Singin' the Blues

Hey people,

The movie we watched in class yesterday did a great job simplifying a challenging and complicated text.  Not only did Sita Sings the Blues put everything we were supposed to take out of Ramayana in layman's terms, but it gave us the opportunity to connect with the epic's characters, more so then we would have if we only read it.  This visual illuminated the perspectives of both Sita and Rama in a light that gives explanation to their actions.

Although Rama is portrayed as "magnanimous hero"(333 Pollack) in the text, Sita seemed to hog the majority of the spotlight.  This shift in focus allowed me to identify with a female's role in society in this period.  This role appeared to be dominated by a masculine superiority, as Sita continuously shows her weakness every time she returns to Rama to beg for his acceptance and understanding.  Although this inferiority draws sympathy for Sita because no matter what she does, Rama will never trust her, I simply cannot empathize with her.  She initially decides her own fate when she decides to go with her banished husband into the dangerous forest.  Yes, it sucks for Sita that she will never be loved by Rama again, but she needs to take a hint, and live on with her life.  Rama needed to set an example for his followers, so how would it be fair for him to rekindle a relationship with a woman who has spent time under the roof of another man?  These were the societal standards and expectations at the time, so who is he to break them?

My favorite part of the movie was undoubtedly the narration.  Aside from the comical effect, the narrators bring up an excellent point when approaching difficult texts such as these-- don't sweat the little things.  It simply isn't necessary to stress over things like who is related to who. Instead, just try to grasp the underlying message because these sacred texts teach morals, not history lessons.

Aesthetics and Sita

The study of aesthetics, according to the mythical Bharata appears to be atypical from everything else we have studied. To further clarify, it does not seem to focus on logic and social structure as much as it focuses on emotion and the senses. Moreover, the Natyasastra’s Rasa constantly changes in definition. However it is understood to be, it’s descriptions always stems from being a mental state or an imitation of a mental state.

One thing I can relate to is how drama takes away the “I”. To elaborate, while seeing and hearing Sita Sings the Blues, I did not experience myself. Just like how I don’t pay attention to the nose on my face, I did not pay attention to my position in the classroom. However, I was emotional toward something that someone else, an animation, felt. (I was absorbing the story, I did not relate to any of the characters.) On a related note, I am not sure what becomes of the one who acts. Do they live as if the act is their world, or are they consciously aware of their self?

Sita Sings the Blues

Sita sings the blues portrays the story of the Ramayana through illustrious depictions of the characters of the epic and of a side parallel story. While informative and even comedic at times, as a whole, I found the movie to be offensive. As a Hindu, I disagree with the promiscuous depictions of Sita. I felt that the movie could have still kept all of its necessary elements without portraying some of the characters in such seductive manners. I complement the movie's use of animation and to portray the Ramayana, however such, as a whole, I felt Hinduism took a hit. For people who might not have a prior knowledge of the Ramayana, they, in my mind, receive a parodical version of such a important epic. The comedic portrayals of these characters devalues their true role in the Hindu culture. If others are provided with such a superficial version of the Ramayana, how will they view Hinduism as a whole. The worse fear is a lost of respect of a religion. However, I understand that a movie does not lead to the extreme of loss of respect,  however it can cause a change of perspective. A superficial perspective can lead to unreasonable interpretations. Should such epics of a certain religion be portrayed in such a manner? And, if so is there a certain limit?

Qu'ran, Bible -- Its all the same, anyway.

You know what really grinds my gears? When people who are not theological scholars try to interpret 'scriptures' where thought and opinion is fact and tangible to them and for all intended purposes, whatever is being debated. Graham makes a lot of good points in is introduction about just this. There is almost a sarcastic tone as soon as you begin to read, "Probably no major concept or phenomenon in the history of religion appears more self-evident or unproblematic than scripture," (1). It can be argued that this statement alone encompasses the teachings in the class, in that the scriptures are not linear or 'one-dimensional'; there is not one way to interpret the texts. Even across the board we have learned that the Vedas are different from the Qu'ran which is different from Buddhism where "what begins with perceived similarities and continuities proceeds rapidly to recognition of contrasts and disparities among differing traditions," (2). In all Graham tries to insinuate a sort of hermeneutic form of approaching not just one text or book but inter-traditions as well -- "scripture, not unlike religion, or ritual, or any other significant element of human life and society, proves finally ambiguous and elusive of simple definition or easy delineation," (3).

