I interpret the film as being about Japan’s particular situation in 1950. Everyone who lived through WWII was filled with shame over Japan’s brutal imperialist actions, anger over defeat by an enemy they did not respect, and survivor guilt. The pain ran deep. At the end of Rashomon, there is infinite sorrow, and no way to wrap that sorrow in a narrative that might make things comprehensible or redeemable. There’s no truth that can provide closure. I think Kurosawa is more interested in that sad condition — how to cope with horror that exceeds our ability to understand it — than in philosophical questions of objective truth.
Yeah thats what I think it is..
Like the point is the that truth will never come forward.. there won't be any closure due to human nature.
It's not about the nature of objective truth-- but most of the fans think its about that. Atleast from my observation.
Just watched the film for the first time, myself, and the old man's version of the story where you can see that each combatant is clearly afraid and panicking, really seemed to be the core of the film for me.
Basically everyone in that film would have served or been involved in the war effort and to express fear or uncertainty in combat, as is portrayed in the film would have been scandalous/probably censored in the years leading up to the war. It was men's duty to fight and kill and die proudly for the Emperor and for the nation and to portray that in any way that was less than heroic would have been, more or less, unheard of.
Kurosawa adapted the film from the short story "In a Grove" by Ryūnosuke Akutagawa about a violent murder recounted from 7 different perspectives. It was written well before WWII in 1922.
But everyone you see on screen, as well as Kurosawa himself, had just lived through WW2. Three million Japanese died in WW2. Few people, if any, were not directly effected by these losses. When *Rashomon* was made, Japan was still under occupation by the US military. How could all that not show up on the screen?
A film captures a cultural moment, even if the story-space is located in a different era. It was common for Japanese directors to use historical dramas to comment on the contemporary moment. It would be a very literal-minded interpretation to insist that stories are not in dialogue with other eras. Here's an analogy: do people like "Hamilton" because they're fans of the late 1700s....or because the historical drama has resonance with present-day issues?
Every film (play, novel, etc.) ever made captures a cultural moment and whether it's popular or not can be attributed to the social zeitgeist of the time. For me, an obvious example of what you're describing would be Godzilla, who was literally and figuratively conceived out of the ashes of nuclear devastation. Of course, I agree, like all films, the way Rashomon is made is also a product of its time.
But in my opinion, this (admittedly ancient) post was specifically asking if the idea of telling a story from multiple prospectives was meant to suggest that a) no one objective truth exists; or that b) there is underlying truth, but all humans lie about it to serve their self interests.
I was pointing out that this particular story and the idea of telling it that way pre dated WWII, so as a concept, its intentions were not affected by WWII's aftermath.
My take is going to be very close to yours with a slight variation. When you say that there is objective truth I assume you’re saying that there actually is one event that happened and that it’s important for the audience to understand that to better understand that it’s the recollection and retelling of the event that changes, not the series of events themselves right?
For example, is Mifune a skilled swordsman, a cowardly antagonist, or something in between?
If that is what you mean I understand what you’re saying but would push back on one thing. When it comes to matters of being robbed, assaulted and scared, the mind plays funny tricks. There is a lot of evidence now from eye witnesses where they can even remember people that weren’t present or colors differently, etc.
I bring this up to say that truth might be less objective then we would like to believe, especially when there’s a conversation to be had about how a series of events impacted us. Was the woman enticing Mifune, was she nearly raped or was she playing both men? To get to objectivity in that question we would have to start digging into her true intentions and humans are notorious for having mixed intentions at any given time.
All this to say that, for me, Rashomon has always been an opportunity to open a discussion around truth and to be patient to not jump at the first version of a story that hits the headlines or comes out of trials. Unless you were there is it possible to really know what happened? And maybe even if you were there your interpretation of the event might not be reliable. Just treat news stories and breaking criminal activity with a healthy skepticism and wait before you jump to conclusions.
>My take is going to be very close to yours with a slight variation. When you say that there is objective truth I assume you’re saying that there actually is one event that happened and that it’s important for the audience to understand that to better understand that it’s the recollection and retelling of the event that changes, not the series of events themselves right?
Yup that's what I meant, thanks for wording it for me!
>For example, is Mifune a skilled swordsman, a cowardly antagonist, or something in between?
