subscribe to this page
Call#: Van Pelt Library PN1998.3.K87 P75 1999
To start with, the pictorial and cinematic work in Rashomon explores the confines of a single setting, the grove where the death of the samurai character takes place. Kurosawa works within this physical spatial limitation by expanding the dynamic space for his character's emotions and psychology through cinematography and imagery. For example, Prince suggests that the play on light and shadow creates "a kind of spiritual and emotional labyrinth," hinting at the emotional depth Kurosawa bestows upon his characters. Also, camera movement gives depth to the characters as well by panning, shaking -- mimicking their emotional state. Long tracking shots and "sensuous" camera movements follow the woodcutter as he wanders through the forest, whereas jolting and aggressive shots characterize the film after the woodcutter discovers the dead samurai.
Hence, Kurosawa experiments with the narrative by invoking emotional depth in cinematography. Rashomon is quite similar to silent films, where everything is communicated solely through the characters' movements and filming techniques. Kurosawa does not settle for the dialogue as his sole means of narrative, he employs every constituent aspect of the film to this purpose as well.
The dialogue and the cinematography, both as narrative forms, complement each other and interweave to tell the five different accounts in the film. Clearly, as the accounts are conflicting versions of the same story, the dialogue is unreliable and subjective. But, because the imagery is coordinated through the perspective of the first-person, there are richer emotions projected in the film.
Call#: Van Pelt Library PN1995 .J36 1987
Jarvie's chapter Rashomon: Is Truth Relative? discusses the film from a philosophical standpoint and examines what he calls the "Rashomon problem" as proposed by the film in the 1950's - simply, which person's storyline described in the film is true? Or is it even that none of them true as they are all mutually exclusive? Kurosawa does not imply that the samurai did not exist, or that the wife did not lose her husband. Instead, the construction of events, based on single-person perception tells "truths" based on their individual points-of-view.
In Rashomon, the audience is deliberately given too much information. They cannot coherently piece together the contradictory details and create a cogent picture of what happened. Jarvie argues that the film is more than only the truth relative to a point of view; it is also about each reality that the subjective truths attempt to describe and how those truths are interpreted through the character's perception of events.
Kurosawa uses several film techniques to show different points-of-view in Rashomon. He knows that the audience is able to transition across cuts to deduce what is going on; techniques such as eyeline matching, seamless sound, and complementary point-of-view shots, enable the audience is able to fill in the gaps between cuts. But Jarvie argues that Kurosawa goes beyond these simple editing tricks by showing the audience that in one setting, events are presented in a manner in which the mind cannot reconstruct. Hence, transitioning is made difficult, and the audience's sense of reality is thwarted. This effect is intentional and induces the audience to think about relativity in truth.
In addition, Kurosawa plays with point-of-view through the film's cinematography. Although each story is told from a first-person perspective, the cuts in the scene and the shifting of the camera do not make it clear who is speaking. The eye-witness is not in a fixed position, as to be assumed in first-person, and the point of view is shifted from one eye-witness to several. This freedom in filming that Kurosawa incorporates makes Rashomon even more of a challenge to the audience to view the chain of events as truth, which the audience may never solve.
Moskowitz reiterates film’s ability to mentally condition its viewers by stating that seeing is close to doing and seeing film can seem the same as seeing real events although the film is unrealistic. He points out some technical devices that are used. The fast motion of the orgy is used to suggest the emotionless and clockwork nature of the participants. Also, Kubrick pairs up two scenes with slow motion as action/reaction: Alex’s attack on his droogs and him being attacked by them with the milk bottle.
For any art to evoke specific emotions it must sacrifice other elements, in this case: realism. The characters are sharply divided but all evil in their own ways. The film is unrealistic in its contrived situations, overplayed acting and ridiculous coincidences. But it’s still good because we understand how it relates to our reality’s bad qualities.
Surprisingly, we see little violence. Kubrick either uses close-ups with narrative to intensify scenes or he focuses on other aspects of scene suggesting violence, leaving us to imagine it. The film lacks the blood and gore that critics claim is used to pander to sadistic viewers. Moskowitz also illustrates that lack of sensuality and ferocity in the Alex and Catlady murder scene. This is to show emotionless nature of Alex. The actual murder isn’t shown- the camera closes in on her face. Also, the rape of the writer’s wife isn’t shown. Instead Kubrick focuses on the husband watching it. Critics also say that the violence is meaningless. Kubrick counters that with the impact violence has on Alex. How can it be meaningless?
The characters and society have become mechanized, especially the prison guards who strictly follow rules. The solution to being a mechanistic person is to exercise power of choice, which adds humanism. Ironically, Alex is the most human of all. What is even more ironic is when Alex is unable to act human he is called a True Christian.
Alex draws the audience in with monologues and addressing them as his brothers. The viewer can then understand him and themselves better: they share a taste for violence, only his is much more developed. We watch him watch violence. There are also audiences in the movie that watch violence during the two stage scenes (rape of girl and Alex demonstration).
Coupling technology with art can be both good and bad. He writes about the power of cinema and how it can be dangerous. Cinema can be more realistic than reality by using different filming techniques and the state uses that power to condition Alex, committing the worst crime of all: removing humanity by the destroying free will. At the end of the film, we hear Gene Kelly’s version of “Singing in the Rain.” We heard this before during the rape scene of the writer’s wife. If the power of film is what Kubrick shows it to be in this film, then the viewer will not be able to extricate Gene’s version from Alex’s. The film has altered our perception of the song and we are conditioned to think of violence. Alex’s Beethoven has become our Gene Kelly.
Moskowitz goes on to point out other dangerous art in the film: nude females statues in the milk bar, use of bright, ugly colors. This shows that the culture of that society has fallen out. The art has no true meaning to people anymore. The Catlady acts like an expert on art, while her only non-pornographic or phallic piece of art is a bust of Beethoven, which she carelessly uses as a weapon. The film criticizes pseudo-art while highbrow critics categorize the film as such.