Things in present day Sri Lanka have been taking a depressing turn of late:
At least 150 people have fled the village of Allaipiddy in the northern Sri Lankan peninsula of Jaffna.
It follows last weekend’s murder of 13 Tamil civilians. The navy has been accused of the killings – they deny it.
Police and international truce monitors have both launched investigations into the incident.
The killings came only two days after Tamil Tiger rebels launched a suicide assault on a naval convoy in which 18 sailors died. [Link]
To take your minds off of the grim reality of the present I feel that I must point you to animator and SM commenter Nina Paley’s website. She has just released the newest segment of the her multi-part saga, Sita Sings the Blues. It is titled “Battle of Lanka.”
 |
|
A pivotal scene from “Battle of Lanka” |
Battle of Lanka was made about a year ago, and is chapter 4 in Sita Sings the Blues, after Hanuman Finds Sita and before Trial By Fire. In this episode, Rama, Hanuman, and the monkey armies cross the sea to Lanka to conquer Ravana and the rakshasas, and rescue the captive Sita. Assisting me was Jake Friedman, the only animation apprentice I’ve ever had. Jake wanted to learn Flash and had excellent animation chops and a good eye, so he came to Brooklyn almost every day for a month. Jake animated much of the monkey-on-demon violence: monkey swinging axe, monkey throwing axe, monkey bashing demon with club, monkey kicking demon, etc. A panorama of Jake’s animation occurs at 1:28, in which I took pretty much everything he’d animated on the project and composited it into a single scene. It’s worth multiple viewings, to catch all his lovingly considered variations. Thanks Jake… [Link]
Ahh, it is far easier to accept monkey-on-demon violence than the real thing (however, if it were the other way around there would have been a revolt in the SM basement). Also keep in mind that the segments she has released is not the whole movie but just a few bits to tease you. The poor girl has to make SOME money for all of her years of hard work. Show her some love people! There is a donation button on the sidebar of her website.
There are several more episodes I haven’t posted publicly, and I reformatted Trial By Fire for widescreen, as well as changing a few scenes, and haven’t uploaded the new version. I don’t want to post everything online before the film is done, but you can see stills from all 8 episodes.
See Previous Post: ‘Sita Sings the Blues’
WHAT IN THE NAME OF ………!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Simply wonderful.
Nina-ji, you are brilliant, and so deserving of that Guggenheim. applause, applause
I watched the first episode of SStB and thought back to all those Amar Chitra Katha comics that I used to swallow whole on trips to India. What sexist outrageousness (though I loved them, and in a way, still do, if only out of nostalgia…a cognitive dissonance that I haven’t quite reconciled)! Yours is a truly welcome, inspired (re)interpretation.
I am so glad Nina’s doing this. I’d always puzzled over coupla points in the Ramayan which seemed really strange to me (behaviour of Ram towards Soorpanakha, the whole ‘trial-by-fire’ thingie etc) and was glad to find out that there are alternative narratives based precisely on those and other events, many of which DO question Ram on those points.
There’s always been this other bit in the Ramayan story which I never have been able to justify. According to the versions of Ramayan I have read/seen, Hanuman offers to spirit Sita out of Lanka back to Ram. Sita declines that offer, demanding to be rescued by Ram himself. That always sounded extremely arrogant to me; the whole I-don’t-care-how-many-people-die-but-my-pride-has-to-be-preserved attitude. Anyone has a different take on this?
I’d be interested in learning some more information about the actual warfare that is currently going on in Sri Lanka…
She was a woman… and so was Draupadi, who pretty much said the same thing to Pandavas who were willing to negotiate for peace.
M. Nam
Bravo, Nina P! The new installment, like the previous ones, is brilliant beyond words!
Interesting, I hadn’t connected the two. I guess these things strike me in the Ramayan more than the Mahabharat. The Ramayan is supposed to be the story of a man and woman who are ‘ideal’, hence any moral ambiguities in their behaviour stand out. On the other hand, the Mahabharat is about people who are pretty much human, so it’s almost expected of them.
Nina – Love it!!! 🙂
The Pandavas did negotiate for peace right up to the bitter end. Draupadi always wanted revenge, but none of her whining, wailing and threats succeeded in sending the Pandavas up in arms until they had no choice (not a needlepoint of territory).
I’ve wondered about why Sita didn’t go with Hanuman too. It could have something to do with being more comfortable with the devil you know than taking chances with a stranger. That’s my take anyway. I’ve heard people say that it would have been inappropriate for her to go with any man other than her husband.
