The document discusses the film Rashomon and whether it supports the idea that truth is absolute or subjective. It analyzes the different accounts of a murder given by witnesses in the film. There are similarities between the stories that suggest an absolute truth, and each witness has a motivation to lie. It's impossible for the accounts to all be true since they contradict each other on key details like whether a fight occurred. This implies there is one objective truth, even if it can't be fully known.

1. Kelsey Noah<br />Period 6<br />Senior Seminar<br />Absolute Truth in Rashomon<br />In the film, Rashomon by Kurosawa, a samurai's murder is told in different ways by the bandit Tajomaru, the samurai's wife, the samurai speaking through a medium, and a woodcutter, who each witnessed the murder and, apart from the woodcutter, claim to be the killer. These circumstances in the film bring up the question of whether truth is absolute or if it is subjective. Roger Ebert holds the belief that truth is subjective and depends on what a person believes. At first glance the film appears to support this Ebert's view, however once the content of the film is examined, the opposite is shown to be true. Through the similarities in the accounts given by the witnesses, the motivations each of them have for lying, and the impossibility of multiple truths, it can be seen that Errol Morris's view that there is only one absolute truth is correct.<br />The similarities between the stories told by the different witnesses show that there is an absolute truth. The stories of both the bandit and the woodcutter include a sword fight between the bandit and the samurai, ending with the samurai being killed in the same location and in the same way. The samurai and the wife each tell different stories, but the similarities between the other two accounts show that is likely what really happened. The stories may have been embellished some, for example the bandit says he remembers exactly how many times they crossed swords, but the base story is consistent in each. Another similar element between the stories is that in the bandit's, the samurai's and the woodcutter's accounts, it is the wife who encourages them to fight for her. They are lying in other areas of their stories because their reactions from the wife's request differ, but the wife provoking the fight can probably be taken as truth. The wife is the only one who tells that part of the story differently, which brings into question the reliability of the content in the rest of her story seeing as everything else in her account from that point on relies her not having provoked the fight. One problem with the similarities between the stories is that in the bandit's and the woodcutter's version it is a sword that kills the samurai, and in the samurai's and the wife's version it is a dagger. Despite the fact that there is an equal number of accounts that say it was the dagger as there are saying the sword, the murder weapon is most likely the sword. This is because the woodcutter's and the bandit's versions have the most in common including the location the samurai is killed, while the wife's and the samurai's versions have different killers. Also, the reliability of the wife's account is already in question, and there is no way to show any evidence that the samurai is actually speaking through the medium. There is only one killer, as is shown through the multiple similarities between the stories.<br />It can also be seen that there is only one truth because all of the witnesses have reason to lie. The motive bandit has for lying is to maintain his reputation. Tajomaru is a notorious bandit so he knows he is already in trouble even if he was not the one to kill the samurai. If he admits to killing the samurai then everyone knows that he is strong enough to defeat a samurai in a fight, which would increase his reputation. However, Tajomaru believing that he has no hope of getting out is also what makes him one of the most believable witnesses. Other than maintaining his reputation, Tajomaru has no other reason to lie since he will not be released even if he is innocent of killing the samurai. The wife also has reason to lie about what happened so that no one will know that she chose the bandit over her husband after she was raped. If she lies and says that she remained loyal to her husband but he hated her, it makes it seem less her fault and people might pity her. Also, she says that she was holding the knife when she passed out and fell on top of her husband, and when she woke up he was dead. This version of events would remove some of the blame from her because her husband's death could be seen as an accident. The final witness to give his testimony at the trial is the samurai who's motivation to lie is to save face. In his account he does not lose a fight to the bandit, and he commits suicide which is considered brave if a samurai has been shamed. He likely telling the truth about what his wife did because he might want people to know what happened and his reason for committing suicide. He might want to maintain his honor and respect even though he is dead so that people will remember him in a positive way. The one witness who was not at the trial and has the least reason to lie is the woodcutter. in his version the wife provokes the samurai and the bandit to fight, and the bandit kills him with a sword. His story probably holds the most truth, even though he may not be completely honest about everything seeing as he lies about taking the dagger after the samurai is killed.<br />The fact that there is an absolute truth can be seen through the impossibility of the situation if there are multiple truths. According to the bandit and the woodcutter it was a fight between the samurai and the bandit that killed the samurai, but according to the wife and the samurai there was no fight. If Ebert's view that truth is subjective is correct then the bandit and the samurai would have had to both fight each other and not fight each other. The bandit either fought or did not fight, and what physically happened in the grove does not change depending on who says it. Just because the witnesses say the murder happened a certain way does not make it true. For example, if the wife says she was the one to kill the samurai when someone else really did it, it does not suddenly become true just because she says it. If it were true then someone could say that the samurai was still alive, and it would be true as well. There cannot be one killer for one person and a different killer for another person.<br />All of the accounts given share some similarities, and those similarities show that there is an absolute truth even if no one is telling it completely. Also each witness has motivation to lie which shows the reasons for the differences between the stories. The witnesses tell different stories but they are not all true. Morris's view leads towards absolute truth, however it may never be fully reached. <br />