Rashōmon (1950)

Although it’s been several years since I first watched Rashōmon, I’ve always avoided reviewing it, for the simple fact that this film, one of the most highly rated works of one of the world’s greatest directors, has been dissected and written about so frequently (and by people so much more capable of doing justice to it than I am), that the idea of reviewing it was always succeeded by the thought: what could I possibly write about Rashōmon that hadn’t been already written?

But after I reviewed The Woman in Question last week, I decided it was probably high time I did review Rashōmon. I have, after all, reviewed several films of this type: not exactly based on the Rashōmon Effect, but close to it, variations on the theme of multiple narratives. To not write about the film that gave this trope its name seemed like a gap that needed filling.

Toshiro Mifune and Machiko Kyo in Rashomon

Rashōmon is based on two stories by the early 20th century Japanese writer, Ryunosuke Akutagawa: Rashōmon, and In a Bamboo Grove. While Kurosawa chose to name his film Rashōmon, the bulk of the film’s plot is taken from In a Bamboo Grove. Rashōmon (the story, not the film) is a brief and unsettling tale set in the ruined gatehouse named Rashōmon, in medieval Kyoto: war, famine and epidemic have devastated the city, and the gatehouse is full of corpses. A man, sheltering in the gatehouse, has a disturbing experience.

Not so in Kurosawa’s film, which begins at the ruined gatehouse, all right, and even has a a reference to  ‘five or six corpses’ lying upstairs, but never indicates more than that. Instead, as the rain pours down, we see two people—a woodcutter (Takashi Shimura) and a young priest (Minoru Chiaki) take shelter on the ground floor of the gatehouse. The two men are disturbed about something; the priest tries to be philosophical about it, but the woodcutter, who goes on insisting that he can’t understand it, can’t understand it at all, is less reticent.

The woodcutter and the priest shelter in the Rashomon gatehouse

Which is why, when a stranger comes along, also seeking shelter in the gatehouse, it is the woodcutter who ends up blurting out his part of the story to this man. As if to get it off his chest.

The woodcutter begins to tell his tale

The woodcutter says that three days earlier, as he went into the woods with his axe, he came upon a woman’s hat, with an attached veil, caught on a low branch. A little further, and he came across other things that had no business in the woods: a samurai’s cap, lying on the ground; a leather pouch with a lining of red; a bunch of cut ropes.

A little further, and he had stumbled onto the worst of it all.

An unnerving discovery

We do not see the face of the murdered man or anything other than those creepy hands clawing lifelessly at the air. The woodcutter ran immediately to the police, and today, three days since the corpse was found in the woods, an inquest was held at the courthouse. The scene shifts to the gravelled garden—very austere, very forbidding—of the courthouse. The woodcutter gives his testimony, and is followed by the priest. We do not see or hear the magistrate at any point.

The priest testifies in the courthouse garden

The priest is at the inquest because what he had seen three days ago has a bearing on what the woodcutter found. Three days back, as he walked along the road to Yamashina, the priest had seen a couple moving through the wood. A samurai (Masayuki Mori), leading a white horse, on which sat a woman wearing a hat with a veil. We see them through the priest’s eyes, through his memory of that moment: the man looking up at the woman, laughing, his face alight with joy. We cannot see the woman’s face, obscured by her veil, but the man’s expression suggests (or is this just the young and idealistic priest’s perception, that colours our own?) that the happiness is not one-sided; she shares in it, too.

A samurai leads a horse with his wife seated on it

Next up at the inquest are two men, one a sneering and uncouth bandit named Tajomaru (house favourite Toshiro Mifune), the other a policeman who had found Tajomaru lying, nearly unconscious, on the riverbank. The policeman guesses that Tajomaru had fallen off the stolen horse grazing nearby.

Tajomaru nearly bites off the man’s head at this allegation. He, Tajomaru, falling off a horse?! Absurd. The truth, insists the bandit, is that he had drunk water from a stream in the woods, and that water made his stomach ache horribly when he reached the river. So he had dismounted and crouched in the grass when this fool came along.

Tajomaru lets fly at the man who arrested him

Of his own accord, Tajomaru (who is bound) begins to talk about what happened in the woods three days back. He had been lying under a tree, half-dozing, when the samurai and the woman on horseback had passed by. If it had not been for a sudden gust of breeze that lifted the woman’s veil long enough for Tajomaru to catch a glimpse of an attractive face (that of Machiko Kyo), none of this would have happened.