Sita

Sita Sings the Blues is one heck of the way to start a Tuesday morning.

To be honest, at first I was overwhelmed with the psychedelic animation and hallucinogenic imagery that bombarded me. I was also a little worried that I wouldn't be able to understand the movie whatsoever. After all, this is coming from the girl who can barely follow the plot of How I Met Your Mother. Tackling the epic tale of the Ramayana so early on a Tuesday morning (okay, afternoon) seemed like a daunting task. Yet, to my surprise, it wasn't.

After watching the film, one question (discussed earlier by the three narrators) still resonated with me. Specifically, is Sita responsible for her own suffering? Or is she just a victim of a predominantly male-dominated and male-oriented society? After some contemplation, I find myself leaning towards the former.

Now, no one can deny that Sita really got the short end of the stick. Being banished (twice), captured, forced to walk in fire, and then eventually swallowed up by the Earth does not sound like a good time. In fact, it sounds like a whole lot of suffering. However, it was Sita's choices that ultimately led to her unfortunate circumstances.

First off, she loves Rama. Yes, she loves him "unconditionally," but she has bad taste in men. Rama may be an epic hero whose virtues are praised throughout the land, but when it comes to women, he's a down right prick. 

Next, she decided to come with her husband to the forest, even though she knows it is dangerous. Then, she orders her husband to capture a golden deer. Why in the world would she do that? Perhaps deer pelts were all the rage in 1400 BCE, but still, it was a selfish demand with absolutely no useful purpose (deer potpourri, deer head mantle, deer moccasins…. no excuse).

Then, after she is captured, she does not return on Hanuman's back (this point is also discussed in detail during the film). Again, why does she do this? By not returning with Hanuman, she directly causes a bloody war where many human-monkey (humonkey?) people are killed. 

Finally, Sita agrees to be banished to the forest in order to protect Rama's reputation. If the real problem was the doubt of the townspeople, why didn't Sita prove her purity to them? She could have publicly thrown herself into a fire (or lake, whichever is more convenient) to prove her purity to everyone. Hey, my thought is if she's done it once she can do it again. 

Sorry Sita, I love your singing, but I'm hesitant to be sympathetic to your cause. 

Sita sings the blues - an intriguing female lead in the Ramayana

First of all, I absolutely loved the movie we watched in class on Tuesday! I can honestly say that I had no clue what was going on at some times, but I loved the visuals and the cool take on the story on the Ramayana.

Rama is, first and foremost, the "hero" of the Ramayana. He is a god-like figure - an avatar of Vishnu and friend of the great Hanuman. He can conquer cities and armies and had the humility to submit to his father's wishes, no matter how horrible they may seem. He does not, however, seem like the main "hero" or focus on the Ramayana, to me, however.

Instead, it seems as if Sita (based on my interpretation of Sita Sings the Blues) is the main focus. From the point of Rama's exile in the forest, all of the events of the Ramayana hinge upon events Sita is involved in and actions and decisions that Sita makes. Sita is kidnapped - this instigates Rama's war in hopes of rescuing her. Sita refuses Hanuman's help in rescue - this results in the death of thousands, as Rama must fight to save her. Sita is deemed "unpure" for living in another man's house - this leads to her trial by fire and eventual exile. Sita returns to mother earth - thus, Rama gives up his life, too. Although Rama is the all powerful male figure, it seems as if most of his actions hinge upon his female counterpart. This, to me, is interesting - it seems as if the female is given an interesting sense of power in the epic.

