 |
| Machiko Kyō in Rashomon (1950) Japanese Film |
The
Philosophy of Justice in Rashomon (1950)
Md.
Robiul Islam
Abstract: This
is a critical film review or textual analysis of the film ‘Rashomon’ (1950) directed
by Akira Kurosawa. This review is about the inner psychic drivers of human
nature especially in the nature of the human acted in ‘Rashomon’. From the point
of view, the review will lead and deconstruct the most primitive
characteristics of the characters, philosophy of justice in the movie and the
psychoanalysis according the similar theoretical keywords. The movie deals with
reconstructive nature of human memory. It is a philosophical film.
Keywords: Desire. Id, Ego, Super ego,
Scopophilia, Langue and parole, Knowledge and Power, Ideology
The woodcutter : I don’t understand … I just don’t
understand.
Tajomaru : I know sooner or later
you’ll have my neck, so I’m not
going to
hide anything. It was this Tajomaru who killed
that
man.
The priest : I have seen so many men
getting killed like insects, but
even I
have never heard a story as horrible as this.
The woman : I saw my dagger in my dead
husband’s chest.
The woman
: Please, kill him. while he
is alive I cannot go with you.
The woodcutter : There was no dagger… He was killed
by a sword.
The commoner : You may have fooled the court,
but not me. So, what did
you do
with the dagger? The valuable one with the pearl
inlay.
‘Rashomon’ is
perhaps the finest film ever to investigate the philosophy of justice. Kurosawa
reveals the complexities of human nature as four people recount different
versions of the story for a man’s murder and the rape of his wife.
The real gift of ‘Rashomon’ is in
its emotions and visuals. Dialogue could not carry the weight and actors used
their faces, eyes and gestures to express emotion.
The genius of ‘Rashomon’ is 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. They cannot talk about themselves without
embellishing.’
Shortly before filming was to begin
on ‘Rashomon’, Akira Kurosawa’s three assistant directors came to see him. They
were unhappy. They did not understand the story. He told them, ‘If you read it
diligently, you should be able to understand it because it was written with the
intention of being comprehensive.’ They would not leave. ‘We believe we have
read it carefully and we still don’t understand it at all. The film’s engine is
our faith that we will get to the bottom of things. Even though the woodcutter
tells us at the outset he does not understand, and if an eyewitness who has
heard the testimony of the other three participants, does not understand why
should we expect to?
From
Previous Literature:
The main philosophical matter of
the film ‘Rashomon’ is the investigation that who has killed the samurai.
According to the filmic visuals, the three participants have committed
themselves as killers. But there is no actual clue that who the definite person
has killed the man. The bandit Tajomaru
has admitted that he has killed that man. The woman admitted herself that for
her the samurai or her husband has been killed. On the other hand the samurai
admitted that he has killed himself. They tell the same event in their own
contradictory ways. So, it is very difficult to understand the reality that who
has killed that man. The main issues related to the investigation are the man
stabbed, the rope cut, the woman fled, the horse and weapons stolen by the
bandit and the dagger missing. In the court the bandit, the woman, the dead man
through a medium, the woodcutter and the priest all have given witness. The
woodcutter and the priest have heard all the witnesses. But they don’t
understand it at all. Especially the priest has lost his faith in the human
soul that he has never heard such a horrible story in the past. How can man
tell such kind of lie?
Theoretical
Framework:
The study employs textual analysis
of the film ‘Rashomon’ to understand
the philosophy of justice in the movie where Freudian model of psyche,
especially id, ego, super ego and
Michel Foucault’ knowledge and power,
Ferdinand de Saussure’s structuralism especially langue and parole, Laura
Mulvey’s feminist psychoanalysis especially Scopophilia
and Louis Althuser’s Ideology are used mainly.
Desire
leading crime:
Sigmund Freud first divides the
psyche into two parts; the unconscious and the conscious. Here the conscious is
the part that relates to the external world, while the unconscious is the site
of instinctual drives. Sigmund Freud (1973) argues that the most important
instinctual drives are sexual. These are redirected in unconscious process of
sublimation. Other three parts are id, ego and super ego. Id is filled with
energy reaching it from the instincts, but it has no organization, produces no
collective will, but only a striving to bring about the satisfaction of the
instinctual needs subject to the observance of the pleasure principle (Freud,
1973b:106). The id wants desires satisfied regardless of the claims of culture.
We find the similarity of the instinctual drives in the bandit Tajomaru.
Tajomaru : I thought I saw a
goddess.
Here all the desires are hidden.
After the wind blowing, he saw the samurai’s wife. Then this desire leads him
to commit crime. As id is pleasure principle desire is also pleasure principle.
And ego or super ego is reality principle that resemble among the characters in
the scenes.
Tajomaru : Stop it, Don’t bully
her. Women are weak by nature.
The Woman : It’s you who are weak. If
you are my husband, why don’t
you kill
this man?
Laura Mulvey (1975) explains about
scopophilia and male gaze. Scopophilia is sexual. In Rashomon the woman is the
object of male (Tajomaru) desire. She more explains that in a world structured
by ‘sexual imbalance’ the pleasure of the gaze has been separated into two
distinct positions; men look and women exhibit ‘to-be-looked-at-ness. Women are
therefore crucial to the pleasure of the male gaze.
Tajomaru :
Your husband has taken sick.
: I beg you to be my
wife. The notorious bandit Tajomaru is
begging you on his
hands and knees.
Langue-Parole
and Justice-Performance:
Rashomon is the best example of a philosophical
film. The philosophy of justice is the main investigative matter of this film.