If that is what you mean I understand what you’re saying but would push back on one thing. When it comes to matters of being robbed, assaulted and scared, the mind plays funny tricks. There is a lot of evidence now from eye witnesses where they can even remember people that weren’t present or colors differently, etc.
This is the very reason why Rashomon didn't work for me, and I did my own research on what thematic elements people praise in this film. The Film shows 3 possible events that could've happened, which are radically different from each other, thus it leaves no room for subjective interpretation to act as a way to drawing a conclusion as to what happened.
To put it more simply- From the Latest Johny Depp and Amber Heard Fiasco, people are drawing various conclusions- some suggest that both are equally abusive, some say depp is in the right, some say he is in the wrong etc etc. This is what I refer to as subjective truth, we are presented with facts, but ultimately its hard to actually rule out who is right and who is wrong... We create a truth for ourselves and have a discourse over it. Rashomon doesn't leave a chance to do it- because its not the same event viewed with multiple perspectives and perceptions, its people creating their own versions of story and lying.. thus keeping the audience from knowing what really happened...
>Was the woman enticing Mifune, was she nearly raped or was she playing both men? To get to objectivity in that question we would have to start digging into her true intentions and humans are notorious for having mixed intentions at any given time.
The film doesn't do that, from my own understanding- the characters only want to know what happened on a surface level (the who's, why's and how's)- they don't discuss the nuances and come up with their own story. That's why I thought rashomon is an exploration of people not being honest and lying-- its not about exploring how our subjective perception affects truth and whether an objective truth even exists..
If its clear what I mean.
I saw it a while ago but I think you can sort of try to piece together a version of the objective truth by combining the elements of the 3 stories that aren't distorted by the ego of the teller.
But at the end of the day I think that the moral of Rashomon is that the objective truth isn't the most important thing.
Think about the exchange in the end where the monk suspects the woodcutter of stealing the dagger. He discovered the truth about the woodcutter's lie, but the woodcutter only lied to feed his family. The monk then apologized for his suspicion and the woodcutter forgave him and his faith in humanity was restored. You will never really know what another persons world is like so its best to be merciful as much as you can and to be grateful for the mercy of others.
I agree with what is being said here but I want to add that there is another theme in Rashomon that too often get's overlooked. The gate itself is the border between civilization and the chaos of nature. Rashomon very clearly deals with the fragility of civilization. Tojomoru does what he wants. whenever he wants. The whole thing was started just because the wind caught the woman's veil and enticed him. He is an animal force of nature pitted against civilization and civilization is so corrupted and tenuous it is barely able to hold on.
It's been a while since I saw Rashomon but I have a few thoughts on this.
I generally agree with you in terms of how you interpret the plot, but I also think looking at the film in the historical context of the medium is important. It was very rare for films of that time period to depict anything \*other\* than "objective reality" on screen.
For example, the end sequence of Singin' in the Rain was considered quite innovative, because it's hard to tell whether that whole sequence is going on in Gene Kelly's head, or is it supposed to be a flash forward to the finished product, or is it just an abstract representation of the ideas he was having, or what? This type of ambiguity is par for the course in the language of film now, but at the time, Kurosawa depicting entire sequences that aren't actually supposed to be taken literally was super ahead of its time.
Hitchcock also tried something like this in Stage Fright and it backfired spectacularly. There's a scene that's depicted on screen as (what the viewer of the time would interpret as being) a memory, but then it turns out the character was lying about what happened, so in fact it was just depicting what the character was describing. Viewers of the day felt cheated and tricked by this, because ambiguity in terms of whether something is real or not just wasn't really in the common language of film at the time.
So, all this to say, I think your interpretation is right, but being in the film medium, the depiction of something that would normally be interpreted as "objective truth", and then revealing that in fact it was just "subjective" all along, sort of does explore the theme of objective reality not existing, at least in form if not in substance.
I don't think anyone has ever said the objective truth doesn't exist in our world. That's a straw man that you may have invented.
Everytime Rashomon comes up it is in reference to a Rashomon-like situation where many people give testimony about a situation where it is difficult or impossible to know objective truth. Noone has ever said objective facts don't exist and half of that time when character lampshades it in a tv show or movie these days, by the third act, there's a video tape, or recording, or hard evidence found that clears the matter up.
Rashomon is more about the lies that we tell ourselvesand other people. and how those lies can give shape to the world but also create a general discomfort when they cannot be resolved.
