Rashomon,
Kurosawa
After sitting in the pouring rain under Rashomon, a
commoner joins the priest and woodcutter. The priest and woodcutter looks
pretty shaken up and the only worlds coming out of there mouths are “I can’t
believe this; I don’t understand.” Since it is the beginning of the movie, the
audience is left with a blank emotion onto what exactly they are talking about
or not understanding in such a way. After a few moments the commoner sees the
two and wonder the same thing as the audience (what are you all talking about)?
After words are spoken, the woodcutter tells his
story on what exactly happen and all the other stories that were told. As
discussed in English 281 this is no other than a murder movie or in other
opinions a mystery murder. In every story that was told, all concluded that the
bandit killed the samurai, but none of the stories correlated to why he was
killed.
The woman played the sincere role as she told her
story there were tears in her eyes and signs of unbalance in her heart. She did
not exactly tell a clear story on what happen, but you could tell that she went
against both men. She insisted that she
was raped and after seeing how her husband looked at her with a longing stare,
she faint and accidently killed him with a dagger in her hand. In her story,
she took all blame for killing the Samurai her husband, but why would she take
the blame for killing a man that another said they killed.
The bandit told his story first, he explained how he
did not intend on killing the Samurai. When it came down to it they fought and
of course he won, but was surprised that the Samurai crossed swords with him 23
times. Why were there two different stories of who killed the Samurai, but both
of the story tellers admitted that they both killed him. Is it that they are
hiding something more in depth or what exactly is going on?
At the end, all stories were told, but something was
left out of one of the stories. The woodcutter told his story on how he seen
the fight with the Samurai and the Bandit, but never mentioned what was used to
kill the Samurai. When the commoner mentioned the dagger the woodcutter was
kind of puzzled and tried to push past that part of the story and say he sold
it in town. This film never really tells the truth, there were all lies told in
each story or at least that is what we make out for it to be.
At the end of the film there was weeping coming from
the back of the Rashomon. All three men seemed confused as they rushed to the
back of the Rashomon. As they came upon the object that was making a weeping
noise, what came upon their eyes was a baby, but where did it come from?
Calvin D. Brent Jr.
This is a good description of the synopsis of the film, you may, however, need to dig a little deeper. You take the reader through the events of the film in a cohesive manner. In this manner, I would like to have seen a deeper analysis of the scenes and characters. You gave a good description of the woman, with “tears in her eyes” who is telling her side of a story, but I would like to know why you think she was directed to do so while the film was being shot. Also, you tell me that her side of a story does not match the sides told by the other characters, and that there were lies in each story. Perhaps she feels guilty for lying. Perhaps she feels guilty for worse. You say, “all concluded that the bandit killed the Samurai.” In the woman’s story though, she implies that she doesn’t know who killed the Samurai (her husband), because she supposedly blacks out and then wakes to find her dagger in his chest. Since there is a chance she is guilty, perhaps this is why she was directed to appear so distraught. You go on to describe each varying side of the story as they are presented in the film. What message was the screenwriter trying to communicate to the audience by making each side so different? He could be saying that everyone is deceitful or even that each person has a unique perception of truth. In the end, the characters are humbled by the appearance of a baby. It’s good you ask the question, “Where?” and an equally pressing quandary is “Why?” The baby could symbolize a number of things. The characters are truth seekers, and though they might be lost and frightened like the baby, the rains will stop and life will continue.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the above poster. Overall you give a pretty good synopsis, but I don’t think you asked any questions or posited any meaning for the film. You give us the four sides of the story, but give no thoughts as to why the story played out in the way it did. Personally, I like to believe that Kurasawa is making a point about spoken truth as a concept, that it gets filtered and bastardized to the point that there is no real truth left. We get the three stories, from the woman, from the thief and from the samurai (from beyond the grave), and they all are called into question when we hear the story from the woodcutter. He has no reason to lie, he doesn’t need to prove his innocence, but his own character is called into question by the exclusion of the knife. He makes it so that he is no longer a trustworthy character. I would say that the true point of the film is that there is no such thing as subjective truth.
ReplyDeleteThe one question you ask is “where does the baby come from?” That’s well and good, but I would’ve liked for you to expound on where you thought the baby might’ve come from. It’s safe to assume that he wasn’t thrown in there just so the movie could leave you with a question. The baby is more than just that, he is a symbol. Of what, I cannot be sure, but I viewed it, as we see the very depths of human deceit and the priest begins to lose faith, that by a man so openly accepting a child that is not his own, there is still decency left within man, and hopes that, even in this destroyed, broken land, men can mend themselves.