If you choose to submit a reading response for Akira Kurosawa's Rashomon, please do so in the comments section of this post. Remember: your response should be thoughtful, it should evidence a careful consideration of the film, and it should include at least one question for your instructor/your classmates about the film. Your response should be no less than 200 words and no more than 500 words, and at least relatively well-written (you will not be graded on grammar, but please remember that poor grammar/syntax reflects poorly on you/your ideas). If other students have posted before you, your response can be, in part, a response to their posts--feel free to take up other students questions or concerns and use this space as a forum for intelligent discussion. You may also post more than once, particularly if your initial post is short or ambiguous. Your grade for the reading response will be based on your collective input in the comments sections of this post.
The film "Rashomon" portrays an interesting view on truth in fiction in showing four different viewpoints on an unsolved murder. After watching the four witnesses' testimonies, including a dead one, it seems as if the crazy bandit had the most truthful story. One can present an argument that the dead husband's testimony would be considered the most truthful for he had nothing to lose. Yet, I feel that the bandit really had nothing to lose as well. The way he laughed he acted as if he never cared about anything showed that he did not care what others thought about him for he already had a bad reputation. It was interesting to see, however, that the fight originally began over the woman and then by the end of the story both the husband and bandit considered turning on her. In both the husband's and bandit's testimonies, it seemed as though both men agreed at one point that their fight was not worth it over this "whorish" woman. Both of their testimonies made the woman's story seem false for she tried to cry and make herself seem as the hopeless victim in front of the court. Plus I feel that if anything the dead witness would want to die with a respectful reputation and show that he died trying protecting his wife. The fourth testimony looked like it was going to be the most truthful but then we find out that the woodsman was also a thief.
ReplyDeleteThe baby at the end of the movie showed that there is hope in human nature. The baby showed purity and hope in a flawed human world. The two philosophers also represented a form of human nature by demonstrating realism and idealism almost like conservative vs liberalism in today's terms. I am wondering what part of human nature was the woodsman portraying?
Mark Doran
I feel like this film was hard to get into at first, mainly because of the language, but once the characters began to unfold their stories it became easier to understand and watch.
ReplyDeleteMy first instinct was to believe the dead man’s story because in reality, he had nothing to lose (as Mark commented). In addition, I figured he would want to reveal the truth, considering the people who were alive would have more opportunity to tell lies about what happened.
I don’t agree, however, that the crazy bandits account was the most truthful, because I feel that he spoke of himself as this very masculine character that could seduce any women he wanted and kill whoever he pleased. His account varied greatly from the last mans account that made the crazy bandit and the husband appear very cowardly. I realize he wanted to mask the fact that he was a thief, but I also think he could’ve attained that objective without the use of making the men look cowardly.
By the end of the film I honestly felt disappointed that none of the characters stories “lined up”, especially the last mans. I don’t believe however that all men are “doomed” to this fate; I think it just takes time to dig deep and find the real truth to stories in general. That is true for even people who are really trying to tell a true account of something from the past, we’re all human and liable to forget and manipulate things; our minds are not like tape-recorders.
I agree with Lauren that this film was definitely hard to get into at first. However, as all of the characters and their stories started to unfold I really began to enjoy this film.
ReplyDeleteWhat I enjoyed about it most was that it was very similar to that of a real life situation. We are the ones that must decide who to trust. Since we are not present when the actual murder happens, we must try to imagine what did happen based on the four individuals' stories. While we listen to these stories, we must also take into account each individuals emotions which, just as in any situation, could easily influence how they tell the story.
Aside from who to trust, I must say that I was really interested in this movie because of how the justice system works. In the present day, technological advantages have made it possible to confirm and also reject eyewitness accounts such as these. However, while watching this movie, we as an audience have to make a decision on our own as to what happened solely based on our opinion. It is crazy to think that back in the time period that this story takes place our opinion could essentially decide who is guilty based on nothing but their tellings.
Personally, I believe that the bandit gave me the most reason to believe his story solely because throughout the movie we see him as just not caring what anyone thinks. He knows he has a bad reputation and from that obnoxious laugh he seems to be proud of it. I think that he has no reason to perceive these events differently than they actually happened because he seems to be the only character that does have a reason to lie in order to protect his own self-image.