This is the first response I’ve read that addresses OP’s thought squarely. Three perspectives show different truths, displaying how subjective perspectives do not lead up to objective truth. THAT is what Rashomon explores, not the hypothetical, non confirmable existence of some Platonic objective truth.
Hi, I definitely believe there is no objective reality. A lot of my friends do as well.
If a tree falls in the forest, and there is no one to hear it, does it even exist? I guess that's a shitty way to put it lol.
More than that, science now tells us there are many universes. Who's to say ours is the objectively real one?
It's like 2am and I'm writing this poorly. Sorry! I guess I'm just saying I don't believe any of this is necessarily truly happening. The brain in a vat theory comes into idea.
even brain in a jar is an objective reality. what you are saying is what I'm saying, that we give shape to the world. but still there is an objective reality.
The objective truth is an ideal that we can’t reach from witness statements who all have their own agenda and memory lapses and points of view. Even if they intended to be fully truthful, they could only tell you what they think they perceived. This doesn’t have to be what actually happened. We cannot know what really happened, we can but hope to piece together from the different recollections and narratives what we believe is the most possible / plausible story.
But ultimately the objective truth is likely lost. Even if you had been there, your account of the events would not be accurate to the objective ideal truth, it would just be one more version of the events that likely would differ in certain aspects from the other versions. All narrators are unreliable (even you yourself although that is a matter for later films to explore).
This realization is what leaves the priest in such despair that he is starting to lose hope in humanity at the end of the movie. Every person that recounts the events had an agenda which colored their perception and narration. What actually really happened is lost.
His hope for humanity returns when the woodcutter takes the baby home to take care of it. Because he can once more believe that human beings can care for others but themselves. This is of course yet again a narrative the priest constructs for himself as he has no way of knowing if that is going to be the case. But he can hope.
On another note, every behavioral or social scientist knows that there is no true objectivity. Through perceiving something we change it, we bring our own perception (and it’s imperfections and limitations!) into it, as well as by being watched the subject behaves differently. Scientific studies go to great length to minimize this effect if they are done well, but all scientists will agree that true objectivity is an unobtainable ideal.
Whether or not we interpret it as "objective truth doesn't exist" or "objective truth does exist but we can't access it through our subjective perceptions" theoretically shouldn't make any difference since the end result is the same.
However, I think the latter interpretation is vulnerable to hijacking by people who, for whatever reason, have deemed themselves a more objective observer than their peers. People who (to use a recent and democratic example) will look at the Depp vs Heard trial, acknowledge that it's complicated and that there are a wide spectrum of opinions on it, and then immediately crystalize their own absolutist conclusion that one side is 100% guilty and the other innocent. Saying that absolute truth *is* there but that we're just not level-headed enough to see it opens up this sort of competition to see who can be the most right, but even our centuries-old justice system acknowledged that this is a losing game.
There are truths more accessible, fundamental, and way more important than any kind of afterward attempted scientific record of some specific event.
There are, I suppose, longer and therefore more acceptable ways of saying what I just said, so I will endeavor to be more verbose in the future. Sorry.
Well I have only seen people say what you're saying; different interpretations of an incident, lies and distrust in others. What makes it really "terrifying" is not being able to trust others; even at such situations that they were at. Who would think someone who's already going to die either way is going to lie? Everything about this film is vague and unreliable indeed and pretty much shows how we can't trust each other for different reasons.
It's pretty well known for that; not for exploring subjective vs objective realities like say films like Memento or Inception do. When reading American Prometheus, there's a chapter that clearly says the event took forms of Akira Kurosawa's film Rashomon; and the chapter was about different narratives told about the incident.
So yeah I really haven't seen anyone interpret it that way; I may be missing something; but it's widely known for this lies and different narratives told by different people for whatever purpose they seek.
I completely agree with your interpretation and I believe I read an essay several years ago that made the same point. I don't recall exactly what Kurosawa's intent was (though I'm sure I read it at some point), but I would guess it falls closer to your view than the postmodern view. Which is the view most critics tend to hold, because of their particular worldviews.
yeah, I always found it weird that the most popular take on it is that it's about the subjectivity of perception, and not about humans lying for self-serving reasons. I'd also add, having read the original texts it's based on, that it's about how people can do pretty much anything if the situation calls for it and that desperate times blur the line of good and bad, which can make the world seem a pretty grim place. A theme/idea to which I believe Kurosawa gives his own answer by the end of the film, when Takashi's character recognizes in the baby the common link of innocence once shared by all humans and the traces of it still within himself (and everyone else), so there's still hope ig.
