Further Commentary on "Sita Sings the Blues"

[eredien]

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.

Comments

[gaudior.livejournal.com]

I think the real difference is one of power. It's true that retelling is what keeps stories alive. But on the other hand, when members of one group which has already made enormous profit of another group through violence and theft then make more profit off of the latter group's stories, that's different from just retelling the stories of the group that has power in a new way. No?

[shatterstripes.livejournal.com]

As a generalization, yes. Beating someone down and stealing their ideas is not at all good.

But to be specific to this case... is Paley, as an American child of the late 20th century, a part of the group that benefited from the British colonialism that trod heavily on Indian culture? America is not free of colonial stains by any means, but must she be responsible for the other places Brittania ground beneath her heels at the same time as her own country was being born?

Does Paley's utter lack of profit, to the point that she's grasping at straws just to get the film able to be seen without legal action, never mind making back what she spent on it, change anything?

[rax.livejournal.com]

She is not personally, directly responsible for Britain's colonialism,
but in all likelihood (if you look at how the American and Indian
economies are intertwined) she does benefit from it. I know I benefit
from it. Whether and how that translates to responsibility is a matter
on which many people disagree. I think that in this case she does have
some responsibility.

(This is not to disagree that ownership of epics is thorny in this case
and others.)

[lotusbiosm.livejournal.com]

I think when we talk about the heritage of imperialism it's important to distinguish between "responsibility" and fault/blame. I am not to blame for the actions of my English ancestors/distant kin. I was naught but a twinkle in my great^N-grandfather's eye when the English conquered India.
But I am responsible, in the sense that I have to choose how I relate to that history and what I do to set right those wrongs.