Nina Paley was not looking for an international controversy. Nevertheless, in April, when the now 40-year-old Jewish cartoonist screened her latest film, “Sita Sings the Blues,” at this year’s Tribeca Film Festival, she said that’s precisely what she got.
A highly experimental animated work that Paley created on her laptop, “Sita” draws parallels between the ancient Indian text “The Ramayana” and Paley’s divorce. However, her use of the sacred story to tell her own sparked responses from around the globe. On her blog, commenters identifying themselves with such threatening names as “Nina Raper” left loathsome comments. “Have fun representing white people with your cultural appropriation and misrepresentation” went one rant, while religious conglomerate Hindu Janajagruti Samiti fumed that “Paley is trying to bring Sita down to the level of mortal love experienced by her, a product of materialistic-individualistic ideology.”
Playfully weaving 1920s jazz tunes sung by Annette Hanshaw into many of the key scenes of “The Ramayana,” “Sita” explores the universality of the story’s traditional themes. Several versions of the epic tale have circulated for thousands of years, but all of them involve two principal characters: A heroic prince named Rama and his beleaguered wife, Sita. In one of the major plot points, Sita gets kidnapped by a ruthlessly oppressive king. Although Rama rescues her, he later decides to banish Sita from his kingdom, as her time spent with another man puts her purity into question. Paley alternates between these twists and her gradual falling-out with her husband, who left her for a job in India and broke up with her via e-mail.
Paley first encountered “The Ramayana” while staying with her husband in India before the divorce. “I didn’t love it the first time. I was a bit shocked by [Sita], who I thought, at the time, was very submissive,” she recalled in an interview with the Forward. “Then, when I went back to New York and my husband dumped me, she became my hero.”
Paley, author of the syndicated comic strips “Fluff” and “Nina’s Adventures,” started working on the film in 2002. The more she developed it, the more ambitious her plans became. Eventually she invited journalist Aseem Chhabra and two other South Asian acquaintances to a recording studio for an informal discussion about the major thematic interpretations of “The Ramayana.” In the finished film, the audio from the conversation serves as the dialogue for three Indonesian shadow puppets — the film’s delightfully unreliable narrators. Their debate is at times intense, humorous and deeply insightful, striking a tone not unfamiliar to scholars of many ancient texts.
Yet even as her Indian colleagues embraced the project, Paley faced larger opposition from Hindu fundamentalists who were convinced she has defiled a sacred tradition. Although taken aback by some of the hostility, Paley stands by her intentions. “I thought it might be a bit controversial, but I wasn’t fully aware of how art and artists are major targets of some right-wing nationalist groups in India,” she said. “I always imagine an audience of smart, compassionate people I’d enjoy spending time with.”
The South Asians in her film support her. “In the last two decades, the right-wing religious forces in India — Hindu and Muslim — have become very strong, vocal and sometimes violent,” Chhabra explained. “But I also know that there are enough sane, balanced, liberal people in India who take art for what it is.” Filmmaker Manish Acharya, another shadow puppet voice in the film, added: “If people are offended, I don’t think anyone has the right to tell them that they are wrong. But just as they have the right to push their interpretation of ‘The Ramayana,’ this filmmaker has the right to push hers.”
To buoy her philosophy of a cross-cultural approach to art, Paley pointed to Acharya’s 2007 film, “Loins of Punjab Presents,” which contains a Jewish character comfortable in the Indian community. Acharya agreed with the comparison, and went a step further. “I think Jewish culture and Indian culture are very alike,” he said. “Both are family focused, have very strong female influences and use food to show love. Having a Jewish person understand and love India was very believable to me.”
As “Sita” travels the film festival circuit (upcoming destinations include Taiwan and Australia), Paley continues to field offers from American distributors, but the movie’s long-term theatrical future remains unclear. Her close confidants express certainty that Paley can handle public scrutiny. “The first responsibility a filmmaker has is to himself or herself,” Acharya said. “If that requires placing it in another culture, or borrowing from it, so be it. The truth of the storytelling is paramount, and Nina is an honest storyteller.”
Eric Kohn is a daily contributor to Stream Magazine (wonderlandstream.com/stream), and his writings on film appear regularly in New York Press, The Hollywood Reporter, indieWIRE and other outlets.
The Forward welcomes reader comments in order to promote thoughtful discussion on issues of importance to the Jewish community. In the interest of maintaining a civil forum, the Forward requires that all commenters be appropriately respectful toward our writers, other commenters and the subjects of the articles. Vigorous debate and reasoned critique are welcome; name-calling and personal invective are not. While we generally do not seek to edit or actively moderate comments, the Forward reserves the right to remove comments for any reason.
Copyright © 2013, Forward Association, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Why a Rabbi Should Not Marry Outside the Faith
Tapping Into Growing Lure of Hidden Jewish Heritage
Montreal's First Jewish Mayor Michael Applebaum Hit With Corruption Charges
Getting In Face of Ultra-Orthodox on Need for Real World Education
Barbra Streisand Is Butt of Anti-Semitic Joke
You've successfully signed up!