But if we deconstruct it with the theory of structuralism of Ferdinand de
Saussure, it will easy to us to divide the whole film into two parts according
to the structuralism theory. Ferdinand
de Saussure makes a distinction that has proved essential to the development of
structuralism. This is the division of language into Langue and Parole. Langue
refers to the system of language, the rules and conventions that organize it.
Parole refers to the individual utterance, the individual use of language. The
first is structure and the second is performance. In the film, we will imagine
the court or the justice is structure or rules or system and the characters
paying their role in the zone; it is their performance. The rules have been
created for the performers. When the court took the witness from the characters
it is its structure on the contrary the characters play role, it is their
performance.
Tajomaru : I know sooner or later
you’ll have my neck,
So I am
not going to hide anything.
: It is
this Tajomaru who killed that man.
Knowledge
and Power:
Michel Foucault explains that
knowledge is always a weapon of power; It is in discourse that power and
knowledge are joined together (Foucault, 2009:318). He also explains that power
produces knowledge. Power and knowledge directly imply one another (1979:27).
Power produces reality, through discourses it produces the ‘truths’ (Foucault,
2002a:131). In Rashomon Akira Kurosawa has created several scenes that resemble
with the theory of Michel Foucault. In Rashomon Tajomaru does discourse in such
a way that if it is real and the samurai follow him for the power of the
reality or truth. Actually the samurai took bandit’s discourse as reality. And
the bandit in such a way describes the discourse that is his power.
Tajomaru : There are some ruins over
there. When I dug up the mound,
I found a
heap of swords and mirrors. I buried them in a
grove
behind the mountain so no one else would find them.
If you are interested, I’ll sell
them to you cheap.
: Your husband
has taken sick.
Both of the above scenes are knowledge and reality
based. At first the samurai thinks may be there are many swords and mirrors in
the grove. And the woman also thinks similarly that his husband is really sick.
The knowledge Tajomaru has is his power and he produces reality with the power.
Foucault (2009) more points out that where there is power there is resistance.
There are resemblances of the theory with the senses of the Rashomon film.
The Woman : What I saw in them was
neither anger nor sorrow, but a
cold
light, a look of loathing.
The Woman : It’s you who are weak. If
you are my husband, why don’t
you kill this man?
: Just
remember; A woman loves a man who loves
passionately.
After that dialogue the last fight was started
between the bandit and the samurai.
A
Philosophical representation:
‘Rashomon’ is the philosophical representation
using ideology. Whole film has several flashbacks that are the divisions of the
representation system. It is also an ideology. Louis Althusser points out,
ideology is a system of representation (images, myths, ideas or concepts).
Ideology is unconscious. (1969:23). The film is a representation of
philosophical ideology. The whole film is started with the dialogue of the
woodcutter that ‘I don’t understand and after that the priest tells that this
time, I may finally lose my faith in the human soul. But the last dialogue of
the priest was I think I can keep my faith in human. There are huge concepts or
ideology or images or ideas that make the whole film as a philosophical
representation.
The
Philosophy of Justice:
The whole film is about the philosophy of justice
of a murder and a rape case. In the court everyone gives their own opinion and
witness in a contradictory way. And their ideas or thinks don’t resemble with
others. The four participants give their witness. The woodcutter also gives
opinion but he did not want to involve with the case. One reason can be his
taking the missing dagger that is valuable with the pearl inlay. But his
witness is something neutral because he tells that there was no dagger and the
samurai was killed by a sword So that the dagger can be hidden. And no one can
ask about this. But at the eleventh hour of the film, we can know the real
position of the dagger.
The woodcutter : Everyone is selfish and dishonest. The bandit,
the woman
and
you(the commoner).
The commoner : you may have fooled the court,
but not me.
: So what
did you do with the dagger?
: The
valuable one with the pearl inlay.
But this is not a clue to investigate the whole
event or to identify that who is the murderer because everyone is giving their
own witness and these are different from other’s witness and the story is also
contradictory. But the visuals and the performances of the characters their
emotions are very important to investigate the philosophy of the film. In the
jungle, when the woodcutter was walking towards the mountains three days ago,
this scene is something durable. But why? The jungle is silent and another point
is that the jungle is very big. A vast jungle and it is silent. So, it provides
a message that when the samurai walking with his wife ridding on horse, he
looks the bandit and thinks that this jangle would be horrible as it silent all
around.
The whole film is made with visual complexities
played by the characters in a court. The performer’s contradictory opinion is
the main philosophy of the movie. Though for the first time in this movie
flashback is used several times. And the state is differentiated with sunny and
rainy days. At the present time the film is started with rainy day but past
moments are started with sunny days. The audiences can find the present and
past easily. It is also important in the movie.
Conclusion:
Desire leads Tajomaru to involve with the murder
and the rape case. Before he did not know about it as it is instinctual drive
that does in unconscious process. But the main philosophical investigation is
why the woman and the samurai admitted themselves as guilty. The woodcutter’s
witness something neutral he also tells lie. So investigation philosophy of the
film is very different alike the woodcutter told I don’t understand. But he is
a eye witness. If he cannot understand why should we expect to?
Akira Kurosawa has uplifted the difference of
human nature in this film. At first I have described about this. Kurosawa told
that ‘Human
beings are unable to be honest with themselves about themselves. They cannot
talk about themselves without embellishing.’
References
1.
The Guardian (2010) link https://www.theguardian.com/film/2010/jun/17/rashomon-kurosawa-film-review
3.
Washington post (2009) link http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/12/AR2009111207944.html?noredirect=on
14. http://www.philly.com/philly/entertainment/movies/20091120_Kurosawa_s_classic_mystery_retold_from_four_perspectives.html
