![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Further Commentary on "Sita Sings the Blues"
Thanks, greylander and capsicumanuum, for posting this link to a critique by Zooeylive of the film "Sita Sings the Blues." (Which I posted about earlier for those of you catching up with this post in your friends-lists tonight). Note: I have not yet seen the film in question, which is by Nina Paley.
--
It was in Trivandrum I encountered the Indian epic, The Ramayana, for the first time. Like many westerners, I initially considered the Ramayana little more than misogynist propaganda. - Paley
)Maybe Paley should better familiarize herself with the “Western” epics first—Iliad, Bible, etc. etc.—I seem to recall that they are all a little misogynist to begin with. And if you ask me, I would say the story outline of Iliad and Ramayana are very similar. Why? Precisely because they are both about wars being fought by men upon the bodies of women! So I am not sure how am I supposed to explain Paley’s encountering epic-misogyny for the first time in India. A deadly combination of American arrogance and ignorance perhaps? - Zoeylive
Looking at the text of the quote, I don't read it as Paley saying that she encountered mysogny for the first time in the Ramayana, or in India. To me, it reads that she encountered the Ramayana for the first time in India. The fact that she thought it misogynistic before she had read it is problematic, but not because she thought the epic itself was misogynistic. As Zooeylive points out, a lot of--most?--epics are misogynistic. The Iliad, or the Bible, or a lot of current writing anywhere, is probably misogynistic: most epics are, at least in part, trying to convince people that war is/was full of glory and power instead of probable death, and pillaging by the local army, and rape if you were unlucky (or just there).
I think it was safe for Paley to assume that the epic was probably misogynistic. It wasn't safe or accurate for Paley to assume that because it was Indian it was misogynistic, any more than it would be safe to assume that something written today in Chicago wouldn't be. If Paley wasn't trying to conflate those two viewpoints, she needed to make that clearer by restructuring her sentence. If she was conflating them, then she deserves to be taken to task.
I also agree with Zooeylive that there are plenty of places in the USA or Europe (*cough* 'Western World' *cough*) where it's not safe for a person to walk alone at night or for women to have identities separate from their husbands. I feel like maybe if Paley spent some time in various parts of the USA she wouldn't be so sure that these empowered feminist women she speaks about are running around everywhere she thinks they are. That's a problem. I think it's a problem everywhere. I think the more places people start to notice that problem anywhere, the more can be done to make individual women feel more powerful and have more agency.
So while Paley as a reader is free to read Ramayana as a “parable of human suffering,” there is no way we can think that her readings are free from who she is--a white woman from United States of America--a white woman who has probably internalized the racist and colonialist philosophies of her society. - Zooeylive
I feel like one of the points of this film might be that it is about just that--how this film is a reading that is not free from who she is, explicitly within the text of the film. I think that makes it more interesting, problematic, incendiary. I think that's also part of what makes it worth seeing.
I've heard from more than one Hindu American woman that Sita Sings the Blues is the first Ramayana retelling that offers them a real connection to Sita. My retelling is also humorous, which some people interpret as irreverent, and therefore an affront. - Paley
If you read this passage and you are not familiar with the multiple traditions of the Ramayana already, you would think that she is the first one ever to provide any feminist interpretation of the damn epic! And it is exactly this lack of pertinent research and arrogance that pisses me off. - Zooeylive
I feel like Zooeylive is the one who thinks that Paley thinks that it's the first time there's been some kind of humorous feminist interpretation of the Ramayana. Paley didn't say "this is the first feminist retelling of this epic. This is the first humorous retelling of this epic." That would be a lie. The small excerpts I've read of the Ramayana and other epic poetry
I've read (in particular the Iliad) have convinced me that much epic poetry is humorous in its own right. I feel that because of her own personal biases, Zooeylive interprets Paley as making claims that she is literally not making.
