pleased if I find a handful of films released over this next year that I like as much as this one. Its central conceit—the linking and subsequent analysis of personal experience through a work of art—is one I automatically am drawn and sympathetic to, and in this particular case it’s a romantic breakup filtered through the famous Hindi myth of Sita and Rama as found in the Ramayana.

This unexpected premise serves as a brilliant showcase not only for Paley’s candy-colored and collage-like animation style, but her sly wit and extremely sophisticated visual sensibility. Weaving together an affectionate but clearly tongue-in-cheek recounting of the classic myth (narrated with much jocularity by three arguing deities with distinctly postmodern perceptions) with a rough sketch (literally) of Paley’s own tale of romantic disillusionment, the film’s great masterstroke is a number of creatively staged musical numbers interspersed liberally throughout. These musical interludes, performed by an Art Deco-ish abstraction of Sita and set to the music of the until-now forgotten early jazz/blues chanteuse Annette Hanshaw, not only gives the film a lot of its emotional weight but demonstrates a keen awareness of the staging of classical Hollywood musicals and Busby Berkeley, particularly in the way it conveys the keen pleasure of watching shapes and objects move in kaleidoscopic syncopation. But more than anything I don’t want to underemphasize the sheer enjoyability of this film, even with the awareness that it might also undersell its impressive formal rigor. For me, the standard for 2009 cinema has been set.

[lovejuice]

mara, how do you watch this thing on youtube in HD? the annotation tell you to click the below botton, but i see none such.

[monolith94]

I don't like it. The squiggle vision is ugly and her own story very dully told. The blues songs are good, but I hate the visual style underlying them. Definitely the shadow-puppet sections are the most engaging, but not on a deeply moving level. The connections between life-and-myth are tenuous and arbitrary. This feels like a prop to the ego of the animator than anything else. Honestly, for better squigglevision, see Home Movies, and for better shadow puppetry, there's The Adventures of Prince Achmed. I'm pretty sure this is garnering the undue attention it is because of two factors: a) its distribution method and b) general American ignorance of Hindu culture.

[Melville]

mara, how do you watch this thing on youtube in HD? the annotation tell you to click the below botton, but i see none such.
There should be an HD button just to the right of the volume control.

I just discovered that The Adventures of Prince Achmed is available online (http://www.veoh.com/browse/videos/category/animation/watch/v17114479KNmadq68). I've wanted to see it for years.

[Mara]

mara, how do you watch this thing on youtube in HD? the annotation tell you to click the below botton, but i see none such.

Yeah, there should be a little red button to switch to HD. Perhaps it's not available internationally?

[Mara]

I don't like it. The squiggle vision is ugly and her own story very dully told... The connections between life-and-myth are tenuous and arbitrary.

I agree that "Nina's story" is probably the weakest portion of the film, but I still enjoyed it.

[jesse]

I don't like it. The squiggle vision is ugly and her own story very dully told. The blues songs are good, but I hate the visual style underlying them. Definitely the shadow-puppet sections are the most engaging, but not on a deeply moving level. The connections between life-and-myth are tenuous and arbitrary. This feels like a prop to the ego of the animator than anything else. Honestly, for better squigglevision, see Home Movies, and for better shadow puppetry, there's The Adventures of Prince Achmed. I'm pretty sure this is garnering the undue attention it is because of two factors: a) its distribution method and b) general American ignorance of Hindu culture. The "squiggle vision" is supposed to be ugly: it's hazy like a nightmare, and very evocative of an emotional state where everything is combusting, being ripped apart at its seams. Michael Sicinski, as usual, describes it best, I think:


As a kind of connective tissue throughout the film, Paley intersperses brief glimpses of her own breakup (abandonment, really), rendered in a kind of anxious line-drawn style which finds blobs of moving color barely contained by minimal curved outlines of the face and body. In contrast, the backdrops of San Francisco, New York, and India are presented as substantial forms. This deeply personal thread, which serves almost as bumper material, alternates with Sita's two main strands.

(The entire review is the best I've come across regarding this film, see it here (http://academichack.net/reviewsMay2008.htm).)

