Was it really just an autobiography?

Immediately after watching Sita Sings the Blues, I had one question begging to be answered: Was the film even supposed to be about the ancient Hindu story of Ramayana? I don’t think it was. I’ll explain.

I’ve noticed that some people in their posts have referred to the woman living in contemporary San Francisco as “the woman” or “the woman and her husband”. Just to be clear, that woman is supposed to be Nina (the director of the film). I think it is important to realize when watching the film (although at the same time, maybe you walk away with a much different interpretation if you assume Nina and Dave are just two random people; this shifts the emphasis to the story of Ramayana) that the story is told from the perspective of someone who is supposed to be in the film herself. Why is this important?

Well, in the actual story of Ramayana, Rama is the main character (note Goldman 1-13, and heck, the epic is practically named after him). However, in Sita Sings The Blues, Sita is of course the focal point of the film. Throughout the film, we as viewers are sympathizing with Sita. What I found most interesting about the film was the way in which Nina Paley placed the emphasis on the story and struggles of Sita. By having three puppets periodically bicker about historical details concerning the Ramayana, emphasis is actually shifted away from the facts of the tale and towards Paley’s statement about the oppression of women in ancient India (and coincidentally, her own perceived oppression).

I think this results in a few fundamental differences between the film and the story, in addition to the shift of focus from Rama to Sita. In some ways, Rama becomes the antagonist in the film, and he is portrayed as cold and ruthless when he forces his brother to leave Sita stranded in the wilderness. This is, of course, paralleled with Nina’s own feelings of abandonment from her husband. Both Nina and Sita seek comfort in life forms that are dependent on them for survival; both move forward by embracing something akin to “motherhood”. In the case of Nina, she finds solace in caring for her cat. In the case of Sita, she has to care for her young children. In either case, the story is quite similar. Hence, I interpreted the movie more as an autobiography than a comment on the epic of Ramayana. Thoughts?