Akira
Kurosawa likes to play with the ideas of truth and identity. Two perfect examples of this are his films Rashomon and Ikiru. Though both films are very different in content Kurosawa
uses similar techniques in order to set the stage for two questions. Who are we
and what is truth? The narrative arch creates a language for these questions so
that they might be asked indirectly, through silent implication. He uses distinctive
shots and the motives of his characters to present the viewer with his message,
but forces them to participate in finding the answer. The major techniques Kurosawa
uses are flashback storytelling and point of view. Both techniques are present
in Rashomon and Ikiru, but used very differently just so they can promote the same
ideals. These films examine human decision and what it says about who we are
when we make choices that are out of the realm of acceptable.
Takashi Shimura stars in both of these Kurosawa gems. Ikiru, 1952, begins with a shot of an ex-ray. It says that this is an image of the stomach cancer that will kill the protagonist, but he does not know that yet. The viewer gets to watch as Shimura’s character Mr. Wantanabe deals with his sickness once he learns of it. He faces the fact that his choices have made him a life where he is the equivalent of someone already dead. He realizes by hearing this that he must make some changes. He cannot die without making some kind of effort. He eventually decides he is going to help a group of women who’ve come to his office. They want to build a park in their neighborhood. After letting all those women get sent through the bureaucratic run around he stands up and offers a hand. He chooses to help them rather than just pass them on from department to department. Not one person around him understands why. It is in this change and how it’s treated that we are delivered our two main questions. What does Watanabe’s change in character say about him? What does his choice to help the women say about him?
The second question, what is truth, comes out through the second half of the film. In the middle of the story we cut to after Watanabe has died. The viewer isn’t privy to story in a linear fashion. We get to see it through the eyes of the people who knew him. We arrive at the man’s funeral. The park has been built, but the people recounting the process in which it came to be are full of bias and speculate wildly about the deceased man’s motivations. They don’t know the full story, because they never bothered to ask, not that they would have listened. Only a few men recall Watanabe in a good light, as a determined man who wouldn’t take no for an answer and others recount him as a fool. Which is true? What were his motivations? Unlike Rashomon in this film the viewer has been given the truth, but are forced to watch as Watanabe’s coworkers try to make sense of what this old sickly man was trying to do. By reflecting on his actions these coworkers are able for a brief moment to see the error of their ways. To realize that our choices can lead us down very dark paths, and our inaction can kill us even before we are truly dead. Thus we see Kurosawa present us with the two questions yet again. What is the truth, which version of Watanabe was the real one? What do our choices mean, what do they say about us?
Rashomon, 1950, was around Kurosawa’s twenty-third film, and both of the aforementioned problems come about in this film much like they did in Ikiru but for an entirely different narrative purpose. What is truth, through point of view, and what do our choices say about us, through flashbacks. The film begins with a priest, a woodcutter, and another man forced to take refuge form a rainstorm under the Rashomon ruins. Shimura played the woodcutter, who begins the narrative. Inciting the beginning of a series of stories told about a murder and rape. The woodcutter and priest were summoned to testify at a trial regarding these crimes. Shimura’s character is utterly confused. He is unsure of how to take what happened in the woods and at the trial. The third man has the woodcutter tell his story so that he could maybe help him understand what’s going on. It comes to light that the woodcutter a few days earlier had found the body of a dead samurai in the woods. As we proceed through the narrative, the story is told from five different points of view. The priest tells of how he saw the samurai and his wife on the road before they were attacked by the bandit. Then after his story three others tell their own versions: the wife, the bandit, and the samurai himself through a medium. Each version has a thread of similar events, all culminating in the death of the samurai but it comes about in many different ways. The wife is portrayed as a victim, a manipulator, and a whore. This play with point of view creates the platform for the question, what is truth. Is the wife crazy or a victim? How was the man killed? The second question comes in the guise of the woodcutter. He didn’t tell the courts what he’d really seen, and then at the same time he offers to take the abandoned child home with him. What do his choices say about him?
Both Rashomon and Ikiru are both in-depth looks at human nature. Kurosawa takes us deep into a culture that is founded on the ideals of honor and respect. Then he forces the viewers to participate and questions what it means to go against those ideals. He uses the manipulation of perception in flashback and point of view to show that truth is fluid. Our choices are what define us and that’s all that matters. The flawed human beings in Kurosawa’s films are ones who make judgments and see things in their own persepective, all in all that makes them more human than the viewer is truly aware of. These facts are part of a reality we all know exists. No two people see things the same way, and both Rashomon and Ikiru show us that. Truth and reality are not as strict as we’ve been lead to believe, there is mutability to what we think we know and who we really are.
