1. Josiah Spears
Period 5
Mr. Clover
Nov. 16, 2011
Rashomon: Absolute or Relative Truth
Why is Rashomonsuch a renowned and highly acclaimed film? Most would agree
that Rashomon’s forte is definitely not its “astounding” black and white graphics or the
“breathtaking” ease and effectiveness of the actors. The factors that caused
Rashomon’ssuccess are the topic it covered and the method and point of view from which
it was covered. Rashomonexplores the intriguing yet controversial topics of truth and
reality and the corrupt nature of humans by presenting the viewer with four different
accounts of a murder, each contradicting each other. The beauty of this film is that at the
end it forces the viewer to choose a verdict for himself thus, ultimately prompting the
viewer to ponder over the deep concept of truth and reality. Because of this,
Rashomonhas been a subject of heated debate. The main two views of this film are
separately advocated by Errol Morris and Roger Ebert. Ebert, a movie critic, strongly
supports the relativist’s view of truth about Rashomon. Morris, a movie director,
passionately promotes the absolutist view of truth, which is that there is only one truth.
Although Ebert’s relativistic point of view may be more practical in every day life,
Morris’s absolutist view more appropriately relates to Rashomonwhen Rashomon is
compared to Plato’s definition and justified true belief and one views the fallacies of
perception and emotions as solely ways of knowing.
Morris openly expresses his disregard of and opposition against the relativist’s
view when he strongly states, “This idea that there is no reality, that truth is up for grabs,
or that truth is subjective, I find foolish and unappetizing”(Interview with Errol Morris).
Clearly, Morris believes in truth and ultimate reality and thus would agree for the most
part with Plato and his definition of truth. Plato’s explanation of truth states that truth is
independent of people, is eternal, and is universal. The primary part of Plato’s definition
of truth that applies to Rashomonis the part that truth is independent of people. Morris
expresses his belief in this when he says, “Just thinking something does not make it
so”(Interview with Errol Morris). Truth is truth no matter what people think about the
truth. Although almost every one in the Middle Ages thought that the earth was the center
of the universe, this did not make it true; in fact, it was false. The testimonies in
Rashomonor what any of the characters believe is truth does not at all affect the reality
that somehow the samurai was killed and that someone did it. The character’s testimonies
are only there as tools to guide the viewer to the best verdict but in no way affect the
truth. To the relativists that say that truth is up for grabs in Rashomon, Morris would
reply by stating, “I believe in the real world, Just like there’s a fact of the matter of
whether there was an attack on August 4th [1964] in the Gulf of Tonkin. It’s not up for
grabs” (Interview with Errol Morris).For the most part, events in history either happened
or they did not, although perspectives on the outcomes and affects could vary immensely.
For example, George Washington was either the first President of the United States of
America, or he was not; there is know middle ground. Morris would apply this concept to
Rashomonby saying that the bandit either killed the samurai or he did not; there is no
middle ground there. The woodcutter either killed the samurai, or he did not and so on.
The concept that an event happened or did not happen coheres to most people’s mental
maps because they have been conditioned by their schooling that certain events “without
a doubt” happened and by the code of law of their countries that people are guilty or not

2. Josiah Spears
Period 5
Mr. Clover
Nov. 16, 2011
guilty. Thus, it is logical and natural to most people to assume that there is an absolute
truth to Rashomon. This coherence will cause many people to believe that there is an
absolute truth and also gives them good justification for believing so. The fact that the
statement there is an absolute truth in Rashomon is true, along with justification and
belief, proves that Morris’s view is most likely true because he has justified true belief.
