Rashomon by Kurosawa

Life is not as we are taught, but rather learning which are the questions we should ask. This is very well reflected in two diverse yet influential mediums of expression one, a polemical essay by Terry Eagleton and another a riveting psychological Japanese thriller, Rashomon by Kurosawa.

Terry Eagleton's essay questions all of the definitions of literature that have been proposed, as well as our basic understanding of literature. He rejects the notion of a "basic understanding" of what constitutes literature. He begins by defining literature as imaginative writing. Eagleton raises the question of fact vs. fiction. Some tend to believe that literature is “imaginative” writing; putting therefore literature in opposition to factual and historical writing. Yet this distinction has some flaws, and one of the best examples is the one provided by Terry Eagleton when he says that “Superman comics” are fiction but not regarded as literature.

Literature differs from everyday 'normal' speech because it employs the language in unusual ways. A mismatch between the signifier and the signified is referred to as a disproportion between the signifier and the signified. The language draws attention to itself by introducing peculiarity. The formalists began by viewing the literary work as a more or less arbitrary assemblage of "devices," and only later came to see these devices as interconnected elements or "functions" within a larger textual system. These devices were used in literature to 'defamiliarize' or 'estrange' the reader. By disassociating or alienating us from the text or ordinary speech, we gain a more complete understanding, a kind of revelation, or the same experience. The formalists regarded literature as a 'special' kind of language in contrast to the 'ordinary' language that we commonly use which Eagleton opposed.

When we read a poem about a woman as lovely as a rose, we learn about women and love in general. As a result, we regard literature as non-pragmatic/practical in comparison to a physics textbook and dismiss literature as something hard-nosed. The problem with this method of defining is that a text's non-practicality cannot be defined objectively. That is, it is dependent on how the reader prefers to read the text.

For information or prose style, a reader may prefer to read Gibbon's account of the Roman Empire. As a result, there is no essence of literature, according to Eagleton, because any writing can be read non-pragmatically. Eagleton contends that the value of any writing is determined by the literary canon or authority that bestows it and that this value is subject to change.

In his conclusion, Eagleton analyses the definition of literature from a pathological perspective and states that for him a letter written by his mother will hold a value higher than any piece of writing by Shakespeare. Only admiring the canons and epics and holding them in high regard shouldn’t be implied to everyone and the choice to read anything should be a subjective decision. He suggests that anyone’s resonation with the literature is backed by situational and sociological.

Similarly, in Rashomon, Kurosawa investigates the nature of truth and the meaning of justice. The plotline of the movie dramatizes the tension between the objective world and subjective perceptions of reality or truth positions. In the film, four people connote different narratives of a man’s murder and the rape of his wife which director Akira presents with graphic imagery and striking use of flashbacks.

Its main dramatic incident – the violation of a noblewoman and the murder of her samurai husband in a secluded forest and the multiple attempts to get to the elusive truth behind who perpetrated the crimes was influenced by the 1922 story ‘In a Grove’.

Kurosawa in his screenplay eludes on four testimonies that do not match. It is human nature to listen to witnesses and decide who is telling the truth, but the first words of the screenplay, spoken by the woodcutter, are "I just don't understand."

His problem is that he has heard the same events described by all three participants in three different ways which innately protect the egos of the persons who are related to them.

Brimming with action while examining the nature of truth, "Rashomon" is perhaps the greatest film ever to investigate the philosophy of justice. In film theory, film cameras admirably and faithfully record everything they are pointed at and since they are usually pointed at real things, we perceive we can believe what we see. Through an ingenious use of camera and flashbacks, Kurosawa reveals the complexities of human nature as four people recount different versions of the story of a man's murder and the rape of his wife. Even those who have not seen Kurosawa’s original remember the psychological term the ‘Rashomon effect’, used to describe the conflicting accounts and descriptions of certain events by undependable eyewitnesses.

But the film takes the cake as it plays with perspective, without losing sight of the central story or themes. It is so much more than a story about crime told from different perspectives. That, in itself, could have been enough, but this film adds a striking and appealing philosophical depth that makes it into the classic masterpiece that it is.

He constructs and deconstructs moral ambiguity, the nature of good and evil and the essence of man. The characters base their take on the events that unfolded on their own assumptions, personal motives, gains, losses and the society at large. The final scenes provide the string that ties it all together and shows us faith, hope, despair and redemption in both dialogue and image.

The film relies on first-person eyewitness narratives that differed radically one of them coming from beyond the grave. It ended with three confessed killers and no solution.

It does so in a seemingly simple way and it certainly isn't obvious from the start just how deep this film is willing to dig.

It’s main strength is our faith that we'll get to the bottom of things even though the woodcutter tells us at the outset he doesn't understand, and if an eyewitness who has heard the testimony of the other three participants doesn't understand, why should we expect to? Thus, the fundamental contention that the film deals with is who knows who is truthful and who is without guilt?

The message of "Rashomon" is that we should suspect even what we think we have seen, and this too exudes in Eagleton’s essay in a way that we should suspect even what we think we have read.

Catechizing and not accepting easy answers is what makes us human and invigorates us to stay curious and seek truth.

In Rashomon, it exudes through the director’s examination of different perspectives about an event and in what is literature the writer’s analysis of definitions over centuries over a subject. Multiple incomplete observations show different narratives about what to believe.

Even though there might not be a definite definition for literature in Eagleton’s essay or an established murderer in Rashomon our desire to seek answers and truth shouldn’t be ceased. This insight is central to both the artist’s philosophy.

Thus, both the pieces substantially evaluate the aspects of reality and truth value of narrativizing individual experience, especially the subjective biases, angles and positions behind the objective criteria of human understanding.