Does anybody believe that he has any reason to not tell the story exactly how it happened? I agree with Lauren they he does speak of himself as masculine and able to seduce or kill anyone he wants, and thats the reason I think he is proud of what he's done.
--Zach Greenberger
I thought that one of the most interesting things that we talked about during our discussion of Rashomon was the whether it is more important to know the facts of a story or to know the motives behind those facts. The entire movie was based around the different perspectives of all of the characters. Each character told a different story about what happened in the woods, which left the viewer wondering which character was actually telling the truth. Each character had many reasons to lie and also acted in ways that would lessen their credibility. However, each character had a definite motive to act in a certain way. By understanding the characters and the situations they were put in, we are able to understand why they would act in a certain way. Understanding these motives gives the viewer the opportunity to further understand the different perspectives. I believe that the movie would have been completely different if the viewer didn't better understand the motives behind the characters' actions.
ReplyDeleteWhen this movie first started it seemed very simple and direct. Yet as the movie progressed it became more and more complicated as more layers were added to the story by the four witnesses. I did not like the movie at first, but then I started to try and figure out the truth in what happened and it had me second guessing myself as to what happened.
ReplyDeleteThe director, Kurosawa, seems to make the argument that trying to figure out the facts and the order of events is futile because each of the four accounts of the story are so different. No one narrator can be fully trusted with their account because each has their own perspective and it is this persective that changes the way they see the facts and events of the story. So, the viewer has to decide for themselves, by sorting through the four storys, what actually happened and how it happened. The viewer may never know what actually did happen and that is why I think Kurosawa made the movie this way. If the director added what the judges agreed upond after hearing four of the storys, would it have made the movie better by complicating it more?
I thought that Rashomon was a depiction on the idea that you can not entirely believe a situation that you are not present for based on what someone says. I think that, like others have said, that of the three stories, the bandit could potentially be the most reliable because he did have nothing to lose. On the other hand his crazy laugh leads me to think that maybe he was exaggerating some things for shock value. The stories the man and his wife tell also could be credible but they seem more interested in protecting themselves or their name, because the man was dead so he really wouldn’t have much to lose either. I think that the way the movie made the audience feel like they were the judges was the show how the way people tell their stories can affect who we chose to believe.
ReplyDeleteThe end of the movie confused me a little. What did the baby have to do with the story? And was the man that “knew” the real story in the beginning of the movie? I think that the writer was trying to show that it is merely impossible to get “truth” from what people say. I think he was trying to prove that this is a problem with society because we tend to believe anything we hear and make judgments from it.
This movie was very interesting. I understand the point of the how every person has a different point of view and how every story is different. I still was not a huge fan of this though. Of all the characters the story I believed the most was the bandit. He seemed to have the least reason to lie. He knows that he made the first wrong so why should he lie. The most unbelievable story to me was the eyewitness account from the guy walking in the woods. It seems he lied to protect himself from the fact that he stole something from the husband. It was a little queer how three people named himself or herself the murderer. I don’t understand why someone would admit to this had they not actually done it. I didn’t like hearing almost the same story four times. Even though that was the point of the movie and it still short it seemed fairly long because of that.
ReplyDeleteThe séance was very strange thing for me to watch. It made the movie unrealistic but I understand the importance of it to the plot. The ending was also very vague and confusing when the theft takes the baby and the priest said he still had faith in man. It seemed simple yet complex at the same time.
-William Osborne
The movie, Rashomon, was not what I was expecting when coming to class, however, in my opinion, it did do a good job in showing different people's stories on what happened to this woman and her husband. Though we do not know for sure what actually happens, I believe that that was not the main goal of the movie. The point, in my opinion, is to show how every person in the novel changes their story to make him or her look better. The bandit made it seem like he had this amazing fight with the husband and defeated him. The woman made it seem like she was the victim and had no say in the matter. The husband also tried to make himself look as though he was a victim and that his wife was a whore. The witness at first lied about what he saw so that he would not be a suspect, but then we find out that his story was not the truth. Overall, we can not for sure know what really happened in this event, but I believe the bandit can be thought of as the most reliable source. This reason being was because he had nothing to lose in the matter. He was already caught/arrested and he has already done bad things in his life so he knew they would find him guilty, so why not let them know how he did it.