Ebert would certainly try to poke holes in Morris’s argument by pointing out that
Morris has not and cannot come to a direct and absolute conclusion to the story and that
he does not consider how the people’s different perspectives changed their reality. Morris
would respond to the latter complaint by saying, “ It’s a movie about how everybody sees
the world differently. But the claim that everybody sees the world differently is not a
claim that there’s no reality”(Interview with Errol Morris). Just because people have
different views of the world does not mean that there are different realities but merely
means that they may have a different way of interpreting reality but that does not change
truth or reality because reality is independent of humans. Also, the characters in
Rashomoncould have experienced fallacies in their perspective because of visual illusions
or different factors like that. Also, their perspectives could have been affected by their
emotions, especially in the case of the wife who had just been raped. Their perspectives
could also have been affected by their motives like the woodcutter who had a confused
perspective probably as a cover to his greedy desire for the dagger. Morris argues that
motive could affect people’s perspective when he emphatically proposes,“There is such a
thing as truth, but we have a vested interest in not seeing it, in avoiding it” (Interview
with Errol Morris). However, Morris does not believe that motive is apart of JTB but just
a factor in people’s perspectives. To Ebert’s argument that Morris cannot come to an
absolute truth about who was the murder, Morris would reply by saying, “that you know
what really happened at the end. It’s pretty damn clear”(Interview with Errol Morris).The
proof he used to come to his conclusion was probably eyewitness and confirmation by
another because the bandit was accused of committing the murder in two testimonies; no
one else was. Personally, I do not see clear-cut ending to Rashomon; however, this does
not at all weaken or undermine Morris’s argument at all. Morris supports this point when
he says, “We may not have all the evidence in hand in order to adjudicate the question,
but underneath the question there’s a physical reality” (Interview with Errol
Morris).Although it is not apparent which person committed the murder, this does imply
and one should not infer that there is no reality. There is a reality and truth in Rashomon;
I just believe that there is not enough evidence to come to that truth.
As a relativist, Roger Ebert believes and argues that there is not an absolute truth
in Rashomon and he does argue some persuasive points. Ebert argues, “What he doesn't
understand is that while there is an explanation of the film's four eyewitness accounts of a
murder, there is not a solution”(Ebert: Rashomon Review). Ebert’s view is very practical
and at a quick glance seems to be the most logical answer because no solution to
Rashomon is evident. Morris would counter this argument by saying that just because a
solution is not evident does not mean that there is not an absolute solution; he would say
we do not have to have the evidence to fully approach the ultimate truth because evidence
is not a prerequisite of truth or knowledge. Ebert also argues, “the genius of Rashomon is

3. Josiah Spears
Period 5
Mr. Clover
Nov. 16, 2011
that all of the flashbacks are both true and false. True, in that they present an accurate
portrait of what each witness thinks happened. False, because as Kurosawa observes in
his autobiography, "Human beings are unable to be honest with themselves about
themselves” (Ebert: Rashomon Review). Although this is a valid point that the people
may think their perspective is true because it is true in their understanding does not mean
that it is truth because according to Plato’s definition of truth, truth is independent of
people. The characters in Rashomon’swere probably affected by confirmation bias and
rationalization. Ebert would include motive as a way of knowing and as a part of JTB;
however, Morris would disagree with this because he would say that we cannot
completely know motive. Ebert’s relativistic chance is logical and relevant for every day
life, but Morris’s view has even a better counter argument to Ebert’s points.
Overall, both Morris’s absolutist view and Ebert’s relativists view have strengths
and weaknesses; although Morris’s view seems to have more support from theory and a
little less weaknesses then Ebert’s. Morris’s view lacks flexibility and in life would
probably be less effective then Ebert’s view. However, I believe that Morris’s view better
supports the movie, and it does not hurt his view that one of the greatest authorities on
truth, Plato, agrees with him. Morris’s view coheres to most people’s mental maps and
also is Justified True Belief. Ebert’s view does not cohere to Plato’s definition of truth
but that is not necessarily a weakness because Plato’s theory on truth is not flawless as
well. The main weakness in Ebert’s argument is the fallacies of perception and emotions
as ways of knowing as well as examples like the one about George Washington was or
was not President.The strengths of Ebert’s argument are that there is no obvious ending
or truth to Rashomonand that his theory is flexible and practical. However, with the
evidence and theory backing Morris’s absolute view on Rashomon, his argument is the
stronger and more persuasive of the two.
Works Cited
“Interview with Errol Morris”
“Ebert: Rashomon Review”