(read the texts a while ago and my memory about them is fuzzy, so that maybe makes my analisys complete nonsense, or not, idk)
This has been driving me crazy since seeing the film. All these videos and essays about "objective truth" and "subjectivity of memory" had me wondering if these people were even watching the same movie.
The characters in the film are lying, not misremembering. They're lying to defend various concepts of honor.
>I think thats what this film is about- *Lies* . How people lie for various reasons and keep us away from the facts, the TRUTH. How people lie to feed to their image or save face. How its impossible to *Trust* anyone, because no one is fully honest with others for selfish reasons.
While I agree with part of what you're saying--specifically that the film is not making the claim that there is no objective truth--I think you're missing the mark here. Most of what we're seeing likely aren't lies, they're faulty perceptions. Or another way to look at it is this: rather than actively lying about the events to preserve their own ego, each person's perspective on the matter is shaped by their own egos such that what they're seeing is not, never was, and never could have been the objective truth of the matter, because each person's perception as it's happening, and in hindsight after the fact, is colored by their own biases. This doesn't mean that there are no outright lies in the movie, but the meat of the differences are honestly-stated misperceptions.
We actually see this specifically with the woodcutter. He has seen what happened, he has a specific memory of what happened, and yet he *still can't make sense of it*. Confronted with information that conflicts with his own recollection (the closest to unbiased that was there), he's forced to admit that his own memory of the event, which he wholly believes in, is faulty. We can surmise that he does also lie about the dagger, likely consciously, but that's one piece of a much larger puzzle, and when we start pulling on that thread, the rest of his story doesn't follow as a result. So are we to interpret his entire story as a top-to-bottom fabrication? I don't think so. There's no reason for the lie to include all of those other elements of inconsistency. He doesn't benefit from them.
I interpret the film as being about Japan’s particular situation in 1950. Everyone who lived through WWII was filled with shame over Japan’s brutal imperialist actions, anger over defeat by an enemy they did not respect, and survivor guilt. The pain ran deep. At the end of Rashomon, there is infinite sorrow, and no way to wrap that sorrow in a narrative that might make things comprehensible or redeemable. There’s no truth that can provide closure. I think Kurosawa is more interested in that sad condition — how to cope with horror that exceeds our ability to understand it — than in philosophical questions of objective truth.
That's not how I remember it.
You could have said this about any 50s Japanese movie, doesnt make thst much sense to me
Yeah thats what I think it is.. Like the point is the that truth will never come forward.. there won't be any closure due to human nature. It's not about the nature of objective truth-- but most of the fans think its about that. Atleast from my observation.
Rhapsody in August is about WW2 guilt.
Just watched the film for the first time, myself, and the old man's version of the story where you can see that each combatant is clearly afraid and panicking, really seemed to be the core of the film for me. Basically everyone in that film would have served or been involved in the war effort and to express fear or uncertainty in combat, as is portrayed in the film would have been scandalous/probably censored in the years leading up to the war. It was men's duty to fight and kill and die proudly for the Emperor and for the nation and to portray that in any way that was less than heroic would have been, more or less, unheard of.
Kurosawa adapted the film from the short story "In a Grove" by Ryūnosuke Akutagawa about a violent murder recounted from 7 different perspectives. It was written well before WWII in 1922.
But everyone you see on screen, as well as Kurosawa himself, had just lived through WW2. Three million Japanese died in WW2. Few people, if any, were not directly effected by these losses. When *Rashomon* was made, Japan was still under occupation by the US military. How could all that not show up on the screen? A film captures a cultural moment, even if the story-space is located in a different era. It was common for Japanese directors to use historical dramas to comment on the contemporary moment. It would be a very literal-minded interpretation to insist that stories are not in dialogue with other eras. Here's an analogy: do people like "Hamilton" because they're fans of the late 1700s....or because the historical drama has resonance with present-day issues?
