The document discusses the film Rashomon and two interpretations of truth - absolutism and relativism. It analyzes how Errol Morris believes there is one absolute truth, while Roger Ebert believes truth is subjective and differs for each person. The document argues that Ebert's view of subjective truth is better supported by the contradictory confessions of characters in Rashomon about a murder. Selectivity of perception and preexisting biases also influence how people perceive reality differently based on their experiences. The conclusion is that by not revealing the true incident, the film suggests there is no absolute truth, as reality is always viewed subjectively according to individual perspectives.

1. Sari Yamamoto
Mr. Chris Clover
Senior Seminar
March 8, 2012
Interpretations of Truth
The well-known film “Rashomon” by Akira Kurosawa makes the audience question
whether the reality we see through our senses is always the same as other people see. The
film examines a murderer incident from four different perspectives; the bandit’s, the wife’s,
the samurai’s and the woodcutter’s. Through the analysis of this film, Errol Morris and Roger
Ebertboth draw conclusion of what reality is. Errol Morris is an absolutist who thinks there is
only one reality no matter how many interpretations there are. Unlike Morris, Ebert is a
relativist who believes that reality differs according to people and cannot be made absolute.
While there are some physical evidences of the murder which connects to Morris’s idea of
absolute truth, it is clear that Ebert’s thinking of subjective truth can be supported more from
the confessions.
It is obvious that there is only person who did the crime. This fact is independent of
subjective truth. There is only a dagger and a sword that could have killed the samurai.
Clearly, the audiences come up with the assumption that the bandit, the wife, the samurai and
the woodcutter are all saying false things. Although there are crucial physical evidences that
lead to solving the mystery, they are not enough to draw conclusion to what had exactly
happened. According to Morris, truth is independent from subjective interpretations.
Therefore, in “Rashomon”, it is difficult to find out the absolute truth.
As opposed to Morris’s step of finding truth, Ebert’s belief of reality can be easily

2. applied to “Rashomon”. Truth is always subjective and therefore absolute truth does not exist.
This conclusion can be drawn from the fact that “Rashomon” is based on the gathered
confessions of the four characters and each of them differs completely. For example, the
bandit’s confession that he killed the samurai with the dagger contradicts with the samurai’s
wife’s confession that she killed her husband. According to the wife, until she killed him with
the dagger, the dagger was on the grass, untouched. Both confessions talk about the dagger
killing the samurai. Yet, the story behind it differs greatly. Thus, audiences can draw the
conclusion that truth is always subjective.
Ebert’s interpretation of truth being differentaccording to people can also be
explained by the theory of knowledge. People’s perception differs among people and is often
influenced by their experiences. Therefore when people are exposed to tons of information,
they tend to focus on the elements that are more familiar to them. This is called “selectivity of
perception” and can lead to people’s preexisting biases. In “Rashomon”, there seems to be a
difference between men and women’s point of view. Two of the three men witnesses claim
that there was a rumble between the bandit and the samurai over the samurai’s wife. They
claim that the samurai died because he was killed by the bandit during the rumble. However,
the wife claims that she killed her husband accidentlyafter she had fainted because he kept
giving her the disesteem look and she could not stand it. These contradictions seem to bring
up the different virtues that man and woman had about death. Since the setting of the film is
in the Heian era, men emphasized their masculinity and when they die, they are very
courageous and honorable. As for women, they thought death was tragic. Through these
thoughts about death, the audience can assume that those values may have affected in their
perspectives about the incident. Therefore, selectivity of perception plays such an important
role which determines what people regard reality.
By Akira Kurosawa’s technique to make the audience the jury and not tell what the

3. incident was all about, I believe that he is trying to tell us that there is no absolute truth.
People always gain information that is relevant to their lives which makes a certain filter of
perception. Therefore, when several people see the same incident, they all have different
focuses and perspectives. Thus, reality is always different among people and cannot be
absolute.