1. Lauren Ruzinsky
November 15, 2011
Senior Seminar P.6
To what extent do you agree with the views of either Errol Morris or
Roger Ebert with regard to the film Rashomon?
In 1950, a Japanese film named Rashomon was made and directed by Akira
Kuroswa. It became a very successful crime and mystery film, after winning several
awards. The story begins with a woodcutter who continues to repeat, “I just don’t
understand.” The body of a murdered samurai was found in the woods and four
characters were summoned to testify in court. The woodcutter, a bandit, the wife of the
samurai, and the spirit of the dead samurai tell their own versions of the story, which turn
out to be very different from one another. In the end of the film, the murder is left
unsolved, and the audience must interpret the reality of the truth. This brings about
disagreements, especially between two film critics named Errol Morris and Roger Ebert.
Morris’ view is that truth is absolute and that it is independent of reality. Ebert, on the
other hand, believes truth is relative and reality is subjective. I agree with Ebert’s views
to a small extent, however, overall I find Morris’ views outline the truth better in regards
to the film Rashomon.
Ebert’s theory of truth and reality being subjective could hold true when looking
at the multiple conflicting accounts of the same crime. Three of the characters claim to
have murdered the samurai. They each give their eye-witness testimony and if applicable,
they explain their motives. The bandit claims he was eventually jealous of the samurai
and killed him to win over his wife. However, the wife feels she couldn’t choose one
man, so the other man must die. As the audience fills in for the spot of the judge, Ebert

2. believes we should take all the perspectives and build an agreement as to which character
actually killed the samurai. Ebert says in an interview, “It is human nature to listen to
witnesses and decide who is telling the truth,” and later talking about the flashbacks, says
they are, “an accurate portrait of what each witness thinks happened.” He believes
humans can have different opinions on the events because we are unable to be honest
with ourselves about ourselves.
In the film, Kurosawa shows us different views of the story and how people can
interpret parts of it differently, however there is only one truth in the end. Morris is
correct to a greater extent, when he states, “We may not have all the evidence in hand in
order to adjudicate the question, but underneath the question there’s a physical reality.”
This relates to Plato’s allegory of the cave theory because the prisoners inside have a
limited amount of sources to understand the world, so they create their own reality. The
characters in Rashomon have their own perspectives because that is all they remembered
or filtered into their minds. However, we know that the physical reality exists and factual
evidence is the source we use to get there. If the prisoners were released and went outside
the cave, they would see the rest of the world. They would finally understand it is full of
things they have never seen or experienced before. It can be said that Morris compared
Rashomon to the allegory of cave and believes there is one absolute reality, and no
amount of perspectives can change that fact.
Morris’ views about truth fit the film further as he relates to language, “Truth and
falsity is something that concerns language, it’s a property of language.” The characters
describe their events through not only the use of words, but through their actions. The
bandit laughs continuously, while the wife cries thinking back to what she had seen.

3. Language is the most common function humans use to communicate with each other.
Without the sounds in the film, it would have been more difficult for us to determine the
character guilty of the crime. The problem is that as helpful as it can be, language can be
misinterpreted or very open-ended. Words can be defined various ways and said in
various tones. Rashomon plays with this and leaves these stories for the audience to
solve. As hard as this challenge sounds, Morris feels, “you know what really happened at
the end. It’s pretty damn clear. Kurosawa gives you the pieces of evidence that allow you
to figure out what really happened.” Language can be very ambiguous, but the pieces of
evidence help solve and prove the person guilty of the crime.
Both film critics, Morris and Ebert, have their own views of truth. Morris is an
absolutist, while Ebert is said to be a relativist. The multiple perspectives given from the
characters show the Ebert’s beliefs play a small role in the film. However, the way
Rashomon fits into Plato’s allegory of the cave theory and identifies language as both
strong and weak shows that Morris’ beliefs play a far greater role. Perhaps, the purpose
of the film is to show that people are only human. We believe different things and extend
the truth because we are afraid of what really happened. While I think people have the
right to think whatever they want, I believe there is only one physical reality and the truth
and facts that exist in it will always be the evidence needed to solve the world’s
mysteries.

4. Works Cited
Ebert, Roger. "Rashomon." Rogerebert.com. Chicago Sun-times, 26 May 2002. Web.
Nov. 2011.
<http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20020526/REVIEWS08/205
260301/1023>.
Lagemaat, Richard Van De. Theory of Knowledge for the IB Diploma. Cambridge:
Cambridge UP, 2005. Print.
Poppy, Nick. "Interview with Errol Morris." The Believer. The Believer, Apr. 2004. Web.
Nov. 2011. <http://www.believermag.com/issues/200404/?read=interview_morris>.
Rashomon. Dir. Kazuo Miyagawa. Perf. Toshirō Mifune, Masayuki Mori, Machiko Kyō
and Takashi Shimura. RKO Radio Pictures, 1951. Film.