Or it could have just been added to provide some drama to the story. Or it could be that they had some bare facts and spun the whole story around it.
In any case, to me the interesting thing about these stories is precisely that we can find fault with the characters. Imagine if it had been a happily ever after tale. I don’t think it would have lasted through the centuries. Nor would it have provided any food for thought.
Divya writes: >>interesting thing about these stories is precisely that we can find fault with the characters
None of the characters in Hindu stories are perfect. One beneficial outcome of this (as you said) is that their imperfections are guaranteed to be discussed for millennia, thus spurring a culture of debate amongst the populace. Another beneficial outcome is that there is no room for religious fanaticism, since fanatics need to rever a “perfect” God – humanised religious figures don’t inculcate a propensity to ask for a ban on a movie in the general populace. And the biggest benefit is that the followers realise that pursuit of perfection is a never-ending goal.
M. Nam
. Another beneficial outcome is that there is no room for religious fanaticism
I think Moornam is asking for Spoorlam to comment here.
Abrahamic for Debauchery!
Don’t mock what the Vedic genius of Hindu tolerance says and invite me to comment. Even our farts smell of lotus petal flower perfume. It has been so since the dawn of khaki shorts. You provocative anti-national.
Hail Mogambo!
Arent SpoorLam’s comments
Those are the categories of un-acceptable comments (as per the rules). Also SpoorLam is getting preety close to being a troll.
One may not agree with what MoorNam has to say, but that should not be responded with quasi-personal attacks.
I hope someone finds this funny, so as to fit at least one of categories of accepted comments.
Hail RC Mogambo!
“There’s always been this other bit in the Ramayan story which I never have been able to justify. According to the versions of Ramayan I have read/seen, Hanuman offers to spirit Sita out of Lanka back to Ram. Sita declines that offer, demanding to be rescued by Ram himself. That always sounded extremely arrogant to me; the whole I-don’t-care-how-many-people-die-but-my-pride-has-to-be-preserved attitude. Anyone has a different take on this?”
In his 6 volume re-telling of The Ramayana (vol 6 is due out this summer!) the author Ashok K. Banker did include this scene in vol 5 (Bridge of Rama), and if memory serves, in Mr. Banker’s version Sita refuses Hanuman’s help because if Hanuman were to save her, than Rama would not fight Ravana and lay seige to Lanka, but simply go home. Her argument was that for the Law of Dharma to be upheld and fulfilled, then Rama must fight and kill Ravana!
This is the link to his website:
http://www.epicindia.com/
This is excellent…one of the my few regrets about my beloved Amar Chitra Kathas and Chandamamas were the very few human Indian heroines that I had to look up to…it took many years for me to consider that perhaps they were one-dimensional simply because their perspectives were ignored or considered irrelevant or minor. Kudos, N. Paley!
Wait a minute, how does refusing to go with Hanuman become a sign of Sita’s arrogance??? I thought it was about preserving of Rama’s pride. You know, the man should come himself, fight, and rescue her.
OMG bravo Nina. This is just brilliant. As mentioned by others all of Nina’s animations always bring back a feel of Amar Chitra Katha and Chandamama for me. It was my source of Mahabharata, Ramayana & Akbar stories as a child long before I learnt there were actual books out there discussing them. 🙂
This move by Sita was more about upholding dharma and doing it the right way (not sneaking off in the night behind Ravana’s back but leaving with pride and by defeating him) rather than a selfish and self absorbed request that didn’t care for who or how many died.
It’s the same reason Draupadi wanted the Pandavas to battle for her. Eternally it is about a woman seeking to be fought for and rescued fair and square not in a shameful quiet way. If I was abducted by a bully I’d expect my lover to barge in thru the door knock down the bully in a duel and rescue me. It’s more honorable then doing it in a sneaky way.
Clearly JoaT is unwilling to be Rapunzel.
I’d expect my lover to barge in thru the door knock down the bully in a duel and rescue me
So, like what would happen if your lover was no match for the bully (I’m thinking like a huge, crazy, perhaps…ten headed..weapons and all.. ?????) …. uh……ummmm….
Alas I’ve been my own Rapunzel for too long so I harbor secret thoughts of being ‘rescued’.