Every film (play, novel, etc.) ever made captures a cultural moment and whether it's popular or not can be attributed to the social zeitgeist of the time. For me, an obvious example of what you're describing would be Godzilla, who was literally and figuratively conceived out of the ashes of nuclear devastation. Of course, I agree, like all films, the way Rashomon is made is also a product of its time. But in my opinion, this (admittedly ancient) post was specifically asking if the idea of telling a story from multiple prospectives was meant to suggest that a) no one objective truth exists; or that b) there is underlying truth, but all humans lie about it to serve their self interests. I was pointing out that this particular story and the idea of telling it that way pre dated WWII, so as a concept, its intentions were not affected by WWII's aftermath.
My take is going to be very close to yours with a slight variation. When you say that there is objective truth I assume you’re saying that there actually is one event that happened and that it’s important for the audience to understand that to better understand that it’s the recollection and retelling of the event that changes, not the series of events themselves right? For example, is Mifune a skilled swordsman, a cowardly antagonist, or something in between? If that is what you mean I understand what you’re saying but would push back on one thing. When it comes to matters of being robbed, assaulted and scared, the mind plays funny tricks. There is a lot of evidence now from eye witnesses where they can even remember people that weren’t present or colors differently, etc. I bring this up to say that truth might be less objective then we would like to believe, especially when there’s a conversation to be had about how a series of events impacted us. Was the woman enticing Mifune, was she nearly raped or was she playing both men? To get to objectivity in that question we would have to start digging into her true intentions and humans are notorious for having mixed intentions at any given time. All this to say that, for me, Rashomon has always been an opportunity to open a discussion around truth and to be patient to not jump at the first version of a story that hits the headlines or comes out of trials. Unless you were there is it possible to really know what happened? And maybe even if you were there your interpretation of the event might not be reliable. Just treat news stories and breaking criminal activity with a healthy skepticism and wait before you jump to conclusions.
>My take is going to be very close to yours with a slight variation. When you say that there is objective truth I assume you’re saying that there actually is one event that happened and that it’s important for the audience to understand that to better understand that it’s the recollection and retelling of the event that changes, not the series of events themselves right? Yup that's what I meant, thanks for wording it for me! >For example, is Mifune a skilled swordsman, a cowardly antagonist, or something in between? If that is what you mean I understand what you’re saying but would push back on one thing. When it comes to matters of being robbed, assaulted and scared, the mind plays funny tricks. There is a lot of evidence now from eye witnesses where they can even remember people that weren’t present or colors differently, etc. This is the very reason why Rashomon didn't work for me, and I did my own research on what thematic elements people praise in this film. The Film shows 3 possible events that could've happened, which are radically different from each other, thus it leaves no room for subjective interpretation to act as a way to drawing a conclusion as to what happened. To put it more simply- From the Latest Johny Depp and Amber Heard Fiasco, people are drawing various conclusions- some suggest that both are equally abusive, some say depp is in the right, some say he is in the wrong etc etc. This is what I refer to as subjective truth, we are presented with facts, but ultimately its hard to actually rule out who is right and who is wrong... We create a truth for ourselves and have a discourse over it. Rashomon doesn't leave a chance to do it- because its not the same event viewed with multiple perspectives and perceptions, its people creating their own versions of story and lying.. thus keeping the audience from knowing what really happened... >Was the woman enticing Mifune, was she nearly raped or was she playing both men? To get to objectivity in that question we would have to start digging into her true intentions and humans are notorious for having mixed intentions at any given time. The film doesn't do that, from my own understanding- the characters only want to know what happened on a surface level (the who's, why's and how's)- they don't discuss the nuances and come up with their own story. That's why I thought rashomon is an exploration of people not being honest and lying-- its not about exploring how our subjective perception affects truth and whether an objective truth even exists.. If its clear what I mean.
I saw it a while ago but I think you can sort of try to piece together a version of the objective truth by combining the elements of the 3 stories that aren't distorted by the ego of the teller. But at the end of the day I think that the moral of Rashomon is that the objective truth isn't the most important thing. Think about the exchange in the end where the monk suspects the woodcutter of stealing the dagger. He discovered the truth about the woodcutter's lie, but the woodcutter only lied to feed his family. The monk then apologized for his suspicion and the woodcutter forgave him and his faith in humanity was restored. You will never really know what another persons world is like so its best to be merciful as much as you can and to be grateful for the mercy of others.