A gust - and a revelation

... and its effect on Tajomaru

‘She looked like a goddess,’ Tajomaru recalls. He could not contain himself, so he rushed up to the samurai, pulling out his gleaming sword from its scabbard as he reached the startled man. Tajomaru gave the samurai some enticing rigmarole about having found hidden treasure—mirrors and swords—nearby, this magnificent sword being one of them. If the samurai wanted to have a look and buy one for himself, Tojamaru would be willing to show him the place.

Tajomaru spins a tale to entice the man

The samurai, though looking contemptuous of Tajomaru, left his wife and horse on the roadside, and followed Tajomaru up the mountainside, through to a grove where Tajomaru claimed to have hidden the loot. There, Tajomaru attacked him and tied him to a tree stump, before running back to the man’s wife and telling her that her husband was feeling ill.

At that, she let him take her hand and run with her towards the grove, ostensibly hurrying to get to the ‘sick’ husband; on the way, her hat caught on a branch and was left behind.

It was only when they reached the clearing and the wife saw her husband tied to the tree stump that she realized that something was wrong. She was a fierce woman, recalls Tajomaru; she pulled out a dagger and tried to attack him with it. That fierceness was what attracted him to her.

The woman tries to defend herself with a dagger

But fierce or not, she was overpowered by the bandit, who threw aside her dagger and kissed her. We see her hand, clawing at Tajomaru’s back, and then gradually softening, the violent self-defence turning into a passionate gripping.

Tajomaru kisses the woman - and she ends up kissing him back

Later, says Tajomaru, as he was leaving the clearing, the woman came running after him and threw herself at his feet. She would not be able to live with the fact that two men knew of her shame, she said. Tajomaru must untie her husband, so that they— Tajomaru and her husband—may fight it out. One man must die. She will go with the one who survives. Tajomaru agreed, and having freed the husband, crossed swords with him (“Twenty-three times!” Tajomaru says at the inquest, in grudging praise of the samurai’s swordsmanship. “Nobody has ever lived to cross swords with me more than twenty times.”)

The long and short of it is that Tajomaru finally managed to fell the samurai and stabbed him with his sword. But when he went looking for the woman, she had gone. At the inquest, he seems to be indifferent, if a little cynical, about that. Anyhow, he took the horse and the samurai’s weapons. The woman’s dagger? Oh, he forgot about that. What a stupid thing to do, it would have fetched a good price. 

Back at the gatehouse, with the rain still pouring down, the priest, the woodcutter and the stranger huddle around a small fire. The stranger agrees that Tajomaru is notorious not just as a bandit, but as a womanizer too; this story doesn’t come as too much of a surprise to him.

But it’s not over, the others tell him. Because, you see, the woman too was brought to the courthouse to testify. Fierce? No, she was not fierce at all. On the contrary, she was a timid and docile creature.

And the tale she had to tell was nothing like what Tajomaru said.

We are now shown the woman’s side of the story, beginning with after Tajomaru raped her. He goes, bounding triumphantly out of the clearing, and the woman, her hair dishevelled and her clothing half-undone, comes crawling and whimpering to where her husband still sits, tied to the tree stump. She bursts into tears, wrapping her arms around his neck and weeping—until she becomes aware of the lack of expected consolation.

The woman sees contempt in her husband's eyes

At the inquest, she recalls what she saw in her husband’s eyes. Not anger, not sorrow. But a coldness, a loathing. She pleaded with him, begged him not to look at her like that, to have pity; but no—he did not say a word, just kept staring at her contemptuously. Eventually, half-crazed with despair, the woman pulled out her dagger and slashed off the ropes that bound her husband. She held out the dagger to him, and begged him to kill her and be done with it. He did not accept her offer, and she, hands trembling, lifted the dagger…

Now, three days later, in the courthouse garden, she admits that she fainted. When she came to, her husband was dead, her dagger buried in his chest. She must have killed him in a daze that has wiped out that memory.   

The woman testifies

Tajomaru’s story, therefore, has—besides the fact of the rape—little in common with that of his victim. This isn’t the last of the witnesses, either: through a medium, the husband’s spirit too testifies—and his testimony is nothing like his wife’s (or Tajomaru’s). Who is lying, who is telling the truth? Who killed the samurai, what really happened in the grove near the road to Yamashina?

