1. Honori Yamada
Senior Seminar 4
November 15, 2011
To what extent do you agree with the views of either Errol Morris or Roger Ebert with regard to
their views of truth and perception in the film Rashomon?
Perception is the state of awareness through the five senses: sight, sound, touch, taste, and
smell. Within perception, it is broadly composed of two elements of sensation and interpretation.
Since interpretation differs for each individual, it can be clearly stated that different people
perceive differently due to their experiences and their five senses. Ergo, it further makes it clear
that interpretations aredifferent from sensation, or what “is provided by the world” (Lagemaat
87). Rashomon, a film directed by Akira Kurosawa in 1915, is prominently known for a
debatable topic that portrays truth versus perception. In Rashomon, four characters of the
woodcutter, bandit, wife, and the samurai describes in thorough detail of what each of them
perceived of the murder of the samurai. From all accounts, there weretwo points which everyone
agreed upon;firstly, the wife of the samurai was raped by the bandit in the forest and secondly,
the samurai was murdered.However, besides the two matching points, all four characters
strangely explained different accounts. The difference in how each character explained their first
eye-witnessed stories fosters the audience to investigate the mysterious movie crime.Two men
who hold relatively opposite points of views on the truth and reality spectrum discuss in regards
to Rashomon. Errol Morris, who is an absolutist, believes that there is only one truth and that
truth is objective. Thus, Morris would most likely state that truth can never be determined from
the four witnesses since each reason were different. However Roger Ebert, who is a relativist,
believes that with reason, anyone can tell a truth and that truth is subjective. Thus, Ebert would
most likely state that truth can be revealed by examining all four accounts. Although Ebert‟s
point of view about truth and reality can in a way relate to Rashomon, the falsity in reaching the
absolute truth within the four witnesses portrays Morris‟ view on how through perception,
emotion, and reason, an absolute truth cannot be discovered.
Morris‟ viewpoint is similar to Plato‟s viewpoint in which they both agree that truth is
absolute and that there is only one truth. Morris defines truth as a “…continual process of
looking at and looking for evidence, trying to figure out what the evidence means.” (The
Believer) This clearly indicates how Morris believes that evidence is the key to justifying truth,
not motive. In Rashomon, Morris would state that none of the four witnesses‟ reasons are
reliable since their reasons were all different. Moreover, different motives arose from the impact
of uncertain perception. Morris believes that perception can at times be deceiving and thus,
people should not completely rely merely on perception. Furthermore, Morris suggests that
people should not believe in what they perceive since he supports the theory of scientific realism.
He believes that “everything that you see has been controlled by some central authority” (The
Believer) and that “the world exists as an independent reality and it is very different from the
way we perceive it” (Lagemaat 100). However, simply because Morris does not believe any of
the reasons does not mean he does not believe in truth. In fact, Morris believes that“there is such
a thing as truth, but we have a vested interest in not seeing it, in avoiding it” (The Believer) due
1

2. Honori Yamada
Senior Seminar 4
November 15, 2011
to ultimate reality. In other words, Morris believes there is truth in the crime, but it would be
merely impossible to find the truth without having evidence.
However, Ebert would argue against Morris since Ebert believes that reason is the key to
finding truth. By examining Plato‟s theory of knowledge equals justified, truth, and belief, Ebert
would state that motive can be justified as truth. In other words, Ebert‟s point of view supports
the idea of how people need a reason to believe something. Thus, Ebert would agree with the
idea that seeing is believing if there is reason and explanation. In Rashomon, since Ebert believes
that it is “human nature to listen to witnesses and decide who is telling the truth” (Ebert),
hewould most likely examine and accept all four witnesses‟ perception and emotions and then
further judge for the best reason. Although by using Ebert‟s view, an accurate truth can never be
certain since he depends on other people‟s ambiguous perception and emotion, this system is
mostly used in today‟s society. For examplein trials, a judge would simply make a verdict
through group consensus amongst the juries.Similarly, Ebert believes that sufficient experiences
and data through inductive reasoning, or going from particular to general, is the best way to
determine truth (Lagemaat 120). As a result, Ebert‟s point of view can also be reasonable in
regards to Rashomon‟s crime since it is more ethical as Ebert‟s idea focuses more onfinding the
motive for a crime.
Despite the fact that Ebert‟s idea is used more frequently in real life, Morris would
further argue that the importance is not to find the reason, but to find the actual truth. Morris
would argue that in the film, the actual truth cannot be determined through examining other
people‟s perception and emotion since both ways of knowing have limitations of uncertainty.
Contrasting to Ebert, Morris would go against the idea that seeing is believing. Morris believes
that “images are not reality” (The Believer)since each individual obtains different mental maps
and thus people should not believe what they perceive. These mental maps further cause people
to make different interpretations from what they actually perceive. One example of how mental
maps cause people to make inaccurate interpretation is through expectation (Lagemaat 90). Since
people already have mental maps, they „expect‟ to see specific results, and thuspeople can
interpret wrongly. Going against Ebert‟s idea that motive can be justified, Morris would rebuttal
by stating that one cannot find the truth since one can neverknow if it is true. Furthermore,
Morris would conclude by stating that that truth of the crime in Rashomoncan never be revealed
through the use of evidence, reason, and limited perception.
Since Ebert‟s viewpoint of examining truth through motive, emotion, and perception can
result to high uncertainty, Morris‟ viewpoint of the impossibility in resolving the truth in
Rashomon best suits in conclusion to the film. Since the general examining of reason,emotion,
and perception vary within each individual, truth cannot be dependent to any of these aspects. In
relation to Rashomon, there were four different first-eye witnesses which each clearly showed
high uncertainty. Ergo, like Morris would agree, truth is independent from motive and belief and
that finding the absolute truth of the crime in Rashomon would merely be impossible without
2

3. Honori Yamada
Senior Seminar 4
November 15, 2011
evidence. Today, a problem faced in societyis how most decisions and statements are made
based on Ebert‟s motive view. This can cause people to become unconsciously unaware of the
everyday misinterpretations and inaccurate decisions they make.
Work Cited:
Lagemaat van de, Richard.Theory of Knowledge for the IB diploma.Cambridge University Press
2005.Textbook.
“Interview with Errol Morris.” Interview by Errol Morris., The Believer Apr. 2004. Web.
Ebert, Robert. “Rashomon :: Rogerebert.com :: Great Movies.” Rogerebert.com :: Movie
Reviews, Essays and the Movie Answer Man from Film Critic Roger Ebert., 26 May
2002. Web. 17. Nov. 2011.
3