The document discusses differing views on truth and reality presented in the film Rashomon. Errol Morris believes there is an absolute, objective truth, while Roger Ebert believes humans can determine subjective truths from eyewitness accounts. The film uses differing accounts of a crime from four witnesses to illustrate how perceptions shape realities. Ebert finds the woodcutter's account most reliable as he was not involved. Overall, the document analyzes how the film explores the question of what is real and how perspectives influence perceived truths.

1. Curtis Palmer
Senior Sem: P.4
November 15th, 2011
Rashomon
Rashomon is the story of a double murder. Four people tell their four difference
versions of reality. In this film, director Akira Kurosawa explores something much
deeper than mere witness reliability. Rashomon is not meant to be a puzzle of “who did
it” but rather intends to make the viewer think, “what is real”, and how do I
know.Documentary film director Errol Morris is of the opinion that truth and reality are
independent of people and they are both absolute and objective. For Morris, it is obvious
which version of truth represents reality in the film, but he would argue that each
narrator’s perspective is no more reliable than the version that happens to represent
reality. Roger Ebert is of the opinion that reality is knowable as evidenced by human
testimony, and the film and its director say it is so. Although Morris agrees with the idea
that there is an ultimate reality and one answer to the crime in Rashomon, Ebert’s has a
more applicable theory to the movie and agrees that humans can decide what reality
means to them.
Although Ebert believes that humans can decide what reality is, Morris agrees
that there is only one reality which can be applied to the movie because eye-witness
testimonies are not reliable and there is a chance all witnesses have lied: there is no
reliable solution. While Ebert has the belief that one of the narrators in Rashomon is
capable of telling the truth, Plato’s allegory of the cave is more in line with Morris’
argument that humans are not capable of knowing reality--they can only report on how
they’ve experienced events in the world. Morris does not believe “that truth is subjective.
Just thinking something does not make it so. This idea that there is no reality, that truth is
up for grabs, or that truth is subjective, I find foolish and unappetizing.”(Interview with
Morris)
Film critic Roger Ebert takes a simpler approach to truth and reality. He believes
that eyewitness accounts are unreliable, but “it is human nature to listen to witnesses and
decide who is telling the truth.” (Ebert’s Review of Rashomon) Therefore, Ebert believes
it is important to be constantly critical of what we are thinking and seeing, and Rashomon

2. asks the viewer to do just that. Cameras, Ebert states, are normally thought of as 100%
reliable because they are “pointed at real things [and] we usually think we can believe
what we see.” However, with Rashomon, “we should suspect even what we think we
have seen.” (Ebert’s Review of Rashomon)
In Ebert’s eyes, the most reliable narrator is the woodcutter because he is not part
of the story. This is an agreement with Kurosawa opinion that “Humans are unable to be
honest with themselves about themselves. They cannot talk about themselves without
embellishing.” He is a third party observer and simply explained what he had seen others
do and was not directly involved with the crime, therefore there was no need for him to
embellish or lie. The bandit, the wife and the Samurai could have had motive to lie about
what really happened which no longer makes their story valid. All of these suspects,
through flashbacks, tell their completely different and conflicting perspectives of what
happened, “that do not agree with any objective reality…all they reflect is a point of
view.”
Rashomon was the first of its kind that required the viewer to question what was
real and what was a lie. Ebert and Morris have different ideas about truth and reality that
can be discussed and applied to the film. However, Ebert’s views are applicable to the
film and more inline with director Kurosawa’s own views. Even though Morris thinks
that all eyewitness testimonies are unreliable because there is a chance that all witnesses
have lied, Kurosawa himself says, “it was written with the intention of being
comprehensible.” Ebert has a more applicable theory to the movie and agrees that
humans can decide what reality means to them.