Tevin R. Baechtold04/04/11Senior Seminar P.6Mr. Clover

Rashomon Essay

The Japanese film Rashomon directed by Akira Kurosawa in 1950, contains a plot that follows the characters' claims of events that occurred, involving the mysterious death of a Samurai. We as the audience are placed in the seat of the judge as the characters directly speak to us and share each of their perspectives. It involves the story of a woodcutter, a bandit, the wife of the Samurai, and the Samurai through spiritual possession, where all are greatly different and it is left to us to decide which of them is the truth. Two film critics review this film with two completely different views of what the truth is. Errol Morris believes there is only one absolute truth, where Roger Ebert views truth to be subjective. Although Morris' views may hold errors that contradicts the absolute truth by things such as perception, it still seems to be more logical than Ebert's views without accusing Ebert of being wrong.

Morris’ theory on the absolute truth is contradicted through distinguishing appearance from reality, and argues that Morris’ theory my hold errors. In the movie none of the stories were proven to be the right one, but any of them could be because according to coherence “if you see something that does not ‘fit in’ with your overall experience of the world, then the chances are that you are mistaken.” The fact that Tajimaru is an alcoholic and drank snake poison, the wife’s story that she fainted and woke up to find her dagger in the Samurai, both could be true. Therefore, the theory that there is one absolute truth cannot be proven, because of those stories that seem to be incomplete due to the experience of each character. If we were to believe each story, for example, when the wife fainted but claims to have killed the Samurai but remembers nothing of it, it is unlikely to be believable, but what she couldn’t remember when she fainted, may hold the missing link to that story maybe being true. The same could be for the other stories, as it could be possible that the snake poison and the drinking habits of Tajimaru caused him to make an error in his story. Along with independent testimony, if there were to be any, could help prove which of the story the absolute truth is. Each story told is different, but of the same event, so all of the characters were witnesses and told what they saw, which is their truth. Therefore, distinguishing appearance from reality may favor Roger Eberts’ theory that truth is subjective, and creates a gap in Morris’ theory, because he claims that each individuals story is true. As there is no testimony of others, none are wrong and non are true, but even though they were to be true, they do not add up to be knowledge.

Morris, different from Ebert does not believe in empiricism where all knowledge is based on perceptual experience, but instead in scientific realism. If empiricism is affected by perception, and all knowledge is ultimately based on it, then if we were to never have existed the explanation would be that the world has never existed, therefore the truth will not exist. But we know that the world has existed long before humans, and most humans believe that, so scientific realism would seem to be the logical option, as science proves the truth. It is not affected by perception and states the world exists as an independent reality much different from the way we perceive it. What we as humans have labelled is known to have a truth behind it, but scientific realism states no matter what objects or beings are on this planet, the scientific explanation of truth is only the a realm of atoms whizzing around in empty space. Morris, similar to Plato view that the goal is to get to the truth, in order to get to absolute reality and that even though it is impossible to get there we try. Much like Plato's allegory of the cave, where people are chained and faced into the cave, having a fire behind them allowing them to see the shadows of people walking by without knowing the truth. Therefore we try to get out of the cave, to be able to make sense of it all.

The nature of truth supports Morris' statement and contradicts the views of Ebert that truth is subjective and comes from each person's empirical experience. Ebert's views does not try to get to one single answer, as he believes each person has their own truth. I see him as a person who strongly believes in freedom of thought or speech to view it this way. Whereas Morris filters out all

of the points of views to get to the truth that in Rashomon is searched by the men at the beginning of the film and also by the audience. The truth is independent of what anyone happens to believe is true, it is absolute, and to one thing there can be one truth. Although this may seem solid, the biggest problem is that the knowledge requieres something less than certainty, making it possible for the truth to hold errors. Uncertainty of knowledge requires basis of evidence that is beyond reasonable doubt, and with it, what is perceived as truth will remain so until something proves otherwise. This argument would struggle with the film where we as the audience are never introduced to the absolute truth.

Overall, I strongly agree with Morris through his views but also with some of Ebert's views, as the movie keeps the audience chained in Plato's allegory of the cave, letting them see shadows but never the truth of what really happened. For either of them to have a strong argument, we need an answer from Rashomon that is never given to us. As Errol Morris, along with Plato believes there is only one absolute truth through scientific realism, where as Roger Ebert views truth to be subjective and does not search for one single answer.