This document provides an analysis and comparison of two film critics' perspectives on truth and reality as portrayed in the film Rashomon. It summarizes Errol Morris' view that there is one absolute truth that can be objectively known, versus Roger Ebert's view that truth is subjective based on individual perception. The document argues that Ebert's perspective is more applicable to understanding the multiple, contradictory witness accounts in Rashomon, as human nature leaves truth open to interpretation due to limited and biased perspectives.

1. Melanie Bunker
March 7, 2012
Senior Sem. P. 7
Rashomon Essay
It is no surprise that the film, Rashomon, has won many awards and has
influenced the world of film still to this day. Rashomon was filmed in 1950 by Akira
Kurosawa and is still shown as a classic film that portrays the complications that
comes with testimonies of witnesses. This film explores the testimonies of the
witnesses, who were all in the forest on the same day and a crime was committed.
They all have their own versions of the events that happened that day and the
audience is taken through a journey to listen to each of the witnesses’ stories and
decide for themselves whose story is the most reliable in order to come to a
conclusion to the truth, who murdered the samurai. Each of the characters, the
bandit, the wife, the samurai, and the woodcutter each have their own viewpoints of
which version, if there is any, is the real truth about what happened on that day in
the forest. Kurosawa invites the audience to make a decision based solemnly on
what we are told by the characters to choose who is right and who is guilty.
Rashomon is relevant to the real world because there are times in our lives where
we are put in certain situations where we have to base a decision off of what we are
only allowed to perceive, as limited as it may be. The film deals with the
indiscrepancies that as human beings, we have tendencies to hide the truth, whether
it is the entire truth or cover it up with white lies. The problem is, like in the movie,

2. the audience is forced to view the perceptions of four characters, all of which have
different complications and uncertainties of the real truth. Well known critiques for
Rashomon are Errol Morris and Roger Ebert, each of them have opposing views of
truth and reality of the witnesses’ accounts. Morris’ view towards truth is that there
is only one version of the truth and that is ultimately the absolute truth. In applying
Morris’ views to Rashomon, he views that truth can be found in the crimes because
absolute truth is independent of individuals’ perceptual experiences. While Morris
has good points in conveying that there is an absolute truth to be found from the
four crimes and can eventually resolve the issue, Ebert’s views on truth is more
applicable to Rashomon as it encourages the audience to be cautious, as truth can be
subjective to everyone’s own perceptual experiences.
As Morris critiques Rashomon, he clearly explains that truth for him is not
subjective, it is utmost objective, and therefore there can always be an absolute
truth that can be found. Morris’ views can be compared to Plato’s theories in the
sense that there is an absolute truth. There cannot be any factors that could
potentially have an influence in the equation, K=JTB. Each ingredient of that formula
has to be exact in order for the truth to become knowledge and it has to be exact for
everyone who encounters this ‘truth’ in order to prove it to be knowledge. With
Morris’ view of the truth, it means that as an audience, we all experience the same
reality and we are all given the same information and with that we are able to come
to a conclusion about the absolute truth because, “a truth for you, is a truth for me”
(“Errol Morris”). According to Morris, justification of truth comes from knowing that
truth and reality are both independent observations of people, whichmake it

3. absolute. The problem is that with Rashomon, the audience is forced to listen to and
consider all of the accounts of the murder. In Morris’critique, he stated that he knew
at the end of the movie exactly who committed the crime (“Errol Morris”). With all
of the inconsistencies of the accounts of the crime, it seems that Morris would most
likely agree with the spirit medium who channels the samurai. Morris would point
out that first; the audience saw that the samurai was killed (whether he was
murdered by his wife or by the bandit) and the audience also knows that there was
foul play between his wife and the bandit.Going along the lines of the eye-witness
testimony theory, Morris would agree with it in the sense that “it is easy to confuse
the source of your memories” (Lagemaat 94) and therefore reality cannot be based
off of the individual. Truth, at least for Morris, has to be a collective agreement on
Plato’s equation in achieving knowledge by having the same truth for everyone.
Although all the stories in the film contradict each other, Morris believes that it is
possible for that anabsolute truth can be found. The issue with Morris’ claimof
absolute truth and reality can be found, is that it is human nature to perceive
situations differently, as it was investigated in Rashomon. Because humans have
limited views and selective perception, there is always a breaking point where
stories do not match up. There are nearly seven billion people on this earth and it
would seem impossible for everyone to agree with Morris and say that there can
only be the same objective reality of events or else you do not have the truth, and
you do not have knowledge. Therefore, Ebert’s view of truth and reality can be more
useful, even if it does not help the audience to determine who committed the crime;
at least it tells the audience that truth can be justifiedsubjectively through our