Comparisons, and what I liked about this film:

(Those two sections, which I usually keep separate, beg to be combined in this case, because there are several aspects of what makes Kurosawa’s film so admirable that have a direct bearing on its comparison to the story on which it was based).

As I’d mentioned at the start of this review, Kurosawa based this film on two stories by Ryunosuke Akutagawa; the main inspiration, though, is In a Bamboo Grove. In a Bamboo Grove consists entirely of testimonies by people: the woodcutter, the priest, the woman, the bandit Tajomaru, the woman’s dead husband speaking through a medium, the policeman who arrested Tajomaru, and (this is the only one missing from the film) the woman’s old mother, who explains who the man and his wife were.

In the film, from the point when the woodcutter begins recounting events to the newcomer, till the point when the dead man’s spirit gives it testimony, Kurosawa pretty much follows Akutagawa’s story, down to small details like the number of times the bandit crossed swords with the man before felling him. Kurosawa, however, sandwiches that core story between two other sections. One, the setting of the gatehouse, with the priest and woodcutter telling the newcomer about the incident. Two, a completely different end, which introduces yet another eye witness and yet another perspective, which was not in Akutagawa’s story.

Comparing the story to the film, I can’t help but be impressed at Kurosawa’s adaptation of it. In a Bamboo Grove is a good story, but it is an ambiguous one; Akutagawa, far from providing a resolution to the mystery, leaves his readers wondering what happened. If you’re not especially perceptive, you may pretty well miss the point of the story and end up feeling a little frustrated at the seeming lack of even a message, let alone a resolution.

What Kurosawa manages to do so skilfully is give the story context, and provide a message (though subtly). A mere series of testimonies, as in Akutagawa’s story, may well have been somewhat disjointed: using the priest and the woodcutter as the narrators (and commentators) and the stranger as a listener (also a very perceptive commentator) gives it a form more acceptable to a film audience. And, by bringing in a fourth story, not the three main ‘confessions’ of what had happened In a Bamboo Grove, Kurosawa extends the story to a slightly more conventional end, giving us a relatively clear idea of what really happened.

In the process, he also drives home the cynical message that, unstated, lies at the root of Akutagawa’s story: that mankind is selfish and deceitful. It’s apparent even if you only examine the confessions of the man, the bandit, and the woman: each of them tries to present themselves in the best light. The bandit, by boasting of his prowess as a lover (the woman begged him to take her with him) and as a fighter (the samurai, though skillful enough to last twenty-three rounds with Tajomaru, still ended up being defeated by him). The woman, by focussing on her own virtue (she wanted her husband to kill her after she was raped). The samurai… well, that I will leave for you to watch for yourself.

The bandit, the man, and his wife

The cinematography is excellent, the acting uniformly good. And Rashōmon is, all said and done, testimony enough to Kurosawa’s brilliance as a director. If you haven’t already seen this, do.

Advertisements

20 thoughts on “Rashōmon (1950)

  1. A very complex movie Madhu didi, and a wonderful review too! When I do watch the movie, I’ll use this review as a guide especially in places where I lose track of the plot.. Thank you didi!
    Hopefully I’ll be able to shake off my apprehension towards foreign films after this didi…. I don’t why I can only enjoy a movie when I can relate to it. But it’s wrong no didi? You miss out on so much.. So many perspectives. God!

    • “I don’t why I can only enjoy a movie when I can relate to it.

      That, of course, prompts me to ask: How do you know you won’t be able to relate to a movie unless you watch it? :-)

      The thing is, a lot of movies from outside India (or even, sometimes, from outside the Indian region we’re most familiar with) can be focussed on something so basic that anybody can relate to it. After all (unless you’re irreparably racist), you’d appreciate that all human beings are the same. They have the same emotions, they often have pretty much the same things that are considered ‘good’ or ‘bad’.

      That said, I’ve noticed that Asian media (not just cinema, but I’ve seen this of TV, especially) is what perhaps comes closest to what an Indian could relate to. For example, a few years back, I began watching South Korean TV series, and they’re like watching an old Hindi movie: rich, arrogant man crosses paths with a poor but feisty working girl. Initially, there’s much arguing, and then slowly they fall in love – and are immediately up against the hero’s disapproving wealthy parents/a scheming woman who wants him for himself, and sundry other villains. There will usually be life-threatening accidents, people suffering amnesia, and a huge internal tussle between duty and love. :-) All, despite the difference in language, something any Bollywood-loving Indian will like (incidentally, just about every Indian I’ve met who’s seen a good Korean drama has become addicted to the genre).