In addition, the fantastical imagery was quite fascinating, as well. I am not sure if this was just particular to the movie, but I wonder if all of the imagery (various animals, geographical figures humanized with faces and the such, and in particular that peacock that kept popping up everywhere) is just as integral in the epic itself? To me, this seems to be the case, especially after reading excerpts from the Ramayana for Tuesday's class. In particular, the excerpt in which the mountain rose from the sea to provide a resting place for Hanuman illustrated this concept - the descriptive language was phenomenal, both in its beauty and oddity.

Anne Reynolds

Movie Response

"Sita Sings the Blues" was an interesting and at times puzzling film. It had many charismatic elements, the music and humor, that modernized the ancient story. What I liked most was the way that the changing sets displayed the way the story can be applied in many generations and situations. Overall, I think it was a great representation of the story of Ramayana.

The use of the three shadow puppets to provide some comic relief was genius. I loved how they would sort of acknowledge some hypocrisies within the story, but push past them because in the end the theme of the story is what is important, not the minor details. Also, their incessant arguing over names and other details showed how the old age of the story influences how different people tell it differently. The interplay of the 1920's songs confused me a bit. I like the way the love songs romanticized the story between the two lovers but I just wonder why the creator chose that style of music to convey her point rather than to use traditional Indian music. Perhaps as a connector between Indian and American cultures? Any other ideas?

I understand that there exists a comparison between the story of Rama and Sita and the story of Nina and her boyfriend, but I'm not entirely sure what it is. I think that Sita and Nina are in some ways opposites because while they both do everything to remain loyal to their husbands, in the end Nina learns to move on and break herself apart from her ex, meanwhile Sita remains obedient and ready to return into Rama's arms whenever he chooses to be with her again. Why would Nina enjoy reading this story following her break up?

Sita

One of the most interesting aspects of "Sita sings the blues" was a look into the role of women in classic Indian society. Sita was an eternally devoted spouse. She follows Rama into the forest, agreeing to spend 14 years in exile with him and unfortunately is kidnapped. Rama saves her and refuses to accept her as his wife because he fears she has spent the night in another mans house. Now yes, Sita could have simply flown home on the back of the giant monkey, but Rama rejecting her after he rescues her is incredibly uncalled for. That is, quite literally punishing the rape victim. More interesting  though is when Sita proves her purity and is taken back only to eventually be kicked out by Rama again, Sita never once curses Rama. Sita actually has a very creepy shrine to him in the video. This shows what was expected of women in this time period. No matter what their husbands did they were supposed to support them. In my opinion Sita was a shell of a person she seemingly only has one emotion which is love. Normally this would be viewed as honorable, but in the context of this story it only serves to make Sita look weak, and incapable of thinking on her own. The one decision she does make, to recede back into mother nature's womb, actually shows that Sita is capable of free will, however all she decides is that life is not worth living with out Rama, which once again shows her reliance on her male counterpart. All of this being said I think it should be acknowledged that Sita, not Rama, is in fact the main character of this entire story. Regardless of her character flaws, the simple fact that she is the main character should acknowledge how important she is to the story as a whole. One could argue that the out and out sexism of the story could be countered somewhat by the story's spot light on Sita. Sita may be a weak, male reliant and undeveloped character however that is more we can say about Rama. The only thing we can really say about Rama is that he is Sita's husband and he can be a jerk. So while the story does reveal the unfortunately sexist role of women in Indian society, I would argue that the story itself is not sexist, if anything it reveals the hypocrisies.

Free post

I have been so busy this week. I am using my free post.

Free post

This is my free post. And I was wondering, because of the film's use of so many Annette Hanshaw songs, if the jazz singer had any connection to Indian traditions. Turns out she didn't.

Ami

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?  

Sita? Sings? the Blues?