4. senses and it proves Ebert’s theory that everyone can find truth for himself or
herself.
The idea of subjectivity of truth that Roger Ebert has presented allows each
of us to form our own reality based on the individual’s experiences as well as the
theory of phenomenalism. Ebert expresses that every character from Rashomon is
telling the truth in the way that they perceived what happened. It is possible that
each of the characters are lying to an extent, but at the same time Ebert would argue
that there is truth found behind all of the exaggeration. Ebert makes a good point in
saying that the characters’ perceptions are true “because we see the events in
flashbacks, we assume they reflect the truth but all they reflect is a point of view,
sometimes lied about” (Ebert). Ebert is open to all the possibilities of who could
have committed the murder and he applauds Kurosawa for his genius work in
creating a film that has no solution, which makes the audience interpret and
distinguish the truth as far as the audience perceives it in their eyes. Everyone who
watches this film will have a different connection with each character, they will feel
sympathy, hatred, and disgust for different characters all because we base our
owninterpretations of what happened with an experience we have seen, watched or
heard of before viewing the film. Something from each of the viewers’ mental maps
‘click’ with a certain character as they try to find the truth. Everyone’s mental maps
are different depending on the environment that they were raised in. Ebert
emphasizes that one must be critical of what we think since we each build our own
reality of the world and truth is relative. Ebert would agree with the statement, “we
can only know the world form our distinctively human perspective” ( Lagemaat

5. 100). As it is apparent in Rashomon, each of the characters express their experience
of the crime with different viewpoints but they all have truth according to Ebert’s
theory, even as limited as their perception was.
Other theories that support Ebert’s idea that truth is subjective and open to
human interpretationare the theory of common-sense realism and confirmation
through one’s senses. Being able to confirm through our senses and with theories
allows us to create a foundation of an independent reality. In Rashomon, the
audience is only given the testimonies of all of the characters. The accounts of the
wife, the bandit and the samurai are especially hard to select who is telling the truth
and who is guilty. Because each character had their own interpretation of what
happened, they were able to confirm what they saw, heard, tasted, and felt with
their senses as they told the court (the audience) what happened. Ebert would agree
in saying that there is an element of truth in each of the accounts because truth is
subjective, however, he also says “humans are unable to be honest with themselves
about themselves. They cannot talk about themselves without embellishing” (Ebert).
That quote can be applied to the film as well as the real world. It is by default that
humans exaggerate in scenarios everyday. In the film, the bandit is proud of his
thief-life and does not want to be read as a coward, thus he tells his account as a
heroic villain. Ebert would continue, agreeing with common-sense realism and how
it can shape our truth and reality. Again, using sense organs, we are able to confirm
the truth about the existence of objects and experiences. Things appear the way they
are because it makes sense not to trust it otherwise. Applying common-sense
realism is harder to determine the criminal in Rashomon, but individually we can

6. eliminate the stories that do not pertain to what would agree with your own view of
common sense. Perception can give individuals valuable information in determining
the reality of truth. With the theories of perception, it enables everyone to be
cautious and to question if things are the truth and are reality. If you did not
question what is truth versus what could be then you would not be able to justify
the existence of that truth. The only way to make sense of Rashomon is to agree with
Ebert’s view that truth and reality are subjective and we have to consider that each
of the witnesses made up their own truth-whether it makes sense to the audience or
not- it still is their truth from their own experiences.
After viewing the film, Rashomon, it is impossible to come to a solid
conclusion about the ultimate truth, therefore by using Ebert’s view that truth is
subjective and is open to human interpretation allows the audience to accept that
there is an element of truth hidden in all of the accounts but it only matters to the
characters what really happened since it is their truth of reality. Ebert makes a point
in saying that realities differ from person to person because as humans are not
clones. Although having different versions of the truth vary from person to person,
there is still an element of truth hidden that is the same behind it. As humans, we
selectively choose what we want to perceive: it could be subconscious or not- we
still limit our range of perception. It is better to accept that truth and reality is open
to interpretation than to have a set truth for everyone in the world.

7. Works Cited
Ebert, Roger. "Rashomon (1950)." Rogerebert.suntimes.com. Rogerebert.com, 26
May 2002. Web. 11 Mar. 2012.
"Errol Morris." Interview by Believer. Believermag.com. The Believer, Apr. 2004.
Web. 23 Feb. 2012.
Lagemaat, Richard Van De. Theory of Knowledge for the IB Diploma. Cambridge:
Cambridge UP, 2005. Print.