Rashomon (1950)

[MusterX]

Interesting. The DVD that I got from the library actually had the booklet. Kind of which I had read it now before I took it back.

An interesting theory. One thing I wondered to myself: Are any of the stories correct? Even if we can't know for sure. . . did Kurosawa build the correct answer into the film? Or does the full truth not reside anywhere therein?

I don't think you can know the truth. Isn't that the point of this film? The truth is what we believe it is? Each of the people gave an account that seemed true, and more importantly, seemed true to the person telling it. Its been 66 years since its release and I don't think anyone knows or will ever know. That is part of the genius of the film. If Kurosawa knows, he isn't telling.

 

[Sir Galahad]

You should ask him.

 

[MusterX]

An interesting theory. One thing I wondered to myself: Are any of the stories correct? Even if we can't know for sure. . . did Kurosawa build the correct answer into the film? Or does the full truth not reside anywhere therein?

I think this quote from Ebert's site says a lot about what we are talking about. Check out this excerpt.

In a sense, "Rashomon" is a victim of its success, as Stuart Galbraith IV writes in The Emperor and the Wolf, his comprehensive new study of the lives and films of Kurosawa and his favorite actor, Toshiro Mifune. When it was released, he observes, nobody had ever seen anything like it. It was the first use of flashbacks that disagreed about the action they were flashing back to. It supplied first-person eyewitness accounts that differed radically--one of them coming from beyond the grave. It ended with three self-confessed killers and no solution.

Since 1950 the story device of "Rashomon" has been borrowed repeatedly; Galbraith cites "Courage Under Fire," and certainly "The Usual Suspects" was also influenced, in the way it shows us flashbacks that do not agree with any objective reality. Because we see the events in flashbacks, we assume they reflect truth. But all they reflect is a point of view, sometimes lied about. Smart films know this, less ambitious films do not. Many films that use a flashback only to fill in information are lazy.

The genius of "Rashomon" is that all of the flashbacks are both true and false. True, in that they present an accurate portrait of what each witness thinks happened. False, because as Kurosawa observes in his autobiography, "Human beings are unable to be honest with themselves about themselves. They cannot talk about themselves without embellishing."

http://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/great-movie-rashomon-1950

Rashomon was a trend setter, a first of its kind and it has been borrowed from over and over again.

 

[Guestx]

I don't think you can know the truth. Isn't that the point of this film? The truth is what we believe it is? Each of the people gave an account that seemed true, and more importantly, seemed true to the person telling it. Its been 66 years since its release and I don't think anyone knows or will ever know. That is part of the genius of the film. If Kurosawa knows, he isn't telling.

Right, we have no way of knowing if any of the stories is the correct one or not . . . but I still wonder if one of them is correct. Like you say, Kurosawa isn't telling, but he knows what the truth is.

 

[Guestx]

It ended with three self-confessed killers and no solution.

This is the one part that got me to raise an eyebrow. Whether the characters are outright lying, or are misremembering due, as the quote says, an inability to be hones with oneself, it strained credulity that these characters would lay the blame at their own feet. It would've struck me as more believable if each character was accusing another.

 

[MusterX]

Right, we have no way of knowing if any of the stories is the correct one or not . . . but I still wonder if one of them is correct. Like you say, Kurosawa isn't telling, but he knows what the truth is.

Well, I mean the Woodcutter took the baby. Was it out of a sense of doing right in the name of humanity, was he trying to make up for some personal guilt? I don't know. The idea is that each of the people seems to believe their version is the correct one. How is that possible? They were each there, they saw what happened first hand, and yet...

You know what they say about eye witness testimony though, its one of the worst and most unreliable sources. We also learn something about how Kurosawa feels about people in his autobiography. Kurosawa observes in his autobiography, "Human beings are unable to be honest with themselves about themselves. They cannot talk about themselves without embellishing."

So if we approach it from the standpoint that the characters embellish about themselves, then rewatch the film another 5 times, we would probably still conclude nothing lol.

 

[MusterX]

This is the one part that got me to raise an eyebrow. Whether the characters are outright lying, or are misremembering due, as the quote says, an inability to be hones with oneself, it strained credulity that these characters would lay the blame at their own feet. It would've struck me as more believable if each character was accusing another.

We also may be incapable of understanding the view of 1950's Japanese culture. Taking the blame on one's self is kinda part of that culture isn't it? I mean they used to commit seppuku/hari-kiri. Maybe understanding what really happened would require you to either be Japanese or have an understanding of Japanese culture.

 

[Sir Galahad]

hidden fortress. I hated Ikiru and turned it off. I actually turned off his adaptation of The Idiot too. I can't believe he made those two.

To be fair though I have heard amazing things about Ikiru though and prolly didn't give it enough of a chance. But it felt like a shitty version of L'Aventurra or something like that.

Why why why why why why ?????? @JSN

 

[Guestx]

We also may be incapable of understanding the view of 1950's Japanese culture. Taking the blame on one's self is kinda part of that culture isn't it? I mean they used to commit seppuku/hari-kiri. Maybe understanding what really happened would require you to either be Japanese or have an understanding of Japanese culture.

Maybe so. It's a good point.

Definitely in the West we'd be deflecting blame like a motherfucker. If Kurosawa is right that "we cannot talk about ourselves without embellishing," then those embellishments are usually designed to make us look better, not worse.

 

[tehend]

Great fucking film. Sad to see you cave to peer pressure so easily though.

 

[Guestx]

Great fucking film. Sad to see you cave to peer pressure so easily though.