I thoroughly enjoyed the movie we watched in class on Tuesday. I thought Sita Sings the Blues was a very interesting Western take on the Hindu story of Rama.  The intertwining of both traditional Hindu and modern American cultural elements -- for example, the San Francisco couple serving as a parallel to Rama and Sita and the incorporation of American jazz songs to complement and further the plot -- made for an interesting presentation of a classic story. In addition, the fact that it was a cartoon gave it a sort of simplistic quality; rather than being presented as a complex story with several lessons and implications for Hindu philosophy, it seemed like a regular old children's bedtime story. What added to this simplicity were the three narrators of the film, who also contributed to the comedic rendition of an otherwise serious story. The three silhouettes, shaped like traditional Hindu figures, attempt to explain the story to the audience, but have some trouble along the way; they profess confusion about plot details, and they express differing opinions about the characters' feelings and motives. These narrators are particularly funny and revealing because they reflect the uncertainty that one can experience even within their own religion, and even on a greater scale, the perplexity that comes with religion in general.  The fact that these three are not entirely sure of everything hints that it is okay for believers and followers of any faith to be a bit confused as well, and to even question conventions and come up with one's own ideas regarding these points of uncertainty. Sita Sings the Blues is a very successful presentation of an established story portrayed in a new light that works to coax out certain underlying elements of the original tale.

Sita

When I first heard that we were watching a movie in class, I was quite intrigued. Prior to class, I had never heard of Sita Sings the Blues, and had absolutely no clue of what it was going to be like. Visually, my first impressions were that this film belongs in the Yellow Submarine category of movies; a crazy animated and hallucinogenic ride of a movie. However, after a few minutes in, I understood that  the film was nothing like my preconceived notions. As the film progressed, I began to really appreciate the approach and message that the director intended. The film, which centers around the story Ramayana, changes the perspective from the original story. Instead of viewing the story through Rama's eyes, we get to see it through the eyes of Sita. This totally changed my feeling about the Ramayana. What struck me the most about this interpretation, was how much sympathy I began to feel for Sita. I saw the emotional roller coaster ride that she suffered through, especially with her exile to the woods by Rama. I also really appreciated the use of the modern day parallel to help clarify the plot, and also to help express the ongoing feeling of abandonment and sorrow that permeated throughout the film. While there are definite feminist tones though out the film, I found them totally appropriate in this interpretation of a classic religious tale. I personally feel that the story of Sita and Nina really helps to change the view point of the Ramayana, and also shows the importance of perspective in the interpretation of texts, and how interpretations change as time progresses.

Andrew

Archetype of Sita

Sita Sings the Blues was an excellent portrayal of the Ramayana. It was very entertaining and informative. The most clever part of the film was the parallel story of the couple living in United States. Just like Sita is separated from Rama, the woman is abandoned by her husband who moves to India. However, at the end of the film the woman is forced to live by herself while Sita is rejoined with mother earth and Rama finally realizes her power and importance. It was interesting to see that Sita not only loved her husband but was a true devotee to him. One of the narrators mentioned that she should have just moved on without Rama who clearly abandoned her.  Instead, Sita prayed and prayed to be united with her love. From what I know and have read about Sita is that she was a very powerful and intelligent woman. Towards the end of the film, her purity and power is shown when she is reunited with mother earth. If she is so powerful and pure, why does she need Rama who clearly did not put her before his people? Another narrator mentioned that it is because of the unconditional love that Sita had for Rama. This idea is still present in many eastern cultures. The woman is often more loving and therefore inferior to the man and often refers to her husband as her God. However, the woman also has some divine, angelic quality in her the makes her the laxmi or prosperity of the household. Thus, she can be looked as the wiser gender. Overall, the film was very clear and explained the Ramayana very well. (It was much, much easier to understand!). 

5 Stars!

Originally when I first heard we were going to be watching a movie in this class, I got a little scared. The first thoughts that went through my head were, “Is this going to be exactly what I just read and I won’t be able to understand all of the big words and names?”. However, I was pleasantly surprised when the movie began and the screen filled with a woman rising above water, standing on top of a flower, dancing.