I was never what one would call an Indian fundamentalist. in fact, i have a heterogenous religious background. However, i find it irresponsible and insensitive of Acharya to claim that a Jewish person understands and loves India, when in fact Paley uses The Ramayana as a platform for her to vent her frustrations and has herself said she didn't like what she saw. I was appalled that something as beautiful as the Ramayana, which was once reviled, as noted by Paley herself, is now being used to parallel Paley's life. Paley wants to be an honest storyteller, then honestly, is she anything like Sita? I doubt one would call her the ideal woman, ideal wife; better yet, would her ex husband be anything like Rama? If, in fact, Sita were Paley's hero, she would know better than to make a film such as this. Personally, i find the celluloid representation insulting. Paley reduces The Ramayana to something quite comical, which is not something i ever imagined. Further, Paley and her defenders might do well to note that yes, Jewish and Indian cultural traditions have a lot of similarities, but that doesn't make it okay to do what she is doing. I am not an Indian--whenever i have gone there, i have been labeled 'the American'. Having been born and raised in the whitest of America, i also have quite a few Jewish friends. My best friends are, in fact Jews. I agree that Jewish and Indian culture is quite similar--we both hold onto our heritage and try to use it (hopefully) to make ourselves better people, and see these heroines as our ideals, not to be torn down, humanized. Furthermore, if i were to raise my concerns to anyone of my Jewish friends, had they opted to do something like Paley is doing, i am 100% confident they would treat the situation with tact and grace, understanding full well what i have just said. What Paley and her cohort are maintaining is merely intellectual conviction, protected under the auspices of artistic freedom.
I had heard about Jews that they are brilliant and brave. But from this lady’s art to defame the Sitamata and supportive news given here make me think that it isn’t like that. If the thing which have to represent in one manner then it need not to represent in other manner. If person’s cartoon is prepared with some changes like nose is very big, ears are small then we called as illustration and it is just for entertainment purpose. Sitamata, Lord Ram are the revered deities of Hindus. So they shouldn’t depict in other form for entertainment.
For us Shri Ram and Sita Devi are not just characters from any story. We WORSHIP them. I think the word WORSHIP is self explanatory in that it conveys naturally how those who are worshipped should be treated. We have worshipped them not for hundreds or thousands but since eternity. What Nina has done is most insensitive, ttrampling upon the religious sentiments of those who are devout bhaktas of Shri Ram and Sita Devi. Theirs is regarded as one of the most ideal husband and wife relations. Nina's intellect will never comprehend this. She does not have bhakti in her heart nor does she have vivek buddhi. May God never forgive her for this.
While reading the above comments it truly shows that Erik Kohn is protecting his own, which here is fellow Jew. But when a Hindu stands up against any denigration of their Religion they become fundamentalists. Isn't this in it self a hypocrisy. The above article is the prime example of it. When Mel Gibson made the movie Passion of Christ he was put through a lot and he still is not able to make a movie in Hollywood because of it. And now when Nina Paley makes a movie that hurts the sentiments of Hindus by ridiculing Goddess Sita it is acceptable in the name of art. Again is this not hypocrisy. Once again as Hindus are tolerant people she is getting away with it. Try ridiculing a prophet of another religion and we will see how tolerant they are. So far Hindu's have made silent protest by just sharing what they are feeling on emails and they are called Fundamentalists for writing emails. (Hypocrisy again). Truly agree with Maya Jairam that this is very insulting to any Hindu. And by agree with Nina Paley, the writer Erik Kohn is equally a part of this
What next? People in India getting mad at "Babar the Elephant" because he looks like Ganeesh?
It's art, people.
The artist makes it up in their head. That's what art is. Er...It's not meant to be real.
Wake up.
"Personally, i find the celluloid representation insulting."
Well, it was created in flash. All digital bits and bytes.
"Try ridiculing a prophet of another religion and we will see how tolerant they are."
Try watching the American cartoon South Park and see how it lampoons everybody's religion and culture. Notice something? The world did not end. Nobody got hurt. Life went on.
"Paley reduces The Ramayana to something quite comical, which is not something i ever imagined"
Because it is comical. All of these old stories are comical when you get right down to it. Noah's Arc is just as ridiculous as Sita being taken away to another world. It doesn't mean you are disrespecting a certain culture or religion. It means you are a down to Earth person and see these stories for what they are, stories. That goes for any culture or religion.
And at the end of the day, the Ramayana was just art. To be perfectly honest, I like Paley's version better.
I doubt whether most of the people upset by this film have really watched it, or thought very much about its clever but important messages. As a piece of art, the film is completely brilliant. The fact that one woman alone conceived and put this whole glorious project together -- while enduring a divorce -- is, in itself, as impressive to me as the legendary feats of Hanuman. I challenge any of Nina's critics to name any other project of this scale that a single person -- especially a woman -- has completed alone. Also, if you dedicate some real time to watching the entire film once, or even twice, you will see that it does not degrade, insult, or ridicule the characters from the Ramayana -- although it does ask some interesting questions. Sita, in particular, is not degraded -- she comes out "smelling like a rose" in the end. How can we doubt that Paley views Sita as divine, if the goddess Mother Earth responds immediately to Sita's plea to swallow her up to demonstrate her purity? There is one conversation between the shadow puppets that communicates an important point; when the Rama puppet asks why Sita did not just redirect her affections to another man, if Rama treated her so badly, he says, "that's HER mistake". But then the Sita puppet says, "No, that's HENCE unconditional love." Don't you see? PALEY DOES "GET IT". Paley understands on an emotional level what it means to be as devoted of a wife as Sita; however, she questions it on a rational level, which I think is fair. After all, Sita WAS pure and devoted to Rama, and yet he continued to test her coldly through successive banishments, trials-by-fire, et cetera. Sita is, no doubt, the ideal woman. And although I do NOT believe that Paley compares herself to Sita, I do think it's fair for her to ask the question whether Rama should truly be viewed as the ideal man -- at least from the perspective of a husband's behavior towards his wife. Rama did NOT stand by Sita the way she stood by him; he continously doubted her, tested her, and banished her, when he should have returned the unconditional love that Sita gave to him. This is the message of "Sita Sings the Blues", and I commend Nina Paley for this incredible film.