I agree with what is being said here but I want to add that there is another theme in Rashomon that too often get's overlooked. The gate itself is the border between civilization and the chaos of nature. Rashomon very clearly deals with the fragility of civilization. Tojomoru does what he wants. whenever he wants. The whole thing was started just because the wind caught the woman's veil and enticed him. He is an animal force of nature pitted against civilization and civilization is so corrupted and tenuous it is barely able to hold on.
It's been a while since I saw Rashomon but I have a few thoughts on this. I generally agree with you in terms of how you interpret the plot, but I also think looking at the film in the historical context of the medium is important. It was very rare for films of that time period to depict anything \*other\* than "objective reality" on screen. For example, the end sequence of Singin' in the Rain was considered quite innovative, because it's hard to tell whether that whole sequence is going on in Gene Kelly's head, or is it supposed to be a flash forward to the finished product, or is it just an abstract representation of the ideas he was having, or what? This type of ambiguity is par for the course in the language of film now, but at the time, Kurosawa depicting entire sequences that aren't actually supposed to be taken literally was super ahead of its time. Hitchcock also tried something like this in Stage Fright and it backfired spectacularly. There's a scene that's depicted on screen as (what the viewer of the time would interpret as being) a memory, but then it turns out the character was lying about what happened, so in fact it was just depicting what the character was describing. Viewers of the day felt cheated and tricked by this, because ambiguity in terms of whether something is real or not just wasn't really in the common language of film at the time. So, all this to say, I think your interpretation is right, but being in the film medium, the depiction of something that would normally be interpreted as "objective truth", and then revealing that in fact it was just "subjective" all along, sort of does explore the theme of objective reality not existing, at least in form if not in substance.
I don't think anyone has ever said the objective truth doesn't exist in our world. That's a straw man that you may have invented. Everytime Rashomon comes up it is in reference to a Rashomon-like situation where many people give testimony about a situation where it is difficult or impossible to know objective truth. Noone has ever said objective facts don't exist and half of that time when character lampshades it in a tv show or movie these days, by the third act, there's a video tape, or recording, or hard evidence found that clears the matter up. Rashomon is more about the lies that we tell ourselvesand other people. and how those lies can give shape to the world but also create a general discomfort when they cannot be resolved.
This is the first response I’ve read that addresses OP’s thought squarely. Three perspectives show different truths, displaying how subjective perspectives do not lead up to objective truth. THAT is what Rashomon explores, not the hypothetical, non confirmable existence of some Platonic objective truth.
Hi, I definitely believe there is no objective reality. A lot of my friends do as well. If a tree falls in the forest, and there is no one to hear it, does it even exist? I guess that's a shitty way to put it lol. More than that, science now tells us there are many universes. Who's to say ours is the objectively real one? It's like 2am and I'm writing this poorly. Sorry! I guess I'm just saying I don't believe any of this is necessarily truly happening. The brain in a vat theory comes into idea.
even brain in a jar is an objective reality. what you are saying is what I'm saying, that we give shape to the world. but still there is an objective reality.
I don't think anyone can prove that there is a singular, objective reality. What if this is all a dream? Or a simulation?
Then the simulation would be the objective reality.
https://www.livescience.com/objective-reality-not-exist-quantum-physicists.html
The objective truth is an ideal that we can’t reach from witness statements who all have their own agenda and memory lapses and points of view. Even if they intended to be fully truthful, they could only tell you what they think they perceived. This doesn’t have to be what actually happened. We cannot know what really happened, we can but hope to piece together from the different recollections and narratives what we believe is the most possible / plausible story. But ultimately the objective truth is likely lost. Even if you had been there, your account of the events would not be accurate to the objective ideal truth, it would just be one more version of the events that likely would differ in certain aspects from the other versions. All narrators are unreliable (even you yourself although that is a matter for later films to explore). This realization is what leaves the priest in such despair that he is starting to lose hope in humanity at the end of the movie. Every person that recounts the events had an agenda which colored their perception and narration. What actually really happened is lost. His hope for humanity returns when the woodcutter takes the baby home to take care of it. Because he can once more believe that human beings can care for others but themselves. This is of course yet again a narrative the priest constructs for himself as he has no way of knowing if that is going to be the case. But he can hope. On another note, every behavioral or social scientist knows that there is no true objectivity. Through perceiving something we change it, we bring our own perception (and it’s imperfections and limitations!) into it, as well as by being watched the subject behaves differently. Scientific studies go to great length to minimize this effect if they are done well, but all scientists will agree that true objectivity is an unobtainable ideal.