            I really appreciated this fun and interesting movie based on the Ramayana of Valmiki. I could easily relate to black figures that were narrating. They would continuously mess up pronunciations, become confused with what happened next and also not fully understand why something was happening at a certain point. This was very relieving to me, considering it is exactly how I feel when reading such a daunting document with information I’ve never really learned before. It was funny to hear them mispronounce huge names and confuse the next things that happen because that’s what happens to me when I read these documents or am taking notes in class. As other students have mentioned in their blog posts, I also liked how the black figures said, “Don’t challenge these stories.” This is exactly how one should think at times when reading a text. Sometimes, a person just needs to read a story and not become obsessed with each little detail. One must try and understand the bigger picture and not just some of the confusing tiny aspects that can distract the reader from the main idea.

The movie was successfully able to find the humor in the complicated story of Ramayana. All of the animations and the music made the story much more interesting and more easily understood. Furthermore, I really liked the modern parallel between Sita and Nina. Nina, at the beginning of the movie, is happily married to her husband, Dave, in San Francisco. Dave then takes a job in India, where he and Nina have limited contact. She finally joins Dave in India, however when she arrives, he pretty much rejects her, seeming very distant. Later on, Nina flies to New York for a meeting, where she receives an email from Dave, that tells her not to come back. Overall, this parallel allows the viewer to understand a simpler idea of the story, where both Nina and Sita remain devoted to their men, and the men come off as selfish jerks. Although it’s simple and light-hearted, it is extremely knowledgeable.

In all, I really liked this movie and found it to be extremely relatable and actually allowed me to understand the story more than when I initially read about Ramayana. A very good choice!

Sita FTW!

            After the reading of The Ramayana of Valmiki and watching Sita Sings the Blues, I commend Rita.  Why?  She stood her ground.  In hopes that I do not come off as a lunatic feminist… power to her!

            Ravana kidnapped Sita, with the sole purpose of making the beautiful Sita his wife.  While in captivity, Ravana expressed his ongoing desire for her only to be rejected as Sita continued to display her faithfulness to Rama.  She remained loyal and devoted to her husband.  Finally, Rama came to her rescue and brought her safety.

However, this is not a Disney princess fairytale with an immediate happily ever after for this couple.  Sita’s purity is a dubious factor for Rama.  The solution was to have her walk on fire in order to prove chastity.  This is what alarmed me.  How can Rama question Sita?  Is there no trust in this marriage?  Sita was held as a prisoner and how does Rama treat her?  He made her walk on fire.  This disgusts me.  Furthermore, “it comes to Rama’s attention that, despite the fire ordeal of Sita, ugly rumors of her sexual infidelity with Ravana are spreading among the populace of Ayodhya. “ (13)  In the film, the black figures were discussing a water purity test for to assure Sita’s chastity.  If she drowned, she was pure… if she did not, she was tainted… or is it the other way…?  Oh that’s right, the black figures could not remember which outcome means purity.  This is just another ridiculous and unfair ritual that women must endure in this man-dominated world. 

Though, the people were still unwilling to accept Sita.  What did Rama do?  Not make a sacrifice for to keep his unconditional love with him.  He chose to appease the kingdom’s wishes. So what happens to Sita?  She is banished to the forest.  I sympathize for her because she honestly cannot catch a break.  Rama was the selfish coward, but Sita was the one who has to pay for his faults.

Eventually, Rama finally came to his senses and sent for his desired queen, intending to bring her back.  Sita does not return the same sentiments.  After all the suffering and horrible treatment, Sita had enough and will not return to that lifestyle.  Asking the heavens if she was faithful to Rama the entire time, she is enveloped by the earth much to Rama’ dismay.

These particular purity rituals reminded me of the Salem Witch Trials and how women were accused.  The community, with no real basis or foundation on the subject of witches, created absurd qualifications that were meant to identify a witch.  Such as birthmarks being analyzed to see if it was the mark of the devil.  Whatever the rite it may be, females (like Sita) were the victims targeted.  And when it came to the time when the people realized their mistake, it is too late to apologize.  Rama attempted to bring Sita back into his life, but that was an impossible wish.  Sita was kidnapped, imprisoned, and ostracized, she was not having any more of that.  Sita maintained her position… and showed up Rama.

