The document discusses the film Rashomon and differing views on the nature of truth. It summarizes the plot of the film, in which four witnesses give conflicting accounts of a murder in the forest. It then examines the perspectives of Morris and Ebert on whether truth is objective or subjective. While Morris believes there is one objective truth, Ebert argues that reality and truth are subjective based on human perception. The document agrees with Ebert's view, finding it most aligned with the interpretation of truth presented in Rashomon, where the different witness accounts leave the true facts of the murder ambiguous and open to the viewer's own perception.

1. Azzi Korn
07/03/2012
Pr.7
Roshoman: The Truth About the Truth
Humans have a tendency to use words such as perceive, observation, or perception in
their daily conversations, this can happen subconsciously, and this may cause
miscommunications that can lead to misunderstandings. Perception is the consciousness of the
world that we as human have and that we experience through our five senses. People are left
with open interpretations of a situation that could affect their perception. A justified true belief
is a formula that allows for a more complete knowledge about a specific case. A part of this,
truth formula should, and can be questioned. We shall take a closer look into what “truth” means.
Truth, in this formula, is defined as the agreement with a particular fact that presents itself in an
occasion of reality. Although finding the truth sounds easy, this is not always the case. One
might question whether or not perception and truth are subjective or objective to how we view
reality. In this paper two individuals will scrutinize the way people should view the truth: Morris,
whose idea is that it is not possible to have an objective truth, only a subjective truth, and Ebert
who says that reality is subjective and the truth is based on human perception. Although, equally
having valid points to make, Ebert’s way of view the truth, that reality is subjective and the truth
is relative to ones own interpretation seems most appropriate to the film Roshoman, directed by
Akira Kurosawa. This Japanese movie directed in the fifties, follows the aftermath of a murder
of a samurai and four people who plead guilty of this murder. These four people are being
interrogated by the police, and are asked to explain the series of events the led up to the
samurai’s death. Even the samurai is brought up from the dead to be interrogated. The plot shows

2. the different perceptions of these four people, a woodcutter, Samurai, the samurai’s wife and a
bandit, and how they all recollect the events of the murder. Selectivity of perception, scientific
realism, eye-witness testimony and perceptual illusion shall aid in amplifying the points that will
be given.
It is not possible to have an objective truth, only a subjective truth, one may have one
truth and someone else may acquire a different truth. There is an alternate truth that people do
not see, this is the genuine truth. Morris’ view on truth is: that there is no objective truth, just
subjective truth, a truth for one person and a truth for another. There is truly only one truth; this
truth is next to impossible for a person to have. A truth cannot be picked out of a candy jar; there
are not different truths to one idea, Morris shows his understanding of this when he explains “I
do not believe that truth is subjective. 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” (Interview with Errol Morris). One can also view more that Morris seems to agree
with selectivity of perception, which states that one may have a perception, but this perception
maybe altered by the facts about the particular perception changes, due to outside forces. One
could have two pictures of the same thing, but both of them have different captions underneath,
one says “military nuclear test site”, the other caption says “water storage facility”. The truth is
altered but if we view these photos with the captions individually, we take it as the truth, without
much question. It is possible to argue that if the name of Roshoman was instead “The
Perception of Truth” or “ A Nice Day in The Forest” we would have an immediate different view
of what the movie would be about. To further support his opinion Morris states that “I don’t
believe that you can talk about a photograph being true or false. I don’t think such a claim has
any meaning. You can talk about a caption underneath a photograph being true or false, because

3. there is a linguistic element” (Interview with Errol Morris). In this same statement he might also
be talking about scientific realism, a picture is just that a picture, it is only when we put meaning
or words into it, we give it value. One might also think of expert knowledge as always being
true. Because there is a caption under a photo, the tendency to think that the caption and the
correlation to the photo are correct is substantially high. This is due to the fact that one does not
question the person and why he/she put the caption there in the first place. If a person has
superior knowledge over something, we generally take it as the truth. We take all three of the
stories as a plausible truth because; the woodcutter, the wife, the samurai and the bandit were all
present at the time of the murder in the forest clearing. They all also claim to have killed the
samurai, but they also have different perceptions of what happened, expert knowledge perhaps,
but this does not get any closer to finding out the real truth.
Ebert restates the eye-witness testimony that says “people cannot trust what they have
seen” ( interview with Roger Ebert). This is meant that when a person is needed to recall an
incident, their words can be manipulated. This theory also ties closely with recollections of
memories and or emotion. Events of the incident can even be manipulated by other people and or
events after the event. This is why, when in court, there are a dozen or so independent witnesses
allowing for a higher probability of their claims being true, for a single eye-witness testimony
can be “taken at face value” thus being unreliable. The wife, in everybody else’s perceptions, is
so overwhelmed with heartbreaking emotion that when she is asked to testify, her recall of what
happened is manipulated and altered. It is next to impossible not to be emotional when speaking
of a murder that has occurred right before your eyes, so naturally the witnesses all had some sort
of emotion. If you were to expect any of the eye-witnesses to have a distorted story it would
have to be the samurai’s wife. (After all she did have her face in the ground most of the film).

4. Furthermore while being in the dense forest, there are numerous sounds, movements or even
myths, that can influence the person and their mindset. Perceptual illusion is built up of two
concepts “Sensation which is provided by the world” and “The interpretation which is provided
by our minds” (Theory of Knowledge). This can happened subconsciously without being aware.
(The perception of how the individual views the forest). The woodcutter being familiar in the
forest (his work place) is naturally at ease, but when he comes across the misplaced object, the
ladies hat, he gets startled. Then he no longer looks for wood but instead for whom the hat
belonged to. Ebert explains this by saying “The woodcutter's opening journey into the woods is
famous as a silent sequence which suggests he is traveling into another realm of reality.
Miyagawa shoots directly into the sun and there are shots where the sharply-contrasted shadows
of overhead leaves cast a web upon the characters, making them half-disappear into the ground
beneath” (interview with Roger Ebert). It seems that Ebert is also aware of perceptual illusion.
The woman coming from a rich privileged life must view the forest in a different perspective
while traveling on top the horse with the veil covering her face. She could feel uncomfortable in
this new environment, being left totally alone in a dense forest. Lastly, the bandit, being
accustom to drinking from the streams and sleeping in the forest, seems relaxed and totally alert,
when the beautiful woman on her horse came riding by. He sees the forest as an opportunity to
raid unsuspecting travelers that are not used to the environment of the forest.
While viewing both sides of the conversation, although Morris has legitimate points,
such as the truth is only objective, Ebert’s position of the movie Rashaman is more agreeable.
As shown, reality is truly subjective and the truth is based on human perception. Kurosaw
(producer) is also at terms with this concept, when we are left to judge the four witnesses in the
courtyard based on their perception (flashbacks). By using selectivity of perception, scientific

5. realism, eye-witness testimony and perceptual illusion, a complete understanding of how to view
the truth is given. Once the movie has come to a close it is only fair to say it is up to our own self
to conclude who really killed the samurai, the truth is clearly subjective.
Work Cited:
Lagemaat van de, Richard.Theory of Knowledge for the IB diploma.Cambridge University Press
2005.Textbook.
“Interview with Errol Morris.” Interview by Errol Morris., The Believer Apr. 2004. Web.
Ebert, Robert. “Rashomon :: Rogerebert.com :: Great Movies.” Rogerebert.com :: Movie
Reviews, Essays and the Movie Answer Man from Film Critic Roger Ebert., 26 May 2002. Web.
05 March. 2012.