Takashi Shimura stars in both of these Kurosawa gems. Ikiru, 1952, begins with a shot of an ex-ray. It says that this is an image of the stomach cancer that will kill the protagonist, but he does not know that yet. The viewer gets to watch as Shimura’s character Mr. Wantanabe deals with his sickness once he learns of it. He faces the fact that his choices have made him a life where he is the equivalent of someone already dead. He realizes by hearing this that he must make some changes. He cannot die without making some kind of effort. He eventually decides he is going to help a group of women who’ve come to his office. They want to build a park in their neighborhood. After letting all those women get sent through the bureaucratic run around he stands up and offers a hand. He chooses to help them rather than just pass them on from department to department. Not one person around him understands why. It is in this change and how it’s treated that we are delivered our two main questions. What does Watanabe’s change in character say about him? What does his choice to help the women say about him?
The second question, what is truth, comes out through the second half of the film. In the middle of the story we cut to after Watanabe has died. The viewer isn’t privy to story in a linear fashion. We get to see it through the eyes of the people who knew him. We arrive at the man’s funeral. The park has been built, but the people recounting the process in which it came to be are full of bias and speculate wildly about the deceased man’s motivations. They don’t know the full story, because they never bothered to ask, not that they would have listened. Only a few men recall Watanabe in a good light, as a determined man who wouldn’t take no for an answer and others recount him as a fool. Which is true? What were his motivations? Unlike Rashomon in this film the viewer has been given the truth, but are forced to watch as Watanabe’s coworkers try to make sense of what this old sickly man was trying to do. By reflecting on his actions these coworkers are able for a brief moment to see the error of their ways. To realize that our choices can lead us down very dark paths, and our inaction can kill us even before we are truly dead. Thus we see Kurosawa present us with the two questions yet again. What is the truth, which version of Watanabe was the real one? What do our choices mean, what do they say about us?
Rashomon, 1950, was around Kurosawa’s twenty-third film, and both of the aforementioned problems come about in this film much like they did in Ikiru but for an entirely different narrative purpose. What is truth, through point of view, and what do our choices say about us, through flashbacks. The film begins with a priest, a woodcutter, and another man forced to take refuge form a rainstorm under the Rashomon ruins. Shimura played the woodcutter, who begins the narrative. Inciting the beginning of a series of stories told about a murder and rape. The woodcutter and priest were summoned to testify at a trial regarding these crimes. Shimura’s character is utterly confused. He is unsure of how to take what happened in the woods and at the trial. The third man has the woodcutter tell his story so that he could maybe help him understand what’s going on. It comes to light that the woodcutter a few days earlier had found the body of a dead samurai in the woods. As we proceed through the narrative, the story is told from five different points of view. The priest tells of how he saw the samurai and his wife on the road before they were attacked by the bandit. Then after his story three others tell their own versions: the wife, the bandit, and the samurai himself through a medium. Each version has a thread of similar events, all culminating in the death of the samurai but it comes about in many different ways. The wife is portrayed as a victim, a manipulator, and a whore. This play with point of view creates the platform for the question, what is truth. Is the wife crazy or a victim? How was the man killed? The second question comes in the guise of the woodcutter. He didn’t tell the courts what he’d really seen, and then at the same time he offers to take the abandoned child home with him. What do his choices say about him?
Both Rashomon and Ikiru are both in-depth looks at human nature. Kurosawa takes us deep into a culture that is founded on the ideals of honor and respect. Then he forces the viewers to participate and questions what it means to go against those ideals. He uses the manipulation of perception in flashback and point of view to show that truth is fluid. Our choices are what define us and that’s all that matters. The flawed human beings in Kurosawa’s films are ones who make judgments and see things in their own persepective, all in all that makes them more human than the viewer is truly aware of. These facts are part of a reality we all know exists. No two people see things the same way, and both Rashomon and Ikiru show us that. Truth and reality are not as strict as we’ve been lead to believe, there is mutability to what we think we know and who we really are.
I thought it was really interesting how you decided to use another Kurosawa film to do your movie review, because it allows you to explore and contrast the themes and ideas in each of the movies. The different viewpoints of the characters in the films contrast greatly, because in Ikiru the main character is focused on living out his life in a way that is meaningful to him while in Rashomon it seems that the characters are more intent on their own personal gains. However, a sense of fulfillment can also be seen as personal gain, so whether the characters lie or contribute further to society the characters as similar, they are all human.
ReplyDeleteI also did a Akira kurosawa and your anlaze holds true with the story line in the movie that I did Rhapsody in August. I think you did a good job getting to the core meaning of Kurosawqa's films, truth and identity. Now I want to watch Rashamon. good job
ReplyDeleteThis is a very good essay. I like how you studied the characters played by Shimura because they both were very important to the plot of the films. I liked the difference between the films and how you described them. It does sound like the characters were very different, even though they were played by the same actor. You included a lot of questions in your essay, and I wish you had more clearly answered them after you stated them. However, I do like how you force the reader to also think about the answers.
ReplyDeleteI'm glad you all liked my essay. Rashamon is a pretty good movie, just don't borrow the library's copy it's scratched pretty badly.
ReplyDeleteAs for the questions, i left some of them unanswered partially on purpose, to mirror the fact that Kurosawa leaves his questions unanswered for the most part in the two films.