It's hard to find an original animated film today. I say that not in regards to story or content and all that goes with it, but rather, the style. While Pixar has undoubtedly continued to produce great films that are funny, charming, and pleasing to all ages, companies like Dreamworks flood the market with more computer-animated films in the same style (that aren't nearly as good overall). Sita Sings the Blues breaks up the monotony of this trend by using simpler, yet more creative and unique animation.
But does the film's story and content also satistfy?
Read on to find out!
The film begins with religious and astrological symbols, with Hindu figures moving through the galaxy. Eventually, the focus changes to San Francisco. The style of animation changes three times just in moving in to an apartment, from an oversized view of the city from the bay, to what looks like magazine cut-outs of cars on the street, the squiggly-line animation best known from the old Comedy Centrals series "Dr. Katz". A couple is lying in bed, though the woman is soon awoken by an obnoxious cat that jumps and down on her, waiting to be fed. Cut to later and the man has been offered a new job in India.
From there, India is introduced, but first there is a rather funny debate between figures about exactly which year it is in a sort of self-aware reference.
From there, the film switches back and forth between modern day and ancient India. The modern day tale is a relfection of a personal life experience from the filmmaker, Nina Paley, involving a woman from San Francisco whose husband goes to work in India. The woman herself is offered a job in New York City, which accepts. The distance between the woman and her husband begins to put a strain on their relationship.
This modern tale is interspersed and paralleled with an old Hindu epic called "Ramayana", about a exiled prince who is in love with Sita, and the similar strain put on their relationship. These segments include musical numbers from old jazz records, adding interesting flair to the ancient tale.
The humor in the film is great, especially the narration provided by Indian shadow puppets, who discuss the tale like a few friends trying to remember details and names, and having some disagreements on what was what.
Sita is also revolutionary in the way it was released-the film can be downloaded legally for free from the official website. The idea behind this release was to spread the film to as many people as possible, as Paley believes everyone should be able to see it. All she asks is that if the viewers like the film, that they donate a little to her so she can spread the film even further.
Overall, Sita Sings The Blues is a unique, funny, and very creative film that parallels an ancient epic with modern day story telling. And because it's free to download, it's well worth checking.
So don't wait-go download it today!
4 comments:
All of the shadow puppet dialogue is unscripted. The voices are three Indian friends of Nina Paley's who aren't necessarily experts on the Ramayana, so the disagreements and inaccuracies are totally real. Just a cool tidbit, I guess.
May 3, 2010 at 5:02 PMAlso, I'm pretty sure the reasoning behind the odd release format had more to do with legal issues surrounding the music than any kind of principled statement on intellectual property. Paley made the whole film without getting the rights to the music, and then found out it would be prohibitively expensive to license them, so she released it in this way to circumvent copyright law. This is an important distinction, because it shows Paley originally intended to release the film for profit. She makes it fairly clear on her website that the only reason she went ahead and released under CC was because she would rather give away the film for free than change it to suit the copyright owners.
Free culture is intellectually pretty cool; the democratizing of art creation and distribution has a whole utopian vibe that is initially very appealing. However, that is purely from the viewpoint of an art consumer, rather than creator. Yes, there are a lot of artists who are happy to reach a larger audience and are OK with creating simply for the sake of creating, but when it comes down to it, one must still put food on the table. With federal funding for the arts at an all-time low, being a professional artist is already hard enough when you're GETTING PAID, let alone giving out your work for free. As it becomes harder and harder to monetize art, free distribution will squash creativity rather than encourage it. If you can't live on your artistic output, you can't afford to put as much time into it.
Chris-
May 3, 2010 at 6:21 PMThanks for the comment and the clarification! You certainly have a point about the artist VS the consumer.
Thanks for reading!
Actually Chris is incorrect, but I understand the confusion, especially as the errors multiply online like a game of telephone. Here are the facts:
May 6, 2010 at 8:10 PMhttp://blog.ninapaley.com/2009/12/07/correction-again/
Nina, wow! Thanks for reading! I really enjoyed your film
May 8, 2010 at 4:31 PMPost a Comment