Sita Sings the Blues can be interpreted as the '301st' Ramayana, so to speak. It is an interpretation of a classic story that is inlaid with the culture of the teller. The creator of the film inlays her own experience of divorce into the character of Sita in the Ramayana. Her struggles with her lost love inform her telling of the Ramayana. The creator of Sita Sings the Blues in some way understands Sita's pain. So, as a projection of her own experience, her movie is a telling of Sita, not of Rama. This is just perspectivism at work. If her ex-husband had made a movie about the Ramayana, it would probably focus on Rama 'escaping' Sita or something akin to such a theme. The Ramayana fits perfectly as a narrative of discourse, in my opinion. In both, however, Sita is kidnapped, rescued, tested, exiled. But the question is of the intensity of each person's focus on different parts of the Ramayana.
162 words