Hehehe I simply cannot fathom myself with a lover who couldn’t take out a 10 headed monster. I mean that describes some of the people on my daily commute and if I can take on a 10 headed monster he needs to be capable of taking out a 20 headed monster with snakes for hair and 50 arms and 40 legs and the works…
JoAT,
Aha, but a truly courageous & funky woman would be able to beat the hell out of her abducter and rescue herself, Jennifer Garner-Alias-ishtyle 😉
Sigh Refer to first part of Comment 22!
Even if the ‘fair and square’ way demands that many people be killed and massacred? I guess that’s the kind of right that is granted to the powerful…
I did think about the explanation that Sita wanted to uphold Dharma and so on, but on a human level, it sounded pretty contrived.
There actually are versions of the Ramayana where Sita and Rama meet Ravana again on the way back from Lanka, but this time, he’s got a hundred heads instead of the paltry ten heads that he had previously. Rama faints like a sissy, and Sita does battle with Ravana, Shakti mother-goddess style!:-)
Well, life goes on even during the civil war and now Sri Lankan government is trying for High speed Mobile service It is for sure that there is no respite for the Sri Lankan people in near future. The only way out seems to be the International community becoming more serious about the crisis.
Not to start up the Ram/Sita/Silliness debate again, but. . .
Going back sanskrit style to the original story of Ram and Sita, Ram was born with the knowledge of what he had to do: be ideal and kill Ravana. While we can debate how perfect he was, the kill Ravana part is fairly straight foward. Sita was born so there would be a reason to kill Ravana–Ravana was told [in classic Hindu Epic Style] that his daughter would cause his death, and since Sita was indeed Ravana’s daughter, she had to stick around. So, while maybe arrogant and imperfect, explicably necessary.
Ravana was told [in classic Hindu Epic Style] that his daughter would cause his death, and since Sita was indeed Ravana’s daughter, she had to stick around. ………
Sita was Ravana ‘s daughter ????????
Waaahhh come again?
I’ve never heard that before either, although it does put a somewhat Oedipal Greek-tragedy spin on the story, doesn’t it ?
References verifying this statement would probably be a good idea at this point, if anyone knows of any suitable sources…..
Hmmm. Why should Ravana be killed ? Because he was “so evil” ? If so, then why not launch a pre-emptive attack rather than wait for Sita to be kidnapped ?
Hmmm (again). Because force, especially if it involves invading someone else’s territory, should only be used in self-defence and after the opponent has “made the first move” ? If so, there are some interesting parallels to certain world events in recent times……
According to most standard Ramayanas, Sita was found by King Janaka of Mithila while ploughing a field as part of a ceremony. Her origins are not explained. There are alternative Ramayanas which claim her to be Ravana’s daughter. I read about these in ‘Many Ramayanas’ by Paula Richman, which was actually mentioned on this blog. The book is available online in its entirety.
In that vein, one could actually credit the ‘real’ reason for Ravana’s death to his own sister, Soorpanakha. Didn’t Ravana kidnap Sita ostensibly in revenge for his sister’s gruesome mutiliation by Ram and Lakshman?
My point is that the ‘real reason’ explanations are not entirely satisfactory, IMHO, because they can be taken to absurd lengths. They are definitely valid interpretations, of course.
I like that. I need to think a bit more over that idea.
Technophobicgeek,
An addendum to my previous sentence would be…..”or for the defence of those unable to defend themselves”.
In the case of the latter, it still begs the question of exactly what made Ravana so “bad”. Just having a huge ego ? Arrogance isn’t sufficient reason to kill someone. Because he was tyrannical towards his subjects/citizens, or had engaged in unwarranted acts of aggression against other kingdoms (not just Ayodhya) ? If either (or both) of these were true, then one could suggest that in fact Ravana himself had still engaged in the “first move”, and that Rama’s subsequent war against him was justified. However, the question of why he should have waited until Sita was abducted before launching the offensive would still be valid in this case.
The alternate Ramayanas are quite popular in the south – I remember having RaavaNaKaaviyam (which casts Ravana as the hero) as a text in school.
Has anyone else read Kamal Haasan’s short story based on Sita’s trial by fire? There’s a decentish translation here.
Hmmm, so Sita’s abduction provided Rama a smoking-gun reason to attack Lanka rather than launching an outright pre-emptive war. That way, it also made it a whole lot easier to form a coalition with the monkey and bear armies. Nice.
The alternate Ramayanas are quite popular in the south – I remember having RaavaNaKaaviyam (which casts Ravana as the hero) as a text in school.
We also talked about this here.
except that she has it incorrectly dated as 1000 b.c. when its more closer 5000 b.c. or 7000 b.c.