I am excited to read all the works listed in Zooeylive's list. I feel that education in the USA, especially of white English-speaking children, is woefully lacking in the literary or artistic works of non-white non-English speaking cultures, unless they're historical (I always wondered why I never heard anything about Babylon after 500 ad until I figured it out on my own; the continuity never gets thoroughly explained), or a few carefully selected non-white-European people to "round out" the curriculum (usually they still speak English, though). We don't ever get exposed to this stuff, and I am trying to make up for the failures of our system as best I personally can. It's not enough and probably will never be enough, but my other option is to live in willful ignorance--unacceptable.
"I hope to show how the genius of the Ramayana transcends societies and generations, and is as relevant today as it was 3,000 years ago. - Paley
Well, I am not sure that we need you to tell us about the epic’s relevance!"- Zooeylive
I feel like maybe Paley is trying to reach out to more people than Indian people or people of Indian heritage. She isn't saying, "I'm trying to tell Indians about the Ramayana." I think she's trying to reach out to people in Duluth and make them interested in reading the Ramayana for themselves. Is that wrong?
a) If you are working on a cultural or literary tradition, please make sure that you know about it in all its possible complexities before you begin to work on it or pass authoritative judgements on it. - Zooeylive
Does this entail 10 years of studying all interpretations of the Ramayana? Does this entail learning Sanskrit because translations don't do it justice? I feel like "all its possible complexities" encompasses a too-broad range. People would never get anything done if they had to learn everything about anything they wanted to work on. If anyone has any suggestions, I would like to hear them, as I am currently working on a novel that contains a synthesis of Russian and English folktale cultural elements and I do not have time to read all books.
b) Learn to give other cultures their proper rights of ownership. - Zooeylive
I don't see how Paley is taking away ownership of the "Ramayana" from its culture. It's not like she is saying, "The Ramayana isn't Indian" or "I don't believe this epic has a cultural, linguistic or historical context." I feel that Paley's trying to incorporate what research she did into the work. Can someone show me why Zooeylive, or others, might think that she's not?
c)Please remember that we do not need a clueless white woman like you to prove the relevance of our literary works or to provide their feminist re-interpretations. We have already accomplished those tasks ourselves. - Zooeylive
I feel that this is an interpretation based on Zooeylive's biases, as I've stated above.
Moreover, I feel l like Zooeylive's comment points to some problems I've been feeling lately as a woman trying to look at how people in cultures and from traditions not my own live their lives. This isn't just about "Sita Sings the Blues;" this is deeper:
1.) As a white woman, I feel that I am being discouraged from a deeper understanding of other cultures' creative works by people from the very cultures those works are from. Hence, I feel discouraged from cultivating an ability to appreciate the works and/or relate to them in the (limited) ways that I might be able to. As an artist, I worry that I will be be pilloried if I attempt to think about or create works based on things that my culture didn't create. I feel that this can only lead to a narrowing of the mind and spirit, especially for a creative work:
- First, where might this narrowing end? Can I only read and comment on what I can fully understand? Reading only books and critical theory on other white lesbian women currently living in Boston and struggling with gender issues would be really boring after a (short) while. Can others read and comment only on what they can fully understand? Would only Chinese people be considered to have a 'true' understanding of "Journey to the West," and so on? I think that's a facet of Orientalism, in that it romanticizes the Other and suggests that only people of a certain culture/background are capable of understanding the 'true meaning' of traditions and/or cultural artifacts.
- Where would such a narrowing stop? What constitutes that full understanding, even within a cultural homogeny? If I do a reinterpretation of the Iliad, would people complain that I do not know Ancient Greek or that I didn't live during the Trojan War or had never been to Athens?
2.) Some comments on the comments in Zooeylive's post:
...you need to be careful of this long history of cultural and material violation and interrogate them in your work. - zooeylive
It is, rather - should be, part of your obligation as a European American to note not only the power dynamics of the story, but also of your retelling and its distribution. - sarah
I feel it's really hard, artistically, to cram all of this--power dynamics, retelling, the retelling's distribution, critical interrogation of a film's intent--into a work itself, especially one animated film. I would like to see a documentary or "making-of" about it. I think Paley gives it a good shot with some commentary by her Indian friends, incorporated into the film itself. She needs to acknowledge her sources more prominently, I think; that is one common critique of this film that I have seen over and over and thought about myself that bears a lot of weight.
