Rashomon

Anthony Menza
10/17/11
Rashomon
1950, Japanese
Akira Kurosawa




The film Rashomon, directed by Akira Kurosawa, is a very unique film, in its presentation of different points of view. The film has three main characters, each with separate recollections of the main conflict in the film, and each are presented to the viewer in a different way. The main characters are: Tajomaru, a thief and murderer, a samurai  and his wife. The conflict was played out in ultimately four different ways, each ending with the stabbing of the samurai. The way the film is presented, with four different points of view, is very interesting, as it is each of the main characters telling the story in entirely different scenarios. The most interesting part of the telling of the story is that the stories greatly contradict eachother, setting a very clear premise that one of the people telling the story is dramatically lying. It turns this film into a "who done it" sort of mystery.


The movie's dramatic cuts and unique presentation of each story was not unnoticed by many affiliated with the film during its production. As Roger Ebert explains, "Kurosawa's  three assistant directors came to see him. They were unhappy. They didn't understand the story." Roger Ebert, having a clear understanding of what the film was trying to achieve, says "Kurosawa is correct that the screenplay is comprehensible as exactly what it is: Four testimonies that do not match. It is human nature to listen to witnesses and decide who is telling the truth, but the first words of the screenplay, spoken by the woodcutter, are "I just don't understand." His problem is that he has heard the same events described by all three participants in three different ways--and all three claim to be the killer." As Ebert clearly states, the film begins with the first piece of dialogue being "I just don't understand." That is the perfect preface to this story, and sets the tone for what the viewer will soon, inevitably, feel themselves. Ebert seems to respect this film for what it is; a showing of human nature. The natural tendency to embellish and stretch the truth when speaking about themselves, almost defensively. 


James Berardinelli of Reelviews Movie Reviews has a very interesting point of view on Rashomon and its viewers. He says, "Many people watch Rashomon with the intent of piecing together a picture of what really occurred. However, the accounts are so divergent that such an approach seems doomed to futility. Rashomon isn't about determining a chronology of what happened in the woods. It's not about culpability or innocence. Instead, it focuses on something far more profound and thought-provoking: the inability of any one man to know the truth, no matter how clearly he thinks he sees things." This is a perfect explanation of how the jurors in Rashomon must have felt. They essentially have a mans life in their hands, and yet they are unable to confidently make a decision or verdict, because the accounts of the crime are being distorted with each different point of view. The more stories are told, the more they must question the last. "All of the narrators in Rashomon tell compelling and believable stories, but, for a variety of reasons, each of them must be deemed unreliable," says Berardinelli. 


Ebert has an intelligent take on Rashomon as a film. It is more so a piece of film that is made, in an hour and twenty eight minutes, to show the viewer that man at his heart is a liar. Such lies are always told to protect ones self, and this case is no different. In the end of the film, a child is found abandoned, and neither of the jurors trust one another fully to take care of it. It is a perfect example how so many lies being told and processed force us to question everything. Even though the jurors did nothing to eachother, their lack of trust is formed from clearly being lied to by so many defendants. They believe they have to question everything, and it appears they are correct. 


I personally am not a fan of Roger Ebert or his critiques of films, but I have to say, I agree whole heartidly with his review of Rashomon. It is a film that shows the lack of honesty people have when they are backed into a corner. Throughout the whole film, you are forced to question every aspect of each testimony and story. There is no trust. The ending scene proves that, as neither of the jurors trusted one another with such a thing as an abondoned child. Such a child would have died if one of the men hadn't taken care of it, yet they were  both still questioning one another. It is a perfect example of what the movie seems to express: trust is not something that should be given without caution.