Current Events > i saw 'Rashomon' for the first time. anyone wanna talk about it? *spoilers*

(+) Yeah! (+)

what a great movie. i appreciate it more the more i think and read about it. it wasn't immediately obvious to me that the woman was raped in any of the recollections and if i didn't read that in a plot summary i wouldn't have put that together.

im still trying to understand the motivations behind both Tajomaru and the woman taking responsibility for the murder?

---

the part where the ghost started speaking scared me
---

Vamp_Aubrey posted...

the part where the ghost started speaking scared me

yeah that was spooky for sure. i was not expecting a supernatural element to the film at all.

i do appreciate how the judge/jury was not shown and instead the witnesses were speaking directly to the camera / audience.

---

Giant_Aspirin posted...

im still trying to understand the motivations behind both Tajomaru and the woman taking responsibility for the murder?

The way I always understood it, Tajomaru was going to die anyway (being a well known bandit), so he wanted to go out on a "manly" note, especially since he may have felt humiliated at the experience. The woman took credit for it to spite the two of them, and I assume because she didn't have a happy time ahead and this might give her a boost in reputation.

---

The theme of the movie is that people can't tell a story without making themselves the star of it. The bandit/rapist knows he's going to die, so he has nothing to lose from boasting about his exploits -- real or not.

The thing I find interesting is the woodcutter. We learn at the end that he stole the jewel-encrusted knife. So does that mean his version of the story is true -- barring the omission of his theft? Or did he lie to add credibility to his story?

IShall_Run_Amok posted...

Tajomaru was going to die anyway (being a well known bandit), so he wanted to go out on a "manly" note, especially since he may have felt humiliated at the experience

this makes sense. his notoriety was definitely mentioned multiple times, i guess i didn't make the connection that this would lead to him being prosecuted or even executed for other crimes. his view of the story certainly played up the skill levels of both participants of the duel. he was already talking himself up to appear cooler than he really was.

---

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=13BGWwyNp6A

---

There's some interesting commentary on the court system; its prejudices and superstitions.

My first thought was there was no way a medium's testimony would be admissible. Then I realized it was the 1600s and they very well may have taken it at face value that the dead was speaking through a holy person.

And then there's the way they dismiss the widow's testimony simply stating that you can't trust a woman. A key witness and her testimony is denied because of prejudice. If there is a true version of what happened, I bet her discarded testimony is the key to it.

FortuneCookie posted...

So does that mean his version of the story is true -- barring the omission of his theft? Or did he lie to add credibility to his story?

i wondered this as well.

the other three stories were told from perspectives that benefited the storyteller. i do wonder if he changed / altered a detail (or many) to justify him taking the knife? perhaps he knew who it belonged to and pretended he didn't so he could keep it? we also don't know if he was being truthful about having six children.

---

also, i appreciate "The Usual Suspects" a tad less after seeing this. don't get me wrong, it's still a fantastic movie, but it basically copied the formula here.

---

Giant_Aspirin posted...

i wondered this as well.

the other three stories were told from perspectives that benefited the storyteller. i do wonder if he changed / altered a detail (or many) to justify him taking the knife? perhaps he knew who it belonged to and pretended he didn't so he could keep it? we also don't know if he was being truthful about having six children.

I never thought about whether or not the six children were real. I took it for granted that he was being honest by that point in the story.

<_<

FortuneCookie posted...

I never thought about whether or not the six children were real. I took it for granted that he was being honest by that point in the story.

<_<

a number of lines of dialog were used to tell us how hard the times were (famine, plague, etc) and how it was problem after problem, year after year. with the whole theme of the film being exactly what you stated: people twist stories to make themselves the star or to justify their actions, it makes me wonder. the priest seemed to withdraw all judgement about stealing the knife when he finds out the woodcutter needs to feed six kids.

but that's another major point of the film: the audience is left wondering

---

afternoon bumps

---