Does anyone of any skin color have a personal obligation to anyone else of a different skin color, based simply on the color of the skin and its associated historical/cultural/linguistic heritage/baggage?
3.) I feel like it's important--maybe even paramount--to keep the fact that this is one white woman artist's personal interpretation of another culture's epic in mind when watching it, and to keep my own reaction to that interpretation up to criticism. I would like to watch it before I have made up my mind about it. There are good points in Zooeylive's article which I will take into my viewing with me, and readings which she has suggested which I hope I will get from the library in time to further inform my criticism, but I am not convinced that I shouldn't watch the movie based on the personal or cultural background of the artist, or the fact that she is reinterpreting something from a different culture.
--
It was in Trivandrum I encountered the Indian epic, The Ramayana, for the first time. Like many westerners, I initially considered the Ramayana little more than misogynist propaganda. - Paley
)Maybe Paley should better familiarize herself with the “Western” epics first—Iliad, Bible, etc. etc.—I seem to recall that they are all a little misogynist to begin with. And if you ask me, I would say the story outline of Iliad and Ramayana are very similar. Why? Precisely because they are both about wars being fought by men upon the bodies of women! So I am not sure how am I supposed to explain Paley’s encountering epic-misogyny for the first time in India. A deadly combination of American arrogance and ignorance perhaps? - Zoeylive
Looking at the text of the quote, I don't read it as Paley saying that she encountered mysogny for the first time in the Ramayana, or in India. To me, it reads that she encountered the Ramayana for the first time in India. The fact that she thought it misogynistic before she had read it is problematic, but not because she thought the epic itself was misogynistic. As Zooeylive points out, a lot of--most?--epics are misogynistic. The Iliad, or the Bible, or a lot of current writing anywhere, is probably misogynistic: most epics are, at least in part, trying to convince people that war is/was full of glory and power instead of probable death, and pillaging by the local army, and rape if you were unlucky (or just there).
I think it was safe for Paley to assume that the epic was probably misogynistic. It wasn't safe or accurate for Paley to assume that because it was Indian it was misogynistic, any more than it would be safe to assume that something written today in Chicago wouldn't be. If Paley wasn't trying to conflate those two viewpoints, she needed to make that clearer by restructuring her sentence. If she was conflating them, then she deserves to be taken to task.
I also agree with Zooeylive that there are plenty of places in the USA or Europe (*cough* 'Western World' *cough*) where it's not safe for a person to walk alone at night or for women to have identities separate from their husbands. I feel like maybe if Paley spent some time in various parts of the USA she wouldn't be so sure that these empowered feminist women she speaks about are running around everywhere she thinks they are. That's a problem. I think it's a problem everywhere. I think the more places people start to notice that problem anywhere, the more can be done to make individual women feel more powerful and have more agency.
So while Paley as a reader is free to read Ramayana as a “parable of human suffering,” there is no way we can think that her readings are free from who she is--a white woman from United States of America--a white woman who has probably internalized the racist and colonialist philosophies of her society. - Zooeylive
I feel like one of the points of this film might be that it is about just that--how this film is a reading that is not free from who she is, explicitly within the text of the film. I think that makes it more interesting, problematic, incendiary. I think that's also part of what makes it worth seeing.
I've heard from more than one Hindu American woman that Sita Sings the Blues is the first Ramayana retelling that offers them a real connection to Sita. My retelling is also humorous, which some people interpret as irreverent, and therefore an affront. - Paley
If you read this passage and you are not familiar with the multiple traditions of the Ramayana already, you would think that she is the first one ever to provide any feminist interpretation of the damn epic! And it is exactly this lack of pertinent research and arrogance that pisses me off. - Zooeylive
I feel like Zooeylive is the one who thinks that Paley thinks that it's the first time there's been some kind of humorous feminist interpretation of the Ramayana. Paley didn't say "this is the first feminist retelling of this epic. This is the first humorous retelling of this epic." That would be a lie. The small excerpts I've read of the Ramayana and other epic poetry
I've read (in particular the Iliad) have convinced me that much epic poetry is humorous in its own right. I feel that because of her own personal biases, Zooeylive interprets Paley as making claims that she is literally not making.