ReplyDeleteAt the end of the movie, a baby is found at this run down building. The witness offers to take care of it, however, the priest objects. The witness explains to the priest that he already has a lot of children of his own and that one more would not make a difference. After hearing this, the priest realizes that he was too quick to judge and that maybe there is still good in this world. The baby represents innocence and it shows that once you grow up, that innocence is taken away and it is your job to make the right decisions in life so that you can live a good live and be rewarded in the end.
Before we even watched "Roshomon," I had heard that it was very famous in the sense that it was what many mystery stories where based off of. That being said, after watching it I was very surprised at how much the story played with the idea of truth and fiction. Even after the movie I was still very curious as to who had the most truthful story. Although all four testimonies were similar in their own way, they each had a complete different twist to the story. Because of this, no one could even begin to be able to decide who had the true story. Even the dead person, who we would have thought to have to most true story, told a very different story from everyone else. Although the bandit had the least credibility, after the four stories it seemed to me that he had the most credible story. Maybe it was just because he seemed like he didn't particularly care what happened to him either way. I really liked the fact that at the end of the trial the story left it up to the viewer to decide, which in my opinion was the producer's full intention.
ReplyDeleteAlthough that I could tell that them finding the baby at the end had a very significant meaning to the story, I was very confused. If I had to guess I would say that him taking the baby represented the fact that there is hope in believing a person's good nature.
I knew this movie when I was in China. "Rashomon" is a film of human nature, there is despair, there is criticism, and finally have hope. We have discussed human nature for a long time. There are too much discussions of this topic but it is always keen to discuss. Luckily, human nature is like Chinese fried rice, it will smell better if you fired longer. Lots of us to discuss this topic are useful.
ReplyDeleteCharacters in the story are samurai, bandits, Woodman and women, the story is that: bandit raped the warrior’s women, warrior dead. But when they confront in the court, they have different versions of this story. Robber says that women did not resist, and he killed samurai by a duel. Woman says she is forced, and afterwards she wants to commit suicide several times; Samurai’s soul says the women did not resist, and she asks the bandit to kill him. Woodman who is a witness said the robber raped the woman, and he was begging the woman for forgiveness. Finally, the samurai was killed by the bandit in a duel.
Here, the story gives the impression that people are selfish, are distorting the truth to protect their own interests. Robber would like to shape the image of brave and charming, although he is not; women want to shape the image of virginity, although she is not; warriors to create the Bushido spirit, although he is not. Woodman’ words let people feel more credible because he had no direct interest, and in his mouth, everyone has weaknesses, and thus it is more like the truth.
This story makes me remind an old saying—there is only one truth! The whole process of watching this movie is to seek the truth. I really want to know which story is the truth at the end of this movie, but obvious the goal of this movie is not about who lies. This movie allows audiences to think about it. Why people lie, and think it deeply.
At the end, we can see the hope. The woodsman protected the baby. We can see that the human nature is still alive. Here, I think all the audience may say woodsman is a nice man. However, actually the woodsman is not really in this case, or we can say that there is no direct interest with him. Is there any situation that is able to let the woodsman lie? Even in the court? Although we don’t who lies or they all lied.
Yinyin Shi
John Osinski
ReplyDeleteIn response to Lauren’s post, I would like to add on to the point that she made at the end of her post about how every character’s view points on what actually happened were different. Throughout the story leading up to the ending the audience is learning that every character’s story is bias and believe that at the end of the story the farmer would tell the truth. I was surprised at the end of the movie when the farmer ended up lying about the story as well; however I believe that it is a fitting description on how narrative truth is in reality. I believe that there is no real narrative truth just manipulated personal opinions that have been generally accepted over time. This is similar to how different countries and cultures define history. For example, as Americans we see the war in the Middle East as a liberating war against terror while at the same time nations in the Middle East see their actions as ones that are made out of necessity according to their religion. So in considering this, who is to say anything throughout the scrolls of history is one hundred percent the truth?
