The document provides an analysis of the 1950 Japanese film Rashomon and discusses two perspectives on truth and reality put forth by film critic Roger Ebert and filmmaker Errol Morris. Ebert believes truth is subjective and reality depends on individual perspectives, while Morris argues there is one objective truth and single reality. The document analyzes each character's testimony in Rashomon based on their potential motives and ultimately finds Morris's view better fits the film as there can only be one version of events, despite varying perceptions of truth.

1. Nine Singhara
Senior Seminar
Clover: Period 3
March 8, 2012
Rashomon: Truth and Reality
The Japanese drama film, Rashomon, tells a disturbing story regarding a
mysterious crime that has resulted in the death of a Samurai. Following the Samurai’s
death, those involved in the incident as well as the eyewitness are called in for a series
of questioning. The main characters are the Samurai, the Bandit, the Wife, and the
Woodcutter. The first three were present at the crime scene, each claiming he or she is
the one responsible for the Samurai’s death. The latter claims that his account of the
incident is what actually has happened, but is later exposed to have been in possession
of the missing weaponthat was supposed to be at the crime scene. With four
conflicting testimonies, the audience is left to perplexedly formulate their own take on
the matter. This brings about the controversial topic of truth and reality, which is
explored by both the film critic Roger Ebert and the filmmaker Errol Morris. Ebert
believes that a subjective approach should be taken in analyzing this film. Asserting
that truth is relative, he argues that whatever one experiences with one’s senses reflect
truth, therefore reality could be different for everybody. Morris would say otherwise,
contending that truth is subjective and that there is only one reality regardless of what
anybody’s beliefs. While Ebert’s argument suggests a valid idea that motives can be
evidence that justifies truth, Morris’s views that there can only be one truth that runs
alongside each individual’s natural mental reenactment of reality discernibly
outweigh those of Ebert in the analysis of this film.

2. To an extent, each character’s suspicious recollection of the event can be
broken down and justified with the inclusion of motives of self-interest. It would
logically help to try to work out why a person did something he did. For the Samurai
who places honor above all else, having his wife raped right in front of his eyes and
then betray him while not being able to do anything was a great shame, and an
acceptable motive to commit suicide. In the Bandit’s case, it is only natural for a
renowned outlaw like him to commit such murder. On top of that, he has a reputation
for being a womanizer, which makes his source of motivation good evidence to prove
his tale. The wife seems more suspicious than anyone else. Although she had every
reason to be scared of her husband’s cold looks toward her after the rape, putting up a
vulnerable front during her testimony when all the others’ stories carve her out to be
pungently deceitful and manipulative seems like an ill motive to gain pity from the
judges. It was convenient to believe that the Woodcutter’s story would be the most
truthful. The disclosure of the fact that he stole the weapons may have undermined his
innocent façade, but his motivation for stealing it might have been so that he could
sell it and get the money to raise his poor family that consists of six children. In this
aspect, Ebert’s position is useful in evaluating the conflicting authentication of a
situation.
Despite this, Morris’s point of view concerningthe matter of truth and reality
seems to be a better overall fit for the analysis of this film. It makes a lot of sense to
say that truth is objective because although different people’s varying motivations and
perception make them view the world differently, there has to be an absolute truth and
an ultimate reality. It is true that the testimonies may have really been true to those
who have given it, however, it is only because they try to avoid acknowledging what
actually happened, or rather, they allowed their believes and motivations cloud their

3. perception of reality.After all, Morris’s beliefs are that the mind can only go as far as
reenacting what we have experienced the same way films and images are made.
Whatever the case, three different people could not have possibly killed the Samurai
in reality. There must be truth and reality that runs independently of what is going on
in everybody’s mind entirely. According to Morris’s opinion,if we search hard
enough through investigating a series of evidence and information, we can come up
with a solution that comes closer and closer to the uniform truth. The style with which
Rashomon was made also supports this theory. The questioning of several characters
take place so that a sufficient amount of information could be gathered and carefully
filtered so that at least something relative the truth could be reached.
Morris’spoint of view and argument also coheres with those of the ancient
philosopher Plato. In Plato’s outline of the three tests of truth, he states that truth must
be independent of anyone’s belief, emphasizing the prior stated idea of ultimate
reality, which is essentially the core of Morris’s beliefs. Something can be true even if
everybody believes it is false and something can be false even if somebody believes it
is true. For something to be knowledge, it has to have all three elements of
justification, truth, and belief. Simply trying to justify something to their own
advantage does not make their argument true. In the light of the film’s analysis, all of
the characters could believe their own version of the story all they want, but that does
not change the fact that one of them was the culprit.Since there is no way to know for
certain what the truth actually is in this film, no matter how much justification or
beliefs are present in the unveiling of the crime, the real knowledge can never be
obtained.
Ultimately, both of Ebert’s and Morris’s opinions on truth and reality can be
used to suitably analyze the Rashomon film. The only thing that makes Morris’s

4. argument more befitting than Ebert’s is its core essence that relies on the ultimate
reality and one uniform truth to arrive at real knowledge. When the aspects of both
are combined and integrated in a particular manner, the evaluation and analysis of the
film can finally be made effective. Even in modern day judicial courts, this same
combination of both points is used in the process of judging whether somebody is
guilty or innocent. Suspects and eyewitnesses give their own testimonies, which are
then evaluated by their motives with the fact that there is a definitive truth despite
what any of them say in mind as the main principle in the judgment.

5. Works Cited
Ebert, Roger. "Rashomon (1950)." Rogerebert.com. 26 May 2002. Web. 06 Mar.
2012.
Poppy, Nick. "Errol Morris." The Believer. Apr. 2004. Web. 06 Mar. 2012.