I am excited to read all the works listed in Zooeylive's list. I feel that education in the USA, especially of white English-speaking children, is woefully lacking in the literary or artistic works of non-white non-English speaking cultures, unless they're historical (I always wondered why I never heard anything about Babylon after 500 ad until I figured it out on my own; the continuity never gets thoroughly explained), or a few carefully selected non-white-European people to "round out" the curriculum (usually they still speak English, though). We don't ever get exposed to this stuff, and I am trying to make up for the failures of our system as best I personally can. It's not enough and probably will never be enough, but my other option is to live in willful ignorance--unacceptable.
"I hope to show how the genius of the Ramayana transcends societies and generations, and is as relevant today as it was 3,000 years ago. - Paley
Well, I am not sure that we need you to tell us about the epic’s relevance!"- Zooeylive
I feel like maybe Paley is trying to reach out to more people than Indian people or people of Indian heritage. She isn't saying, "I'm trying to tell Indians about the Ramayana." I think she's trying to reach out to people in Duluth and make them interested in reading the Ramayana for themselves. Is that wrong?
a) If you are working on a cultural or literary tradition, please make sure that you know about it in all its possible complexities before you begin to work on it or pass authoritative judgements on it. - Zooeylive
Does this entail 10 years of studying all interpretations of the Ramayana? Does this entail learning Sanskrit because translations don't do it justice? I feel like "all its possible complexities" encompasses a too-broad range. People would never get anything done if they had to learn everything about anything they wanted to work on. If anyone has any suggestions, I would like to hear them, as I am currently working on a novel that contains a synthesis of Russian and English folktale cultural elements and I do not have time to read all books.
b) Learn to give other cultures their proper rights of ownership. - Zooeylive
I don't see how Paley is taking away ownership of the "Ramayana" from its culture. It's not like she is saying, "The Ramayana isn't Indian" or "I don't believe this epic has a cultural, linguistic or historical context." I feel that Paley's trying to incorporate what research she did into the work. Can someone show me why Zooeylive, or others, might think that she's not?
c)Please remember that we do not need a clueless white woman like you to prove the relevance of our literary works or to provide their feminist re-interpretations. We have already accomplished those tasks ourselves. - Zooeylive
I feel that this is an interpretation based on Zooeylive's biases, as I've stated above.
Moreover, I feel l like Zooeylive's comment points to some problems I've been feeling lately as a woman trying to look at how people in cultures and from traditions not my own live their lives. This isn't just about "Sita Sings the Blues;" this is deeper:
1.) As a white woman, I feel that I am being discouraged from a deeper understanding of other cultures' creative works by people from the very cultures those works are from. Hence, I feel discouraged from cultivating an ability to appreciate the works and/or relate to them in the (limited) ways that I might be able to. As an artist, I worry that I will be be pilloried if I attempt to think about or create works based on things that my culture didn't create. I feel that this can only lead to a narrowing of the mind and spirit, especially for a creative work:
- First, where might this narrowing end? Can I only read and comment on what I can fully understand? Reading only books and critical theory on other white lesbian women currently living in Boston and struggling with gender issues would be really boring after a (short) while. Can others read and comment only on what they can fully understand? Would only Chinese people be considered to have a 'true' understanding of "Journey to the West," and so on? I think that's a facet of Orientalism, in that it romanticizes the Other and suggests that only people of a certain culture/background are capable of understanding the 'true meaning' of traditions and/or cultural artifacts.
- Where would such a narrowing stop? What constitutes that full understanding, even within a cultural homogeny? If I do a reinterpretation of the Iliad, would people complain that I do not know Ancient Greek or that I didn't live during the Trojan War or had never been to Athens?