The reason that Sita refuses Hanuman from ‘rescuing’ her is that to begin with she doesn’t need rescuing. If she wanted to be saved, she could have saved herself. She could have just disappeared and gone straight back. However, it was destined that Ravana was to die at the hands of Vishnu. Ravana is an incarnation of Sudarshana Chakra, cursed due to ego, to be born as a demon, until Vishnu himself would kill him and liberate him so that he could regain his position at the hand of Vishnu. As Ravana, he asked many boons of which he asked for protection against Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva as themselves. Hence, he was proud and egotistical that no one could kill him. He forgot to ask for protection against men and monkeys – which Vishnu well knows. Hence, Vishnu takes the avataram of a man, and Sita takes the avatara of the woman whom Ravana would have to abduct, in order that all the prophesies and conditions be fulfilled. You have to look at the story in context of all the other scriptures. Sita devi is an incarnation of Laxmi herself. Both She and Rama are self-realized incarnations of Lakshmi and Vishnu respectively. Ravana had a number of ‘boons’ that were dispensed to him as a result of the penances he had done prior. Vishnu takes all of these minutiae into account before launching an assault on him and destroying him, by finding appropriate loopholes. Even at the end, Rama could not kill him with a straight shot, but Dharma would not permit him to shoot below th belt (amruta pandam in his stomach makes him immortal to straight shots). Rama launches an astra with all the powers combined, and to make sure that it can serve its purpose, Hanuman prays to Lord Vayu (“wind”) to change the path of the arrow so that it hits below the belt. This is how Ravana is killed, while at the same time, protecting all the dharmas, rules, and prophecies. Vishnu is fair to everyone – including demons. While protecting dharma completely, he ensures that the good triumphs in the end. There is the version of Ramyana written by Valmiki, and the real ramayana written by Hanuman as it happened. The two are not identical. However, Hanuman threw the true version into the sea, out of deference to Valmiki. ALL THAT ASIDE, if you look at the story of Rama and Sita as the story of two people, you miss the point entirely, and find numerous criticisms. If instead you look at the story as an allusion to your personal struggle between the mind (sita) and the heart (rama) and their quest to find one another in the battlefield of life, in which Ravana (the ten headed rakshasa who represents the numerous desires that drive your senses wayward, and abduct the mind ‘sita’) – you will come to a new appreciation for the story. You find that the story is really the story of how to be a true karma yogi. Through the help of hanuman (prana, son of the breath or wind or life-force current), you can help the mind (sita) to be reunited with the atma (rama). This is the story of Yoga, and it applies to your daily life, if you interpret properly without the bias of a western mindset that looks at it as “just a story”. The story was written by Sage Valmiki, a supposedly self-realized sage, and therefore if read with respect and proper curiousity (not the skepticism of a western mind) but the skepticism of a devotional/faithful mind, then you can find out for yourself its true inner meaning. This is why bhakti is so important in hinduism, without it, you misinterpret all the scriptures. They are highly misleading if read by someone in the wrong state of mind, or with the wrong attitude/temperament. They are designed to be that way.
Also, as far as “lives lost” business – hinduism does not see the loss of life as evil – it is seen as part of the natural order of things. No life is ever truly lost. But by killing for selfish / egoistic reasons, you develop attachment to the action (or alternately, inaction), thereby incurring sin – and bondage to the cycle of life/death. Life lost in battle is glorious for a solider – he dies in the performance of his duty. It is not so short-sighted as the philosophies of those who babble on and on about “world peace”, while all the time claiming their right to free will and the rights of individuals. Free will is diametrically opposed to a condition of “peace” where everyone cooperates for a greater good. Free will, especially when ruled by the lower ego, seeks the greatest good for the individual. World peace implies that people subdue what’s good for themselves in order to ensure the continuity of the greater good of the world. In a world where absolute greed exists, you also have “world peace” of sorts – but that assumes you accept that battle is peaceful. The battle between two things, in which the strongest wins – can also be seen as a kind of peace in and of itself. I’m not saying that either situation is good or bad – there is a balance to be struck – and at the end of the day, nothing is actually wrong with the world. Hinduism simply says that it is not the world that is messed up, but our view of it. Things cannot be other than what they are, given who/what/how we are. We simply have to find our own peace within ourselves, and not let the tempest of the world shake us from that center – but at the same time, we must not sink into apathy – balance (buddhi yoga) – is key.
Forgive any errors in sentence structure, my computer is shit, and I don’t have patience to correct all of this.