1) The document discusses the 1950 film Rashomon by Akira Kurosawa, which tells the story of a samurai's death through the accounts of four witnesses. Each witness provides a different version of events. 2) Film critic Roger Ebert believes truth is subjective based on human perception, while filmmaker Errol Morris believes there is an objective truth independent of human observation. 3) Using the film as an example, the document argues that without additional context or a way to evaluate credibility, multiple conflicting eyewitness accounts must all be considered equally true, supporting Ebert's view of subjective truth.

1. Ty Kraichok
Senior Seminar (Period 4)
November 17, 2011
Rashomon Essay
Throughout the scope of human history, there have been many events that have been
observed and recorded that have been taken for the truth. Saying something is the “truth” begs
the question, “What is truth?” This is a question dealt with extensively in Rashomon, a 1950 film
by Akira Kurosawa. The film is set in feudal Japan and deals with the death of a samurai, an
account of which is told by four separate witnesses: The Woodcutter, The Bandit, The Wife, and
The Samurai. Each of these accounts is noticeably different from each of the others, yet are all
presented as “truth” in court. Both filmmaker Errol Morris and film critic Roger Ebert who each
had very different views on the concepts of reality and truth reviewed this film. Errol Morris
believes truth and reality are both independent of the observations of people, and are therefore
absolute and objective. However, in order for this to be true, it would require everyone
perceiving this reality to share identical information and be equally informed, otherwise,
regardless of the “objective reality” it would not be perceived by anyone and would, according to
those in it, not exist. Roger Ebert, on the other hand, believes that reality is subjective and truth is
based solely on human perception.With reality being defined as what an observer can know
through their Ways of Knowing, it is clear that it has many more different facets than can be
confined only to a single objective viewpoint, so the flexible “reality” proposed by Ebert is most
likely to be correct. It is clear to see due to the multiple conflicting versions of the “truth” that
given the information, there is no way to determine an objective version, so Ebert’s version of
the truth clearly fits the film best.
To demonstrate how Ebert’s analysis is most applicable, passages from the film, the
positions by Morris and Ebert, and real-world examples will be used. As there are four separate
versions of events, each with all of the characteristics that would make it “true,” it is impossible
to determine if there is an objective version. It is important to determine what ways of knowing
(WOK) would be used to determine what is and is-not true. Given that the most convincing
WOK available to most humans is their own perception, four separate accounts from
eyewitnesses equally convincingly, and without any additional information, would force an
observer into a position where a decision about which story is “true” to assume that all stories are
equally true given the amount of information. Assuming that the truth does exist, there is no way
an observer would be able to choose, which would force all accounts to be considered equally.
Ebert writes, in his review, “It is human nature to listen to witnesses and decide who is telling the
truth, but the first words of the screenplay, spoken by the woodcutter, are "I just don't
understand." His problem is that he has heard the same events described by all three participants

2. in three different ways--and all three claim to be the killer.” In this situation, it is impossible to
determine which is true, so they must all be considered equally true.
Errol Morris, on the other hand, believes there is a single version of the truth, and that all
others are illusory or fabricated. He says in an interview with Believer Magazine, “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.” He also says, “Rashomon is not a movie
about the subjectivity of truth. That there’s no objective truth, just subjective truth.A truth for
you, a truth for me. On the contrary, it’s a movie about how everybody sees the world
differently. But the claim that everybody sees the world differently is not a claim that there’s no
reality.” With each of these points, he attacks the basic thesis made by Ebert, that truth is
subjective and open to interpretation. It is important to note that in doing so, he is coming from a
position of knowledge.
To use a real world example, there are three hypothetical people: two speakers and one
listener. The listener in this thought-experiment has no bias, no previous information, and no
emotional response to each of the speakers. The speakers each deliver an account of an event
from a different viewpoint, describing their version of the truth with equal convincingness. This
event is, of course, one the listener has no knowledge of. At this point, the listener must, if they
are rational, assume both versions of this account are equally true and “reality” is obscured.
While there may be a “reality,” since it is not perceived by the listener, it does not exist except as
an abstract concept. Therefore, this “truth” does not exist for anyone except those connected
personally to it. In the film, it begins with the woodcutter staring out into the rain and saying, “I
just don’t understand it” as he attempts to cope with the conflicting versions of the truth. Having
seen scene of the samurai’s death with his own eyes, each of the stories told by the woman,
samurai, and bandit equally fit the criteria he holds for what is true. As the woodcutter attempts
to reconcile his own experiences in the forest and the stories told by the witnesses with his
mental map, he finds it is impossible to do so. Taken alone, each of these accounts would be
accepted as truth by the woodcutter, but because there are others, it is impossible for him to
determine. Each one is, therefore, equally true.
Each human being must determine their own truth from what they can observe around
them. The view each human holds is based purely on what he or she observes and what they can
incorporate into their mental image. There may certainly be an “objective truth” but there are no
humans capable of observing reality comprehensively enough to be able to observe this
“objective” truth. Therefore, internally, truth is exactly what we see, and bends to accommodate
new information. In Rashomon, Kurosawa places the audience in a place where they will try to
determine the truth from the given information, and find themselves unable to do so. Unable to
do so, the audience must assume there is no objective truth that can be determined with the given
information, so all accounts must be considered equally true.