The movie has a unique way of displaying these points of views from the three characters involved in the case through the eyes of a priest, the witness farmer, and another wandering man in the village. I thought this was a very effective to draw opinions from the audience by showing the idealistic viewpoints of the priest, the realistic viewpoints of the wandering man, and the supposedly unbiased view of the witness. Through these men the audience is able to make their own conclusions not only about the events in the story, but also on how they view truth. My conclusion of the story was that there is no such thing as pure narrative truth. There will always be bias manipulative view points from person to person, it’s simply human nature.
The movie was very confusing to me, mainly because we were having to read subtitles. That I got out of it though was something we deal with in everyday life. As humans we always stretch the truth to make ourselves look better. Through these lies we have to draw our own conclusions to find the "real" truth. I was taught growing up that the truth lies somewhere in the middle to two stories. Neither person is blatantly lying, there will always be some differences.
ReplyDeleteI also wonder if our preception of the woman would've been different if she was the first person we heard the story from. I think if she would've been first, we would have seen her as a victim instead of crazy.
Ryan Stonaker
Like many people in the posts before me have said, I thought Rashomon was a perfect film to watch to discuss the truth in fiction. I found it particularly interesting because, as a Japanese minor, I have had to study Japanese culture. In Japanese culture, personal honor is very, very critical. We see this in all the different stories that the characters tell us. They are trying to all make themselves look like they are honorable people. I think that the director of the movie was trying to make a point of how far people would go to hold on to that honorable name. Even the dead man tries to keep on to it after his own death.
ReplyDeleteI also agree with what Ryan Stonaker is says in his post. In most of the books that we have read this semester so far we have discussed that no matter what how truthful you are trying to tell a story, there is always going to be a little bit of untruth. Though these people in the story have tweaked the truth for their own interests we see that some of the parts may be true. The way we tell our story is shaped by the way we see the world and the experiences that we have. The bandit may not be meaning to sound so proud of his cunning and his womanly prowess, but through his experiences he has begun to see himself that way.
I believe, like many others, that at the end of the movie that the baby signifies hope to humankind. I also think that it shows a little bit of redemption. Though the man had stolen a knife, he had come clean and was rewarded by the honor being the reason for hope for the priest and also was rewarded a new baby. The only part that confused me was the role of the man that stole the clothes from the baby. I thought his character did little to support the fact that humankind still had some hope left. What do you think was his role in this film?
--Kelcey Flegel
I have never heard of Rashomon until mentioned in class. But oddly right after I watched this movie I saw it again on AMC the following week! Crazy. This story is another story were the narrator is not always the bringer of the Truth. Like in the Collector, the truth is a montage of stories told by all parties who may be involved and through their stories a version of the truth seems to emerge. The story became entertaining, like in Everything is Illuminated, where the narrator places hi or herself in the best light possible, yet as the story unfolds their position are positions of weakness and ridicule. The robber described his fighting style as a style of superiority and acknowledged the husband as someone of equal fighting prowess. However as the story unfolds, each subsequent witness tells a different tale, that ends up showing fighters with piss pour fighting skills. Almost akin to two girls in slap stick fighting.
ReplyDeleteThis story is a good selection for truth in fiction, though I was excited to have the opportunity to watch Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless mind. Each witness provided a version of the truth, and then with all stories combined, a form of the truth could be detected. What this story taught me is that the truth is pretty much relative. If you are unable to be present and witness the even itself, the truthfulness of the actual event is obtained from the story that most will accept and agree with. Watching Rashomon, the first witness to speak and describe the event gave me the framework to the situation. As each witness came forward to tell their story, you are able to see connecting and similar parts, but different versions of the same outcome. By the last witness, the story has to be knitted together to pick which truths are acceptable, and this becomes the truth that the authorities accept. Despite the many fictional accounts within each story they still was born of some form of truth.
“Rashomon” was a very thought provoking film, especially when you do not know what was true and what was false. I think we can all agree that it was a little difficult to get in to at the beginning, but as the story unfolded things got more interesting. The film showed a man walking through the forest, only to come upon a scene of death. This initial scene is usually assumed to be completely factual, but in truth it was not. This of course ran consistent with the theme of the course, truth in fiction. Although we are told something from one or multiple narrators, we should always be hesitant to believe their story/stories.