2.) Some comments on the comments in Zooeylive's post:
...you need to be careful of this long history of cultural and material violation and interrogate them in your work. - zooeylive
It is, rather - should be, part of your obligation as a European American to note not only the power dynamics of the story, but also of your retelling and its distribution. - sarah
I feel it's really hard, artistically, to cram all of this--power dynamics, retelling, the retelling's distribution, critical interrogation of a film's intent--into a work itself, especially one animated film. I would like to see a documentary or "making-of" about it. I think Paley gives it a good shot with some commentary by her Indian friends, incorporated into the film itself. She needs to acknowledge her sources more prominently, I think; that is one common critique of this film that I have seen over and over and thought about myself that bears a lot of weight.
Does anyone of any skin color have a personal obligation to anyone else of a different skin color, based simply on the color of the skin and its associated historical/cultural/linguistic heritage/baggage?
3.) I feel like it's important--maybe even paramount--to keep the fact that this is one white woman artist's personal interpretation of another culture's epic in mind when watching it, and to keep my own reaction to that interpretation up to criticism. I would like to watch it before I have made up my mind about it. There are good points in Zooeylive's article which I will take into my viewing with me, and readings which she has suggested which I hope I will get from the library in time to further inform my criticism, but I am not convinced that I shouldn't watch the movie based on the personal or cultural background of the artist, or the fact that she is reinterpreting something from a different culture.
no subject
Personally --- after reading zooeylive's article (which I appreciated) and mulling it over for a while, I don't think I can say much without seeing it and knowing what is actually in the film. A couple places in Paley's notes make me wince, and zooeylive and their commenters point out those places and others, but I think what matters most to me is how the film itself deals with the issues of colonialism and "eating the other" in its creation. Reading about it and looking at a couple of bits on YouTube, it seems like the many-voiced commentary over the top as part of the storytelling has the potential to open up interesting conversation about the process of working with the story and the potential harm for presenting it in an American market as many people's (mine included) first awareness of the Ramayana. On the other hand, maybe it doesn't at al. I don't feel qualified to say from the trailers or the text, even after reading the critique and Paley's blog, whether I find the film problematic or not, and whether the problems with it might outweigh or be outweighed by any artistic merit it might have. I don't take either zooeylive or the gushing fan letters as authoritative.
I do think that the fact that my first awareness of the Ramayana --- I'd seriously never heard about this before --- comes from a white woman retelling the story in terms of her own life is a problem and a symptom of colonialism. I am not convinced that Paley's discovering that story and working with it and through it is wrong. To say, for example, "if she found the story moving she could have distributed this other telling by a different author instead" feels a little hollow to me: Paley is an author/artist, not a publisher/distributor (although apparently she's taken some of that role on in order to display her art). They're really very different skillsets, and different drives, although they can also be intertwined. I also think "she should have gone and used the Iliad instead" is hollow: the story that hit her and that she researched (though perhaps not enough --- of course, who gets to set these metrics? ) is the story she wrote.
Thinking about this made me return to bell hooks's Art on My Mind: visual politics, specifically the pieces on Alison Saar; the details of Saar's work and why this is related are outside the scope of this LiveJournal comment, but worth reading about, in my opinion. (They were already dogeared, so apparently this isn't my first time coming back here.) hooks offers these thoughts not just about Saar but about appropriation in general:
"In the essay 'Minimal Selves,' the black British cultural critic Stuart Hall affirms this: 'It may be true that the self is always, in a sense, a fiction, just as the kind of "closures" which are required to create communities of identification --- nation, ethnic group, families, sexualities, etc. --- are arbitrary closures; and the forms of political action, whether movements, or parties, those too are temporary, partial, arbitrary. It is an immensely important gain when one recognizes that all identity is constructed across difference.' Given this reality, acts of appropriation are part of the process by which we make ourselves. Appropriating --- taking something for one's own use --- need not be synonymous with exploitation. This is especially true of cultural appropriation. The "use" one makes of what is appropriated is the crucial factor.