LOL

 

[Bullitt68]

Rashomon is definitely one of the GOAT. I'd also say it's Kurosawa's best. However, beyond Rashomon, I think the silver and the bronze in the Kurosawa canon go to two films that I haven't seen anybody mention yet. For the silver, I'd give that to Throne of Blood. Kurosawa had a long and storied relationship with Shakespeare and Throne of Blood, which is a Samurai version of Macbeth, is IMO not just Kurosawa's best Shakespeare adaptation but the best cinematic adaptation of Shakespeare period. For the bronze, meanwhile, I'd give that to Kurosawa's best non-Samurai film, I Live in Fear. Any fans of Mifune who haven't seen this are doing themselves a disservice, as IMO, it's by far his greatest performance. It's a very striking treatment of post-WWII Japanese anxiety with Mifune as the head of a family who becomes increasingly paranoid about another bombing.

I also see that @europe1 pointed out the existence of The Outrage. That one's got my recommendation, as well. I've never been a Paul Newman fan, but he's damn good in the Mifune role.

Lastly, speaking of the influence of Rashomon-style storytelling in subsequent films, my favorite take on the conflicting story angle is John McTiernan's Basic. Super underrated military thriller with John Travolta and Samuel L. Jackson. Unlike Rashomon, there is an explanation provided at the end, but it's a credit to McTiernan that, at the same time as the ending answers all of the questions that preceded it, it also opens up a million new questions.

Oh yeah there's a shitty western remake of The Sven Samurai called the Magnificent Seven or something like that.

I don't want to turn this thread into a Seven Samurai vs The Magnificent Seven showdown, but when @shadow_priest_x gets around to watching Seven Samurai, you and me can go a few rounds on this. For the time being, I'm just going to say that not only is The Magnificent Seven ten times the film Seven Samurai is, not only does it have twice the depth despite being half as long, and not only is it the greatest Western that isn't Once Upon a Time in the West, it's just one of the coolest movies ever made

 

[europe1]

So I listened to the Audio Commentary for Rashomon by Stuart Galbraith, boy does he has some stories to tell.


When Rashomon won the Grand Price at Venice, the Japanese studio had so little faith in the movie that they didn't even send a representative to the event. The organizers therefore had no one to present the award to. This they would not accept, so the LITERALLY grabbed a random Asian dude from the audience and had him accept the award on Kurosawa's behalf. It turned out said guy was some no-name Vietnamese tourist to the event. He was reportedly understandably bemused by the whole situation.


The Western critics that first reviewed this film had absolutely no educated idea what to say about it. 99% of them had probably never seen a Japanese film before. They did like it though, praising its direction, cinematography and general unusualness. Some said that it was made like Kabuki theater (which anyone who has even taken a passing glance at Kabuki theater can tell is incorrect), and other said how it represented the typical Oriental spirit (despite being completely diffrent from anything made in Japan up until that time).


Intrestingly, he also pointed out something about contemporary Japanese culutral norms in the ending. Apperently, adopting someone who is not a blood-relative is frowned upon in Japan. It was taboo, something you simply did not do. The woodcutters decision to adopt the child was therefore immensly egalitarian, and broke some hard-set social norms.

 

[europe1]

Also said that Kurusawa signed the two male actors because they were polar opposite of each other. Mifune outgoing and animated, while Mori was restrained and subtle.

 

[chickenluver]

What would you guys suggest I should watch next?

Throne of Blood

 

[Slick_36]

Rashomon is definitely one of the GOAT. I'd also say it's Kurosawa's best. However, beyond Rashomon, I think the silver and the bronze in the Kurosawa canon go to two films that I haven't seen anybody mention yet. For the silver, I'd give that to Throne of Blood. Kurosawa had a long and storied relationship with Shakespeare and Throne of Blood, which is a Samurai version of Macbeth, is IMO not just Kurosawa's best Shakespeare adaptation but the best cinematic adaptation of Shakespeare period. For the bronze, meanwhile, I'd give that to Kurosawa's best non-Samurai film, I Live in Fear. Any fans of Mifune who haven't seen this are doing themselves a disservice, as IMO, it's by far his greatest performance. It's a very striking treatment of post-WWII Japanese anxiety with Mifune as the head of a family who becomes increasingly paranoid about another bombing.

I also see that @europe1 pointed out the existence of The Outrage. That one's got my recommendation, as well. I've never been a Paul Newman fan, but he's damn good in the Mifune role.

Lastly, speaking of the influence of Rashomon-style storytelling in subsequent films, my favorite take on the conflicting story angle is John McTiernan's Basic. Super underrated military thriller with John Travolta and Samuel L. Jackson. Unlike Rashomon, there is an explanation provided at the end, but it's a credit to McTiernan that, at the same time as the ending answers all of the questions that preceded it, it also opens up a million new questions.

I don't want to turn this thread into a Seven Samurai vs The Magnificent Seven showdown, but when @shadow_priest_x gets around to watching Seven Samurai, you and me can go a few rounds on this. For the time being, I'm just going to say that not only is The Magnificent Seven ten times the film Seven Samurai is, not only does it have twice the depth despite being half as long, and not only is it the greatest Western that isn't Once Upon a Time in the West, it's just one of the coolest movies ever made

Throne of Blood

Fuck yes! Glad to see I'm not the only one who appreciates it. I'm watching it again, now. I was actually going to come suggest the TS watch it next.

And I will have to check Magnificent Seven out soon, I blew my chance the first time. Once Upon A Time In the West is an amazing movie.