We (and it's the universal Human "we") love stories, and we can't resist seeing ourselves as actors at the center of narratives we construct. Our natural perspectives are subjective, and our first inclination is to adopt a vicarious stance --to sympathize with one or another actor in a story, and to believe the messages of our senses. 'Objective' and critical views are perspectives we can adopt, or try to --but they are always constructions on a base of subjective perceptions. We interpret the evidence of our senses, guided by received wisdom, by culturally-defined interpretations and terminologies, and by personal interpretative filters we maintain in our own wetware.
Some other less cosmic questions arise. No simple answers to these, just some places to begin talking:
Here are some of the things I wrote down while watching the film, more or less in the line of characterizations of 'human nature' by various characters:
It's human to lie. We can't even be honest with ourselves (Commoner)
I don't mind a lie. Not if it's interesting. (Commoner)
Men are so weak... that's why they lie (Priest)
Women lead you on with their tears. They even fool themselves (Commoner)
Everyone wants to forget unpleasant things, so they make up stories (Commoner)
Goodness is make-believe... forget the bad stuff (Commoner)
the Demon fled in fear of the ferocity of man (Priest)
Women are weak by nature (Commoner)
If men don't trust each other, this world is hell (Priest)
In the end you cannot understand the things men do (Commoner)
If you are not selfish, you can't survive (Commoner)
All men are selfish and dishonest. They all have excuses (Woodcutter)
You can't afford not to be suspicious of people these days (Woodcutter)
Kurosawa himself (in his Something like an autobiography [PN1998.A3 K789413 1982]) says :
Human beings are unable to be honest with themselves about themselves. They cannot talk about themselves without embellishing. This script portrays such human beings --the kind who cannot survive without lies to make them feel they are better people than they really are. (quoted in Andy Klein's summary, 244)
What do we miss by not being Japanese?
Each account would have its own particular verbal form, reflecting the gender and social status of the speaker... In Rashomon as written text, the social distinctions between samurai, bandit and woodcutter, and the gender identity of the wife (vividly reflected in Japanese language usage) would be crucial. And indeed, even in translation, the different speaking styles of those who make statements in Akutagawa's original story, 'In the Grove' are very apparent... (Roy Ames Action and Image 101)
Consider the protrayal of the Woman, and consider Jon Mellen's "The Woman in Rashomon":
And once, of course the stereotype is elevated to a symbol in the arts, presented as an image of truth, the impact of this perpetuated myth in turn conditions the view women have of themselves. It is indeed a vicious circle, as yet unbroken in Japan by profound social change. (see handout for reference)
How does Rashomon-the-film fit into contemporary Japan? Consider the DATE of the film, and the Japanese society into which it opened in 1950. Here's what James Davidson says:
The story told by each of the three participants protects his self-respect. In the account of the Woodcutter, the common man, they are all revealed as frauds. The fight is a travesty on that described by the bandit, after which the mighty Tajomaru, heaving with fright and exertion, goes off to be betrayed into capture by a rebellion of his own innards. Bitter satire on the heroic virtues finds a natural response in a defeated nation...How did the old beliefs and loyalties die? Did they perish in a defeat at arms which 'liberated' those who had already begun to see through them? Did they, in a manner of speaking, annihilate themselves in shame and sorrow for a people no longer worthy of them? Were they destroyed by those who held them dear because they were an unbearable reminder of duties that could no longer be fulfilled? Or were they done in, in an uncertain scuffle of ideals and proclamations and conflicting directives that left nothing firm and whole in their place? Finally, since ideas do not die as men die, the question remains, are they really dead? It seems unlikely that thoughtful Japanese would see Rashomon without having some of these questions brought to mind... (in Donald Richie (ed.) Rashomon: a film by Akira Kurosawa 1969:220-221)
We need to keep in mind that this and other films we'll see are standing as surrogates for understanding, allowing us a safe (but illusory) sense of immersion into a world not our own. This is not so very different from the Japanese tourist who goes to a Montana dude ranch in order to experience the world of the West... which was already illusory. And cf the worlds of Disney and so on...
Andy Klein's summary of Rashomon in The A List: the National Society of Film Critics' 100 essential films begins
It's rare for any film's title to become permanently ensconced in English language usage, let alone a foreign film: yet, describe something as "one of those Rashomon situations," and a fair number of Americans (only a fraction of whom will have ever seen the movie) will know exactly what you mean --"he says one thing, she says another, the third guy says something else, and who knows what reality is anyway?" That the concept has been invoked more than once on TV shows like The Simpsons and The X-Files says something about how deeply it's infiltrated the culture. (241)(Klein quotes Marge and Homer: [M:] "You liked Rashomon!" [H:]" That's not how I remember it.")
I did a number of searches for occurences of 'Rashomon' and found it turning up in many curious connections. One especially useful instance (from JSTOR) which raises a whole lot of questions for Anthropology is John Rhoades' commentary on an article by Karl Heider in which he likens the Woodcutter to an ethnographer: an 'uninvolved' outsider who reports what he saw ...with the minor omission of mentioning the disappearance of the dagger.
[like an anthropologist] The observer is thus a person of understandable failings... but he nonetheless does a reasonably good job of describing what he as an observer sees the participants doing... In other words, the film supports the notion of an ethnographic "truth" achieved in the face of informants' variant testimony. (171)
An Annie keyword search for rashomon yields 20 hits
Consider ways in which Rashomon casts light on (or raises questions about) the nature and contents of Anthropology, and there are many strands to braid:
from Raphael Israeli Poison: modern manifestations of a blood libel (DS110 .W47 I 86 2002):
The classic Rashomon story, in which the very participants in the same event see it from different viewpoints, naturally raises the perennial questions of truth versus history, fact versus perception, and the interaction between all those concepts. Is truth something factual that happened or an event which unfolded, or is truth the way people understand or relate to those happenings? Is truth culture-bound or is it universal? Is it an objective, measurable quantity, or a subjective, value-laden quality? Is what historians tell us the Truth, or is every narrative, presented to and by the historian, a section of the Truth? Can history, fact, and truth be related by anyone objectively and independently of values and perceptions? What is more operationally true: something that happened but people dismiss as insignificant, or something that did not happen but occupies the center of their concerns and activities? (1)
Belcher-san's brilliant find: www.rashomon.blogspot.com
----
addenda, 9 Sept 2004, from a Vivisimo search:
Rashomon in VivisimoDVDVerdict on Rashomon
The ending of Rashomon is a point of contention among many of the people who love the film. As the witnesses finish telling their stories and the rain over the Rashomon gate clears up, there is a moment of surprise that seems intended to reaffirm Kurosawa's basic optimism and faith in human nature. The problem, or so say some critics, is that this life-affirming moment at the end seems a bit too convenient and a bit trite. More importantly, in their eyes it undermines the rest of the film. I remain undecided about the ending; it does seem a bit tacked on and a little too "Hollywood." On the other hand, it also is strangely satisfying. It makes a nice contrast to the bleak view of human nature that dominates the rest of the film.Rashomon is a great film by the greatest director of all time. It will require multiple viewings to fully appreciate all of the observations about human nature and human perception in this film, as well as the amazing filmmaking skills involved.
During shooting, the cast approached Kurosawa en masse with the script and asked him, "What does it mean?" The answer Kurosawa gave at that time and also in his biography is that "Rashomon" is a reflection of life, and life does not always have clear meanings.Rashomon's impact derives from its view that storytelling has power unto itself, that it informs our view of life and human beings. How the story is told, and from whose point of view, can dramatically alter that perspective.sort of cool map, centered on Rashomon --but what's the algorithm?