Clarity on Ambiguity

        I was surprised by my ability to relate to the narrators in the film. Going over the readings alone, I had assumed that I was simply a confused student but all-knowing scholars with clarity existed. I enjoyed that even the storytellers were confused, mixing up spellings, pronunciations, and events. These little black figures that narrated gave me a greater sense of comfort with my confusion. Furthermore, they directly addressed my concerns as Sammie pointed out. Sita should not have had her jewelry to leave a trail, since she left everything behind to be in the forest with Rama. I like that the narrators said to not question the story because it emphasizes that it is only for amusement and, perhaps, to extract some greater meaning. However, the details are not important.
I think the movie did a great job showing the unimportance of these little details. One tool that I found particularly effective was the somewhat modern day parallel drawn between the man and woman in San Francisco/ India/ New York and Sita and Rama. This entire modern day story line was shown with blurry lines that looked like they had been drawn quickly and without much effort. I think this technique was used to help show the inconsequential and fleeting nature of this story in the grand scheme of things. It leaves the reader with a certain sense of impermanence in life.
These blurry lines could also show the difficulty in defining people, which I noticed was a theme throughout the movie. No character was only good or only evil. Everyone had elements of both good and bad. For instance, Ravana stole Sita— a bad action—but did not make her sleep with him—a good action. Even the person who might be the villain of the story has redeeming characteristics.
Overall, I enjoyed the film and never would have guessed that Ramayana would have been made into a musical!