Wednesday, December 27, 2006
Solving the Mystery of the Rashomon Gate
The IFC puts on essential movies back to back on Tuesdays, sponsored by the middling wine from Australia, Yellowtail. Last night they had a trifecta of Akira Kurosawa's Rashomon, Jean Renoir's The Rules of the Game (in the top 3 French movies ever) and Wild Strawberries (perhaps not Ingmar Bergman's best, but the one I like best because the main character reminds me of my maternal grandfather, who was a country doctor).
However, let's stick with Rashomon, which has become an icon not only of movies but of popular culture because of its four part retelling of a story, each from a different perspective and each version quite different from the other. Generally after first viewing, you are thinking which of the four versions was the 'correct' one. I urge you not to think along those lines, because after about my 5th viewing I think I have come up with a reality test for the competing versions, with which you can piece together a viable composit. Some say key on the woman's dagger, a beautiful Aikuchi Tanto. But I say concentrate on the man's Japanese sword, the Katana. Here's why.
There is a real time, actual happening part of the movie, the part in the rain under the eves of the partially wrecked gate, when the priest and woodcutter muse on the testimony they heard at the prison, and retell it to the wet newcomer, the unconvincingly laughing man. I also think the woodcutter's initial testimony and the priest's, of course, are reliable. The rest is very suspect. OK, cutting to the chase, follow what happens to the Japanese sword (not Mifune's 'Korean' sword). If the version of the story doesn't have it going off, in its case, with Mifune after the rape murder, then there could be something wrong with that version.
Of course, Mifune has it on his back when he drinks from the stream and then doesn't have it when he's captured because stomach distress from the stream has felled him. Did he also drink up the proceeds of the sold sword between the time he drank from the stream and the time he falls from his horse in dire straits? That's what he said he did. Is he believable on that?
The priest is very strong on the medium's version of the story, asking why would a dead man lie? but I would remind you that there are no true spirit mediums and no way to contact the dead. They're gone--silence only follows from the dead--so there is no version from the husband.
Final question--what is the weird smile on the face of the woodcutter as he leaves with the baby? I don't want to even think about what that means.
However, let's stick with Rashomon, which has become an icon not only of movies but of popular culture because of its four part retelling of a story, each from a different perspective and each version quite different from the other. Generally after first viewing, you are thinking which of the four versions was the 'correct' one. I urge you not to think along those lines, because after about my 5th viewing I think I have come up with a reality test for the competing versions, with which you can piece together a viable composit. Some say key on the woman's dagger, a beautiful Aikuchi Tanto. But I say concentrate on the man's Japanese sword, the Katana. Here's why.
There is a real time, actual happening part of the movie, the part in the rain under the eves of the partially wrecked gate, when the priest and woodcutter muse on the testimony they heard at the prison, and retell it to the wet newcomer, the unconvincingly laughing man. I also think the woodcutter's initial testimony and the priest's, of course, are reliable. The rest is very suspect. OK, cutting to the chase, follow what happens to the Japanese sword (not Mifune's 'Korean' sword). If the version of the story doesn't have it going off, in its case, with Mifune after the rape murder, then there could be something wrong with that version.
Of course, Mifune has it on his back when he drinks from the stream and then doesn't have it when he's captured because stomach distress from the stream has felled him. Did he also drink up the proceeds of the sold sword between the time he drank from the stream and the time he falls from his horse in dire straits? That's what he said he did. Is he believable on that?
The priest is very strong on the medium's version of the story, asking why would a dead man lie? but I would remind you that there are no true spirit mediums and no way to contact the dead. They're gone--silence only follows from the dead--so there is no version from the husband.
Final question--what is the weird smile on the face of the woodcutter as he leaves with the baby? I don't want to even think about what that means.
# posted by Roger Fraley @ 5:50 PM 