As such, it is only when Paley filters her experiences through the Ramayana that, for Paley at least, she is able to analyze, perhaps even contextualize her personal trauma. And on that level, I suppose it can be accused of being indulgent. But I fervently disagree that it is an unnecessary strand of the story--the entire film hinges on it, really. Paley, as a white American woman, justifies telling this particular story (which would not be necessary for an Indian filmmaker) through linking it with her personal story/experiences.

I disagree with your first reason why this film has received the attention has: it was an extremely well-reviewed film on the festival circuit (which is when I first heard about it), and it was only when it was moving towards theatrical distribution that the copyright issues surfaced. I get the impression Paley would have preferred to not distribute her film the way she has, and has only done it out of simple necessity. Not quite sure what to make of your second reason: are you saying it's a sense of "Asian exoticism" that is appealing to American audiences, and/or perhaps riding on the sudden interest in Bollywood cinema in the wake of Slumdog Millionaire?

[jesse]

By the way, this is where I saw it: thirteen.org (http://www.thirteen.org/sites/reel13/indies/indie-sita-sings-the-blues/241/). The entire film is uploaded there.

[monolith94]

The "squiggle vision" is supposed to be ugly: it's hazy like a nightmare, and very evocative of an emotional state where everything is combusting, being ripped apart at its seams.


Sure, there's ugly, and then there's ugly ugly. I didn't find this squiggle-vision as nice to look at as Home Movies, for example. In this film, it just struck me as lazy. A lot of the work in this film struck me as lazy.

[M.R.Yogi]

There's also several HD versions available for download, including an image file that's burnable to DVD. Link. (http://www.sitasingstheblues.com/wiki/index.php?title=SitaSites)

I liked the movie well enough the first time I watched it, but a second viewing decreased my appreciation considerably. My main problem with it is that, while the Annette Hanshaw songs are all good on their own, they don't really do what's happening in the Ramayana justice -- they reduce everything to Sita's obsessive love for Rama. It's cute at first but after awhile just seems one-dimensional and trite. I also didn't care much for the Betty Boop character designs during these sequences.

Some of the animation is quite lovely (even though obviously rendered in Flash) and the music is all terrific. The shadow-puppets' narration was a nice touch; the movie's sense of humor is its best attribute. But the parallels Nina Paley draws between her own rather dull break-up story and Sita's are tenuous, and in the end the entire thing (despite the obvious effort and care involved) feels a bit too much like a vanity project, like the self-indulgent venting of a scorned lover.

[jesse]

Sure, there's ugly, and then there's ugly ugly. I didn't find this squiggle-vision as nice to look at as Home Movies, for example. In this film, it just struck me as lazy. A lot of the work in this film struck me as lazy. Regardless, they're what, several 30 second to a minute long sequences scattered throughout the film?

[Mara]

I've let the film percolate in my noggin for a few days, and I'm really coming down on the side of liking it.

However, the one scene that really bugs me in retrospect is near the end, when Rama's sons are singing. The song presented is a parody, praising their father for all the heartless things he has done. This struck me as being overly cynical and biased. (Those MEN. With all the LEAVING.)

Overall, my memories are affectionate, though. I think I'm going to watch this one again.

[transmogrifier]

20 minutes in: This is really cool!
40 minutes in: Hey, another jazz song...
60 minutes in: Wow, this Annette Hanshawe could do with some lightening up. Haven't we done this song already? I'm hungry
80 minutes in: How long is this movie again? When does my pizza get here?

A fine example of a film that finds a perfect little melody and then overplays it until your sick of hearing it all the time and you wish it would just shut the hell up sometimes......

The shadow puppets and the modern days scenes I liked. The rest I started off liking and then ending up hating.

[Mara]

Weird that you bumped this. I was just thinking about this film this morning in the shower, apropos of nothing.

[EyesWideOpen]

20 minutes in: This is really cool!
40 minutes in: Hey, another jazz song...
60 minutes in: Wow, this Annette Hanshawe could do with some lightening up. Haven't we done this song already? I'm hungry
80 minutes in: How long is this movie again? When does my pizza get here?

A fine example of a film that finds a perfect little melody and then overplays it until your sick of hearing it all the time and you wish it would just shut the hell up sometimes......

The shadow puppets and the modern days scenes I liked. The rest I started off liking and then ending up hating.

That is exactly how I felt about the movie.