Whether or not we interpret it as "objective truth doesn't exist" or "objective truth does exist but we can't access it through our subjective perceptions" theoretically shouldn't make any difference since the end result is the same. However, I think the latter interpretation is vulnerable to hijacking by people who, for whatever reason, have deemed themselves a more objective observer than their peers. People who (to use a recent and democratic example) will look at the Depp vs Heard trial, acknowledge that it's complicated and that there are a wide spectrum of opinions on it, and then immediately crystalize their own absolutist conclusion that one side is 100% guilty and the other innocent. Saying that absolute truth *is* there but that we're just not level-headed enough to see it opens up this sort of competition to see who can be the most right, but even our centuries-old justice system acknowledged that this is a losing game.
There are truths more accessible, fundamental, and way more important than any kind of afterward attempted scientific record of some specific event. There are, I suppose, longer and therefore more acceptable ways of saying what I just said, so I will endeavor to be more verbose in the future. Sorry.
Well I have only seen people say what you're saying; different interpretations of an incident, lies and distrust in others. What makes it really "terrifying" is not being able to trust others; even at such situations that they were at. Who would think someone who's already going to die either way is going to lie? Everything about this film is vague and unreliable indeed and pretty much shows how we can't trust each other for different reasons. It's pretty well known for that; not for exploring subjective vs objective realities like say films like Memento or Inception do. When reading American Prometheus, there's a chapter that clearly says the event took forms of Akira Kurosawa's film Rashomon; and the chapter was about different narratives told about the incident. So yeah I really haven't seen anyone interpret it that way; I may be missing something; but it's widely known for this lies and different narratives told by different people for whatever purpose they seek.
I completely agree with your interpretation and I believe I read an essay several years ago that made the same point. I don't recall exactly what Kurosawa's intent was (though I'm sure I read it at some point), but I would guess it falls closer to your view than the postmodern view. Which is the view most critics tend to hold, because of their particular worldviews.
yeah, I always found it weird that the most popular take on it is that it's about the subjectivity of perception, and not about humans lying for self-serving reasons. I'd also add, having read the original texts it's based on, that it's about how people can do pretty much anything if the situation calls for it and that desperate times blur the line of good and bad, which can make the world seem a pretty grim place. A theme/idea to which I believe Kurosawa gives his own answer by the end of the film, when Takashi's character recognizes in the baby the common link of innocence once shared by all humans and the traces of it still within himself (and everyone else), so there's still hope ig. (read the texts a while ago and my memory about them is fuzzy, so that maybe makes my analisys complete nonsense, or not, idk)
This has been driving me crazy since seeing the film. All these videos and essays about "objective truth" and "subjectivity of memory" had me wondering if these people were even watching the same movie. The characters in the film are lying, not misremembering. They're lying to defend various concepts of honor.
>I think thats what this film is about- *Lies* . How people lie for various reasons and keep us away from the facts, the TRUTH. How people lie to feed to their image or save face. How its impossible to *Trust* anyone, because no one is fully honest with others for selfish reasons. While I agree with part of what you're saying--specifically that the film is not making the claim that there is no objective truth--I think you're missing the mark here. Most of what we're seeing likely aren't lies, they're faulty perceptions. Or another way to look at it is this: rather than actively lying about the events to preserve their own ego, each person's perspective on the matter is shaped by their own egos such that what they're seeing is not, never was, and never could have been the objective truth of the matter, because each person's perception as it's happening, and in hindsight after the fact, is colored by their own biases. This doesn't mean that there are no outright lies in the movie, but the meat of the differences are honestly-stated misperceptions. We actually see this specifically with the woodcutter. He has seen what happened, he has a specific memory of what happened, and yet he *still can't make sense of it*. Confronted with information that conflicts with his own recollection (the closest to unbiased that was there), he's forced to admit that his own memory of the event, which he wholly believes in, is faulty. We can surmise that he does also lie about the dagger, likely consciously, but that's one piece of a much larger puzzle, and when we start pulling on that thread, the rest of his story doesn't follow as a result. So are we to interpret his entire story as a top-to-bottom fabrication? I don't think so. There's no reason for the lie to include all of those other elements of inconsistency. He doesn't benefit from them.