ReplyDeleteI believe that the most intriguing part of the movie was the bandit’s story and how much truth I perceived it to have. Out of the four stories told throughout the whole movie, his was the most believable in my opinion. I was a little confused why the ghost’s story was extremely farfetched and why exactly he told a lie. The ghost was dead, and had nothing to lose, so why not tell the truth and catch the person that murdered you. I guess this was again to really get the viewer interested and motivated to think.
“Rashomon” was a very different movie from what the most of us typically watch. I really appreciated the storytelling ability of the movie and how convincing most of the stories were. The thief’s ability to convince of truth despite his obvious insanity was really impressive to me. The movie was an extreme example of the course’s theme, and therefore very appropriate to begin the “narrative truth” unit.
-Chris Lendrim
I thought that Rashomon was a depiction on the idea that you can not entirely believe a situation that you are not present for based on what someone says. I think that, like others have said, that of the three stories, the bandit could potentially be the most reliable because he did have nothing to lose. On the other hand his crazy laugh leads me to think that maybe he was exaggerating some things for shock value. The stories the man and his wife tell also could be credible but they seem more interested in protecting themselves or their name, because the man was dead so he really wouldn’t have much to lose either. I think that the way the movie made the audience feel like they were the judges was the show how the way people tell their stories can affect who we chose to believe.
ReplyDeleteThe end of the movie confused me a little. What did the baby have to do with the story? And was the man that “knew” the real story in the beginning of the movie? I think that the writer was trying to show that it is merely impossible to get “truth” from what people say. I think he was trying to prove that this is a problem with society because we tend to believe anything we hear and make judgments from it.
Martha Gillespie
Rashomon was just like the stories we read in this section. Who are we to trust and which story is true. We had multiple narrators of the same story, but all of the stories were different. The difference in the stories varied but all of them made you wonder if the previous narrator was lying.
ReplyDeleteThe scenario in the story was about the killing of a man who was with his wife walking through the woods. How the man died is the question. This is where the narrators come in and tell what they saw or believed happened. I believe the different stories are the writer’s way of telling the viewer to figure out what happened themselves. This is done by taking all the stories and piecing them together. This was similar to what happened in The Collector. In both The Collector and Rashomon we hear the story from a "victim", whether dead or alive, and from the guy who supposedly did it. We tend in both stories to tend to believe the victim more (plus the wife of the man killed). This was a good selection for the class to watch and went along perfect with narrative truth. And leaves you wondering can you ever trust a narrator.
I actually watched Rashomon my freshman year in a film studies class. After watching it for the second time several things stood out to me. First of all I have to say that when I watched this movie the first I felt that the woman in the story was a complete liar and her story was not legitimate at all, and she is a little slutty; I still believe this. I think this movie is dealing with storytelling and the ability to tell the truth. From this movie it is easy to see that people perceive things and events very differently. Two people could witness the exact same event and retell what happened completely different. This does not mean that one of them is right and the other is lying, but that we all perceive things differently.
ReplyDeleteThere are several reasons why people lie. I think in the woman’s case she lies because she is trying to protect her self-image. It is my understanding that women in the Japanese culture are held to high standards and judged for everything they do. The women in the story possibly did or did not have sex, whether it was forced or mutual, with another man. For this reason her husband shuns her. So of course when she relays her story to the other men she will lie, because her husband is not there to say otherwise, to protect her self-image.
The priest in the story does not know who to believe and is distraught at the idea that people can be so bad and evil. This is evident when the baby is found and he yells at the woodcutter, who offers to take the baby, because he believes he is not good. However when the man confesses that he has children at home and that one more wouldn’t make a difference the priest sees the good in him. This leads the priest to believe his story, when in reality there is no way to know exactly what happened, unless you were there yourself and witnessed it.