      But it’s wrong no didi?

      No, it isn’t wrong. Everybody is entitled to their opinion. :-) Rashomon, for one, is perhaps a movie I wouldn’t recommend to anyone who’d only seen Hindi cinema before – there are elements in it that might not sit well with someone unaccustomed to foreign cinema. (As an example, a small detail. The fact that the woman is shown as being extremely fashionable – because in medieval Japan, it was considered a sign of beauty for women to shave off their eyebrows and pencil in false eyebrows, which, to be honest, can look quite ridiculous to modern, non-Japanese eyes).

      • Thanks a lot for the advice didi! I get what you’re saying… But more than racism I think its more ignorance that prevents me from watching them didi.. And I’m still young so there’s no point in forming rigid opinions so soon :-)

        • Goodness, no. I did not at all mean to imply that you were racist. If that was how it came across, I apologize. Please don’t think I would think you capable of being racist – you don’t sound at all as if you would be narrow-minded about that. The ‘you’ was a generic ‘you’ – to apply to anybody, not specifically Rahul. I’m so sorry about that.

          • No no didi I did get what you were saying then. In fact what you said was a very crucial point.
            Satyajit Ray had written that when Pather Panchali was first released in the USA the audiences never understood why someone had to sit on the floor and eat using their fingers.. So I was trying to tell that this attitude cannot be called as racist.. Rather it should be ignorance.
            I know you won’t say such things didi :)

            • I am perfectly capable of saying such things, if it warrants it. Though I like to think I’d be a little subtle about it. ;-)

              That’s an interesting example you quote. Yes, sometimes ‘racism’ isn’t really that, but simple ignorance. And a lot of racism is also based on pure and simple ignorance.

  2. Rashomon is a brilliant film. When I watched it the first time, I was too young to appreciate the beauty of the multiple narratives. I remember feeling slightly annoyed and what’s worse, bored, by the whole thing. :) Much like you, Madhu, cinema, to me, meant ‘entertainment’ – in capitals.

    It took me years to revisit the film and to appreciate its craft. So I won’t blame Rahul for not taking to it. In fact, Rashomon is not a film I’d recommend to a youngling.

    And before I forget, your review was rivetting. It’s been ages now since I last watched this film, but you made me want to watch it again.

    • Thank you, Anu. Glad you enjoyed the review. :-)

      I watched Rashomon for the first time only a few years ago, and even then, I was disappointed. Not because I found it boring, but because the way it began had made me expect that it was going to turn out to be a whodunit. I remember feeling very deflated that it wasn’t (yes, as you can see, even I was looking for entertainment, at least in title case, if not all caps).

      I agree that this isn’t a film for someone young; it requires a good deal of maturity, the sort that comes from years and years of living, to appreciate its nuances.

    • Thank you, Harvey! I thought you’d already watched the movie. But if you haven’t, do – it’s well-deserving of all the accolades it receives. And so is Akutagawa’s story (which is, down to almost every detail, contained in the film).

      • I have watched it, even twice. I’m much afraid to watch it again, with the fear of getting saturated. I LOVE this film.
        The plot is so wonderfully woven, and the film is so beautifully filmed, the settings, the location, the rain, the sunlight filtering through the leaves of the trees in the forest, the play of shadows and light. It is as if the director is taling you seriously and has seen to it that everything sits and fits properly. It is like a journey with a well-versed guide. The film is like wholesome food, tasty, filling and leaves you with a tremondously deep satisfaction. In fact, it fills a void in you, which you didn’t know, that it existed. Simply a masterpiece!
        And I should say, that Kurosawa does it often.
        Bless his soul! Thank you, Maestro!

        • “the sunlight filtering through the leaves of the trees in the forest, the play of shadows and light.

          You know, that was what struck me, especially in one scene. When Toshiro Mifune’s character is lying on the ground, and the couple passes by, a breeze lifts the woman’s veil. When he’s recalling that at the inquest, he talks about the breeze. And how does Kurosawa show the breeze? Not by pointing the camera up at the trees and showing the leaves trembling (as most Indian directors at least would have done) but by showing the shadows of the leaves on the bandit’s face, the shadows shaking. I just thought that was so much subtle a way of showing it.