"These days is is often assumed that any act of appropriation wherein one ethnic group draws on experiences of an ethnic group to which they do not belong is suspect. Issues of authenticity are raised to devalue work that emerges from cultural borrowings. For a more expansive understanding of cultural appropriation to emerge in this society, critical thinkers would need to construct both a revised ontology and radically different theories of knowledge." (11-12)
--more--
no subject
What's important here for defending Paley is the idea (echoed later by hooks) that artistic vision and creation is important outside of the context of appropriation; the critic should criticize the art, not just the artist. However, also important for challenging her decision to publish/distribute and her decisions for how to do so is "the crucial factor" of "use." I don't know where this film falls, and I think there's room for disagreement. I can absolutely respect someone's desire to avoid the movie because they believe it will fall short of their expectations, or because they have criticisms of the artist. I think zooeylive's criticisms are valid but those criticisms of the artist aren't enough for me to avoid the art. That certainly may have something to do with what I bring to the table as a white woman in academia with an interest in DIY art projects.
Personally, I think there is also room for criticism based on Paley's choice to use music that's under copyright here in the US. While I'm not a huge fan of punitive copyright fees, the attitude she takes on her blog when it comes to copyright and licensing rubs me the wrong way. I'm of two minds about the film and filmmaker, and personally, I want to see the film to have more information. Even then, I'll be making a value judgement that could be (and maybe should be) torn down. Was she driven by her own life toward this story, originally foreign to her, that she then worked with and let work with her, producing something that could not have existed without either her or the story and telling the new story of their entanglement? Or did she just see something that, in her frustration with her own life, she could deform and recast as her own story? Could two people look at the same thing and each see one of those?
The more I go back and reread zooeylive and Paley, the more I am frustrated with both of them. Perhaps that means it is time to go to bed and approach this with a fresh eye tomorrow morning or the next. :)
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
This is a really good point, and I agree! And I also agree that I would like to see the actual film before making a clear judgment on it.
It raises a question, though, which is: in order for me to see the work in order to decide whether or not I support it, I need to support it by seeing it. The reason
So what to do?
no subject
other reasons: its production, its juxtapositions, its animation style.
I'm also willing to support it by seeing it because there isn't really
any way for me to see it other than paying to see it in a theater ---
unless it actually gets posted for free online, in which case I may just
wait and download it. I've made a value judgement here, that it's worth
being part of the audience to make my own decisions about it, for a few
reasons:
* People with more lived experience and "authenticity" than me are on
both sides of the debate. At least one person I consider a good friend
is against it (as a crude simplification, anyway: "against" doesn't
really contain complexity), which makes me nervous, but I want to see
it for myself for the other reasons.
* If it is problematic, I think seeing it will help me understand how and
why in a way that I can remember better than a LiveJournal conversation
about a hypothetical film.
* Even if it is problematic in its appropriation/exploitation, as someone
who wants to do DIY media, the ability to produce a feature film
~singlehandedly is really exciting to me, and seeing the techniques
she used could be very helpful. It's particularly exciting to me at
this moment because I spent a bunch of yesterday hand-binding books and
so I have a lot of "Yeah! Make stuff!" energy.
* If it's good, it may read really excitingly alongside Anita Desai's
_Journey to Ithaca_.
I'm not going to donate to the film without seeing it or purchase its
merchandise, probably even if I do see it and think it's OK. To me,
that would also be making a judgement beforehand, and in the opposite
direction. It's anyone's perogative to do that if they want, but not
something I'm going to do. Personally, were I Eredien, I'd hop in a
bus and go see it somewhere else; that's not the ideal solution to this
debate but it's how I would dodge the bullet. If she and others bring it
to my city, I'll see it there. There's art all over the place I don't have
access to; only rarely do I go out of my way to get access to something.
If it were just me, I wouldn't bother going to see it in New York, but
if a bunch of my friends are going, then there's a whole host of other
reasons to go, like "Dude! Let's all go to New York and see this movie
and play chess in a park and eat at a nice vegan place!"
no subject
I didn't enjoy it, of course, because it was something I had to read for school. I should try to find a decent translation* and read it again sometime. But I say that about a bunch of half-remembered myth cycles; someday I should find a good rendition of the Eddas to expand upon the book of Norse myth I had as a kid; someday I should sit down and read Homer for myself...
* something akin to Seamus Heany's rolling, flowing, and nicely-footnoted version of Beowulf would be ideal