After viewing all four stories, I do not necessarily believe anyone of the characters stories because each could have a reason for altering the true story. The dead husband could be lying to turn it around on his wife who hurt him by having sex with the bandit. He could be driven by hate towards her and her infidelity. The wife could be lying because she is so embarrassed for having tainted her reputation and for doing so in front of her husband. The bandit could be lying to try to change his reputation and how people feel about him. He could have his own personal agenda behind this but by gaining peoples trust you can get away with more which might be what the bandit wants. As for the other man who saw it he could be lying for many reasons maybe because he doesn’t understand society and how lying and deceit is a norm or maybe he just didn’t like how the actual event unfolded and thought it would be better to tell another way. I think this movie was less about figuring out who was telling the truth and who was lying but showing how society has become a place of unreliability with our lying and bad behaviors. It shows this by telling four completely different stories of an event that all these people were present at. How is it possible for none of the stories to match up? Its obvious that everyone has a reason for deceit and they all had something to hide or thought a twisted truth would be better than the actual truth. I agree that the baby is a sign of hope because although there is evil in this world we can always try to teach ourselves and others ethics and attempt to make each generation better than the last.
ReplyDeleteJessica Phillips
Rashoman was not what I had expected before I walked into class, which several people have already posted. I was very confused by the ending of it, but other than that, I understand how it is directly related to historical truth. This movie reminds me of "Clue" or “CSI”, of how they are trying to find out who accounts for each murder or crime. The interesting part about this movie was that all four witnesses’ stories were not consistent with each other, but the viewer can make a very logical guess of why each of their stories were different. There are three different accounts that either accuse the bandit of murder, rape, or both. Obviously, his reason for lying would be to avoid conviction or punishment. I agree with Megan Swtizer’s post about the woman’s possible reasoning for telling her story. She was not being charged with anything by the court, so she just wanted to make herself look like she didn’t do anything unethical or dishonorable. It is hard to argue that the samurai had a reason to lie, but one can say that he did not want to look like anything besides a victim of pure innocence. This movie truly represents how trying to find out what happened in the past is an impossible goal. Everyone involved always has an incentive or motive to omit facts, add facts, or twist facts to benefit themselves personally. But I do wonder if the woodcutter also truly has a reason to lie, or is he an exception to the complication of historical truth?
ReplyDeleteMark Menezes
I had seen Rashomon many moons ago, and not as a part of any educational endeavor. It was referenced in the extras of a DVD I watched, and intrigued me so I checked it out. My experience with it was quite different than this most recent viewing. In part probably due to the experiences I’ve had since, as well as the exposure to the material in the class. Also, probably due in part to the excessive amounts of alcohol and marijuana present in just about everything I did back in the times of my original viewing.
ReplyDeleteTo watch the story (or stories) unfold from so many perspectives was still entertaining. The notion that so many interpretations could emerge from one seemingly simple set of events is mind boggling. At the end of the day there’s no real way to know which story is true (if any). Each may have some elements of the truth contained therein, but to believe we can ever get a fully accurate view of a historical event once it has passed through the filter of a narrator has proven to be laughable at best through the novels of the previous section. This movie merely demonstrates this fact with motion pictures and sound.
Donte Lazarus
Rashoman was a very interesting movie. I thought that with the subtitles it would be boring or lose my attention, but I was able to follow along pretty well. In the beginning the viewers are shown a scene where people are in some kind of temple or house. The point of views in this movie are divided between a man, his wife, and a bandit. The story is retold through each of these persons account. The bandit seems very unstable and therefore does not seem reliable at all. But if I recall correctly, he mentions that he does not really have much to lose or a reason to lie, so his retelling may be relatively accurate. It is however, hard to believe a criminal. Next, the woman tells her story which seems much different. She would have the most to lose becuse her honor and dignity are at stake. Lastly, the husband is dead so his story is told through a medium. This story is different as well. The viewers never really know what happened, but they are left with these three accounts of the same story to figure out what really happened fro themselves. This is true in life with any crime. There are always going to be diferent sides where a judge or jury will have to decide who is telling the truth. However, this movie shows us that while what really happened may never really be known, that is not what is important. The small details do not make the story. What is really important is that we know something happened, and the interpretation is left up to us.