     One aspect of Sita Sings the Blues that really resonated with me was the fact that some of it was illogical and confusing.  The fact that the "answer" doesn't always make sense seemed to me to be representative of traditions we have learned about.  A part of the movie that showed this was when the "monkey" character went to the evil kings home to find Sita.  Even though he found her, she didn't go back with him and avert war.  Instead she staid until Rama came.  Another part that showed this was the trail of jewlery Sita left as she was being taken away.  To begin with, she had supposedly left all of her belongings behind when she went with Rama into exile.  In addition, the evil king lived on an island so a trail of jewlery through the ocean wouldn't of have been possible.  However these small impossibilities don't effect  the meaning or result of the story which was reminiscent of when we talked about looking past the small abnormalities in sacred texts in order to grasp the deeper meaning (like when it said "don't question these stories").

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!

Sita Sings the Blues

After watching this movie in class, I felt a greater appreciation for the last topic we covered. While the story of Rama, Ramayana, is typically explained from the point of view of Rama, it was refreshing and extremely interesting to see Sita's point of view. Where I expected to see Rama heroically sacrificing his love of Sita for his people, I instead saw a pregnant woman, who had done nothing wrong by anyone's standards except get kidnapped, exiled to a far away place by the very man she had been willing to leave her entire life behind for. 

The idea of varying perspectives could be interesting to explore, especially in terms of what Ravana was thinking when kidnapping Sita. According to the narrators of the movie, by all other standards, Ravana was a good man. So what was his reasoning? Was there some deeper motive that we're missing?

The connections the movie made to a modern perspective of the story, in which a woman is left by the man she loves, really helped me to connect the major themes of the story. Although it was slightly awkward to see a major part of the Hindu tradition trivialized in the movie, I think overall it helped people get a better understanding than they would have gotten simply by reading excerpts. 

Rama - Dharmic?

Rama, prince of Ayodhya, banished from his kingdom for 14 years, lived a life of turmoil and challenge. His beautiful and loyal wife, Sita, chooses to follow him in his years of banishment to fulfill the dharmic wife she considers herself to be. Destined to be King, Rama attempts to live in a dharmic way by defeating demons and being just; however, Rama's step-mother schemed to give the kingdom to her son, Bharata instead. In the days before his excommunication, he lived as a faithful, bright, strong, and very dharmic prince and hoped to return to reign as king.

I thoroughly enjoyed the movie we watched during class; thought-provoking, informative, relatable, not to mention hilarious. Two thumbs up! Who would you say was the main character in the movie? Sita, clearly. With her periodic concert performances, she was a real hit. The movie really revolved around her point of view rather than Rama's. Having read the Ramayana, "Sita Sings the Blues" paints a completely different picture. The RAMAyana focuses around RAMA's actions and views; it more obviously highlights his heroic nature following the dharmic life of a prince, husband, and Ksatriya. Do you think that those who praise Rama would enjoy "Sita Sings the Blues?" I doubt it. At one point in the movie, it actually shows Rama walking over Sita symbolically showing how Rama walked all over Sita treating her poorly. Even though Sita was faithful while she was captured by Ravana, Rama doubts Sita's faithfulness. In the Ramayana, the narrator emphasizes that he'd rather be dharmic and not be with someone who has been unfaithful. In the movie, the directors make it seem like he's just a huge jerk. After Sita proves her purity in the pyre and they return back to Ayodhya, the kingdom disaproves of his actions of being with Sita. So once more, Rama is forced to choose between the acceptance of his people or his wife. He chooses his dharma as a ruler to appease the public and banishes Sita once more. Once again, the Ramayana more justifies his actions while the movie condemns it. Depending on which point of view, Rama's dharma comes in to question... is he really the heroic model of dharma he's made up to be?