          Kurosawa is Kurosawa. Rightly said, Harvey. A maestro.

  3. A good review of an unforgettable classic.
    I am somewhat in agreement with some of the comments above that this may not be a film to recommend to someone who has never seen anything but boilerplate masala Hindi films. The question of whether it is not for youngsters as they may not be ‘mature enough’ for it is open to debate. It could be argued that such films tend to worm their way deep into our minds, whether we wish it or not, and the questions they inevitably raise, the ripples of disturbance they unfailingly create are a part of the ‘maturation’ process, a part of the process of growing up, of broadening horizons and, to use a current catch-phrase, of moving out of one’s comfort zone. A part of the process, in short, of learning to look at the world differently.

    Apropos Rashomon-like ambiguous films, may I request you review another masterpiece, Ingmar Bergman’s Persona, another of my favourites. True, much has been written about it, but there’s always more to be said.

    • I have to admit I’ve never watched an Ingmar Bergman film before, though I remember starting on The Seventh Seal a couple of years back – but perhaps I just wasn’t in the right frame of mind to persevere. I shall look out for Persona. Thanks for the recommendation.

      As for Rashomon not being (or being) suitable for young people, I should have explained that my comment was rather more specifically geared towards Rahul, who is 18 and admits that he’s wary of watching foreign films. I know where he’s coming from, somewhat – I had watched just a handful of foreign films (all of them those late night ones on Doordarshan) by the time I was that age, and barring a couple of them – the South Korean The Wedding Day and the Chinese Bubbling Springs – few of them had really impressed me. I had watched a lot of Hollywood and British cinema, though, and even then, when I first watched Rashomon (well into my thirties), I still didn’t much care for it. For someone as young as Rahul, and as unexposed to non-Indian cinema, I would suggest a more gradual ‘breaking in’ before getting to Rashomon. But yes, that is definitely open to debate, and it’s also very dependent upon the individual.

      • The Seventh Seal is a very good film, but, yes, heavy going as an introduction to Bergman’s oeuvre. Smiles Of A Summer Night (1955) is a much lighter, fluffier, and yet, wonderful film by Bergman. Having got your foot in at the door, as it were, you can go on to the heavy lifting (pardon the mixed metaphor) – Wild Strawberries, The Seventh Seal, Persona, the Through A Glass Darkly trilogy, etc.

        • Ah. Thank you! I have heard of Wild Strawberries, of course, but never of Smiles of a Summer Night. Sounds like fun – I shall put that on my list and perhaps tackle that before I take on Persona.

  4. Rashomon may have inspired quite a lot of multiple-perspective films but I think that aspect of it tends to get written about too much, bypassing the real theme as you noted: that human beings, despite their class differences, are very much the same at their base levels.

    Its Hollywood remake, ‘The Outrage (1964)’, is a surprisingly good one. Based on the play inspired by the original film (in which Rod Steiger played the bandit character), set in the American west, directed by Martin Ritt and starring his frequent collaborator Paul Newman as the Mexican bandit. Supported by a strong star cast of Lawrence Harvey, Claire Bloom, Howard Da Silva, a very young pre-Star Trek William Shatner, and in a totally awesome and unforgettable performance, Edward G. Robinson as the thief.

    Newman as a Mexican may sound ridiculous but he actually does it quite well. better than Charlton Heston, anyway. The film is rather restrained compared to the original, which derives from Kabuki theatre and consequently, a lot of acting is quite wild and exaggerated (the actress is particularly guilty of this). The final fight between Tajomaru and the samurai in the original is rather laughable, with a lot of stumbling and falling – it resembles a vaudeville comedy more than a serious but pathetic fight. In contrast, the remake does this better: the fight is between two reluctant men goaded into it by a woman and their hesitancy is conveyed well by their actions.

    Please check it out, you won’t regret it.

    • I haven’t seen The Outrage, but I have seen another Ritt-Newman collaboration, Hombre, which I remember liking – though it’s been such a long time since I saw it, I’m not sure what I would think of it if I watched it now. I will look out for The Outrage:it sounds good. Thank you for recommending it.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s