ReplyDeleteI, like most of the other students in the class, had never heard of Rashomon. After I saw it I thought it was actually a really good movie. It also fits in well with the purposes of this class. I think this film shows us that we are all not as truthful as we think we are. A lot of times we are simply “a bandit calling another a bandit”
ReplyDeleteIt is really difficult to discern truth when hearing the testimonies of others like in a court case or in the situation of Rashomon. During the movie you hear the story told from four different points of view. The men are all trying to decide which one was most truthful. The bandit, the wife, and the samurai all had reasons to lie about what happened. Then you hear the woodcutter’s version of the story which you would think is the least biased. He swore that he had told the truth but you come to find that he conveniently left out the part of the story where he had stolen the dagger that was left behind by the bandit. Strangely, this seems to be a part of the story the bandit actually told the truth about. When the woodcutter was reviewing all the stories and trying to evaluate the truth in them, he removed himself from the equation and in doing that he also removed some of the truth. He probably didn’t even think about the part he left out. He was only thinking about the things which were actually true and none of his own falsehoods.
The commoner figures out that the woodcutter had lied and mocks him for considering himself to be so good and truthful. Then they hear a baby and the commoner proceeds to steal the kimono that was with the baby. This exemplifies the bad in people. The baby is already homeless and has no way of defending itself. The commoner seems not to care at all for the plight of the baby, but only of his own gain. The woodcutter tries to stop him but the commoner just says who is he to say anything since he had stolen the dagger. What the commoner says is true about how the woodcutter was no better than him. He was just one bandit calling someone else a bandit. The priest loses his faith but immediately gets it back when the woodcutter says he will adopt the baby. This seems to remind me that none of us are perfect, but at the same time that doesn’t mean you are bad. As the woodcutter is carrying the baby away the rain stops and the sun comes out which represents the good coming out of the man. He is going to care for the baby so it will now have a home.
-Sean Graham
I absolutely loved "Rashomon". I can totally appreciate an intellectual film. This movie is the epitome of truth in fiction if you ask me. In simple terms, it completely portrays the human motive. Whether it is avarice, honor, or self-purity, all people have a reason to lie. Essentially, I am saying that all people are selfish. In the film, we are given four testimonies, all of which differ. We are to understand this as each person maintains motive behind their decisions. Without ever finding out who is actually telling the truth, we are to judge each person based on how well they can tell a fictitious story. In the beginning, we think the infamous bandit is entirely responsible. He admits to the murder and has a diabolical and mad laugh. The truth is, he has been caught, and he will most likely die for his previous crimes. Why not take credit for a murder to add to his menacing resume? Because his story is told first and he is a criminal, I admit that I thought he was the culprit. However, three more accounts followed. I soon realized that my view of the bandit lightened and I trusted his values a little more.
ReplyDeleteI think the addition of the medium was meant to add a little to the idea of lying. We all know that such techniques are absurd (at least most of us think so). Why add it to the story? Because it created a sense of darkness; therefore, I think the director wanted to use it as a tool to make us think that there is darkness in life. (I mean not telling the truth by this).
Another thing I noticed in the film was how after all the stories, the consensus seemed to be that the woman was a traitorous, vile whore. We originally saw the bandit with the loony laugh, but as I realized that the woman couldn’t be trusted, she appeared to become more sinister and ultimately was the one doing the laughing in the movie. She was most likely the downfall of her husband. I have seen it before actually, in other circumstances. For example, John Lennon and Anakin Skywalker were both brought to their dooms by the hands of women. The themes are alike.
Ultimately, I feel as if we are supposed to accept that truth is rare. However, the final scene with the woodsman taking the abandoned baby as his own reaffirms that there is goodness in the world. People are selfish, but can care too. And in response to people who say we do not have this problem as much nowadays because of our modern justice system, just remember that most of the world is not as advanced as developed countries. Many crimes are solved using opinion. I think the point of this movie is to say that we may never see absolute truth in this world, but as long as we do our human jobs of caring for others, the world will be okay.
According to my small and brief research from a dictionary, “Rashomon” (羅生門) was from a Japanese modern literature which expresses its author’s nihilism. The nihilism means Nihilism is “a belief which rejects all political and religious authority and current ideas in favor of the individual” Simply, the nihilism contains empty truth in their belief. If you translate the Chinese letter one by one, then you will see that Ra means nets, sho means life or born, and mon means a gate. The word “Rashomon” is a gate to enter complex human society. Like the title, the plot in the movie was very complicated. Each person’s testimony was completely different than others. The certain fact was that a bandit raped a woman, and killed her husband. I think the truth in the movie is distorted by one’s interest. The bandit was very confident with being masculine, so he liked to speak about the story as he was very strong, and he won the battle to achieve the woman. As contrast, I would say the woman was quite romantic and wanted to protect herself by pretending she is pity. Therefore, in her story, she asked two men (bandit and her husband) to fight each other, and then she follows the winner, the savior. If you think of how restrict on women in Asian culture, you will understand why she was acting like she was too weak. However, when she spoke like a crazy person, yelling and screaming, I felt little pity for her, because she lost her lover and got raped by an offender. I think it was also a strategy to survive at that moment.
