All About Zakah for Muslim Americans - Dr. Main Alqudah [https://www.guidance...
Rashomon Essay - Ryo
1. Ryo Yanagisawa
Senior Seminar: Period 4
To what extent do you agree with the views of either Error Morris or Roger Ebert with regard to
their views of truth and perception in the film Rashomon?
Akira Kurosawa’s Japanese film, Rashomon, starts with the mutter of the woodcutter; “I just don’t
understand.” A samurai has killed and four characters, including the woodcutter, the bandit, the wife, and the
samurai himself, are held on trial admitting to the criminal and they are all giving completely different accounts
as to what happens. The movie finishes with no clear explanation of the murder being made, leaving the truth
about the murder open to interpretation. Roger Ebert believes that the truth is subjective and is based on what
people perceive. On the contrary, Errol Morris believes in an absolute truth that only one truth exists. It is
known that there are two clear identifiable absolute truths in the film; the samurai is dead and one person kills
him. Having said that, the theory of Morris can be fitted with the film, but it needs to have other evidences to
increase the certainty. Thus, Ebert’s theory, which significantly puts focus on characters’ motives, fits best with
the film.
I agree with some of Errol Morris’s viewpoints in relation to the film Rashomon. Morris is an absolutist,
corresponding with Plato who has theorized that only one truth exists even though there may be a number of
accounts to a situation through different perceptions. Thus, according to what Morris argues, a truth is still a
truth no matter what people claim. This is partly true in Rashomonsince two clear absolute truths, the samurai is
dead and one person kills him, will never change although four characters’ testimonies are true or false.
However, a truth itself cannot be knowledge without belief and justification (K=JTB). In the process of
justifying the truth, there are several ways to prove the credibility; one effective way would be deductive
reasoning, in which syllogisms are commonly used with the construction of précises and a conclusion. In some
cases, however, fallacies are detected, which would limit the certainty of the truth. In the film Rashomon,
Argument Ad ignorantiam is clearly demonstrated. If people are asked whether the samurai is really killed,
people would likely to say that it is true since there is no evidence to disprove it. This fallacy happens when
predominant positive evidences are lacked, and in the case of Rashomon, the physical evidences and motives are
ignored. Thus, Morris’s theory does not really fit with the film.
Another problem with Morris’ theory is that truth never goes beyond knowledge. According to Morris,
two absolute truths mentioned earlier, 1) the samurai is dead and 2) one person kills him, are indifferent to the
other characters’ views on the situation. Let us assume that there is no fallacy such as Ad ignorantiam exists and
the murderer is the wife, for instance. If Morris’s idea, knowledge equals to a truth (K=T), is justified, then we
can only conclude that the wife kills the samurai: no profundity is allowed. We are not able to consider the
motives and physical evidences to support the stance since those are not consisted in his theory. In reality,
however, every single action is based on some motives, whether it is important or not, that truth differs from
person to person based on their realms of consciousness. Thus, Ebert who states multiple truths exist provides
more valid statements.
Ebert’s idea of subjectivity is better applied to the film Rashomon due to the fact that the film revolves
around a lot of different perceptions with relative truths. To summarize his theory, truth and reality are
subjective and relative to each independent individual, concluding that knowledge is the mixture of justification,
truth, and belief (K=JTB). In the film, every single deponent has different testimonies of what happens to the
murder of the samurai. Although it seems to be incoherent, all claims are plausible since the testimonies are
based on their own realms of consciousness. It might be true that at some extent, some characters’ testimonies
will partly include lies, but these lies can be easily detected by understanding their motives and physical
evidences. Without any considerations of these factors that Morris has neglected, the certainty of the truth would
never proven. Thus, Ebert’s viewpoints are better suited to the film.
To conclude, Morris’s theory, stating the existence of an absolute truth, can be valid until some extent
in Rashomon that there are two identifiable absolute truths; the samurai is dead and someone kills him. However,
his idea will turn to be invalid as soon as typical fallacy in the reasoning such as Argument adignorantiam is
found and most significantly, a lack of the depth to the incident is revealed. In contrast, Ebert who considers
characters’ motives and other evidences would make the subjectivity of truths to be justified. Thus, in regards to
Akira Kurosawa’s masterpiece, Rashomon, Roger Ebert’s viewpoint of a subjective reality and a relative truth
best fits to the views of multiples truths and perceptions, demonstrated in the film.