ReplyDelete-Ryan Yoon-
Rashomon was a very interesting movie in my opinion. It really challenged the idea of the truth by showing a criminal trial and all of the witnesses and the accused. The film was interesting because it showed each person giving their testimony and then the live version of the testimony.
ReplyDeleteI feel that the only actual truthful person in the film was the accused bandit. He felt that he had nothing to lose so he might as well tell the truth. He made it look as if he had a battle with the husband and that he did what he had to do. The other two stories, the husband and wife, made it look as if they were complete victims and didn’t do anything wrong.
The movie did an excellent job of making us think about the actual truth and it left an impression on me about what to believe and what not to believe. The film explored different stories about the same event and made us think about which story was the most credible. It did a good job at doing this and I feel that the movie did a very good job of exploring the truth in fiction.
-Ryan Cormack
Rashomon is perfect for our introduction into historical truth. In the movie you have four different accounts of a murder and rape. Each story is different in the details but the general story remains constant. A samurai man is captured by a bandit, the bandit rapes his wife, and then the bandit kills the samurai.
ReplyDeleteThere is no denying these major facts but it is interesting how all four stories unfold so differently. If you take a close look at what each person is describing there may be an explanation for this. Each person’s portrayal of the incident focuses on the things they did and make their actions seem much “better” than the other person’s description. The bandit’s story makes himself appear clever for tricking and capturing the man and “seducing” his wife. He goes on to say that he gave the samurai a fair chance to defend himself before the bandit defeated him with skill and courage. The woman claims to have been forcefully raped and extremely remorseful for what had happened. She says that her husband would not have her after the rape and asks him to end her life but passes out with the knife in her hand only to wake to her dead, stabbed husband. In this recollection she appears to be helpless and pitiful. The dead samurai’s account of the crime shows the bandit being only a common thug and his wife being a dishonorable one after she insists to the bandit to kill her husband so he honorably ends his own life. Then the farmer changes his initial story of simply walking up on the aftermath. He now claims he saw everything unfold. He describes a more watered down version that is at least similar to the other’s stories that have the bandit killing the samurai man. This new tale from the farmer raises the question of whether or not he killed the man since he now has the valuable knife.
It seems that most of the time, every person is going to have their own accounts of an event. Rashomon shows us that each person, whether by lying or simply centralizing themselves and their feelings at the time, is going to have a least a slightly different tale to tell. Obviously the hard facts of any case cannot be disputed, like the death of the samurai man, but the journey to the outcome can definitely have different versions. I guess the main idea one could take from this film is that historical documentation could possibly be inconsistent with the actual truth. It is a disturbing message but it’s a message we should all realize. As someone who agrees with the Ben Franklin quote, “believe none of what you hear and only half of what you see”, I appreciate this film’s message. The last person around to tell any story can reshape, slant, or completely rewrite it if they want too and that we should all be aware of this.
Jeff Kibler
The movie Rashomon was very interesting; but I have to admit was kind of hard to follow at 8 o clock in the morning. It was interesting because it was a tale told from multiple perspectives. After watching the movie in the first perspective, I always find it hard to believe the perspectives that follow; because the first thing you see is generally what you decide is the truth. I hate that after watching all that, I still am unaware of what the real story actually was. Each of the characters told the tale from a perspective that would make them seem innocent, which makes it hard to know which one was really telling the truth. I don’t like deciding for myself which one is right, because it might not actually be right and that would just make me mad. I do believe that out of all the stories, the bandit’s was the most credible. Out of everyone, he really had nothing to lose, and when it came down to it, his details actually seemed like they fist best with the people that his story was up against. But, again, it is still unclear as to whose story was actually correct.
ReplyDelete-Allie Nicosia