Could someone explain to me why this is considered one of Kurosawa's greatest films? I honestly don't see the appeal. Don't get me wrong, the acting, scenery, etc. are great but not significantly better than the rest of his films. And the story has little drama; the monk spergs out because, what, people lie to make themselves look better? Is that supposed to be some sort of revelation? And of course there's this whole mystery around it where apparently even the actors wanted to know which story was true, but it's obvious that the woodcutter's story was true, since he was the only one with no incentive to lie (except about the knife). I didn't think it was a bad film, but I really don't see what puts it above something like Throne of Blood or High and Low.
Could someone explain to me why this is considered one of Kurosawa's greatest films? I honestly don't see the appeal...
I didn't really like it that much either, Kurosawa has much better.
One more thing, the baby was extremely forced, it's like Kurosawa was worried the audience might take a slightly negative view of humanity and had to thrown it in last minute.
memesawa
I was not impressed when I watched this either, although admittedly it's been a few years
Cause it's not? Ran, 7 samurai, throne of blood are considered his best.
>watch Kurosawa for the first time because so many people both inside and outside Sup Forums says he's a Master
>Throne of Blood because it's supposedly a Shakespearean adaptation or something
>literally fall asleep after half an hour
The whole thing is so fucking ponderous and pretentiously slow. How do people enjoy this?
Probably because so many filmmakers copied the multiple perspectives idea afterward. Same way all of Kurosawa's stuff was imitated.
But it wasn't as good as Throne of Blood.
Rashomon was kinda revolutionary in theater. Unreliable narrators are far more common in theme in Japan than the west.
Ok so it wasn't just me, but Rashomon is definitely considered top two (along with Seven Samurai) in general. Go to any rating site (letterboxd, imdb, etc) or critics' polls (like Sight & Sound or even this Japanese one: letterboxd.com
Weird, I remember it being great
its not my favorite of his, but admittedly this is the first film to do the multiple character perspectives of the same event thing and its been copied a zillion times since and definitely deserves its praise for starting that. At this point you're likely to find that style of story telling cliche, its been done in most cartoons and you're likely to have seen it in something like that prior to this film, but again this was the film to start that and if you had never seen a story retold differently through multiple characters perspectives this would be a very interesting film indeed.
yes its obvious the characters aren't going to tell the truth but whats interesting is seeing their sides of the stories filmed and part of the movie as more than just a story a character told. few films showed fabrications as filmed events and would only film the character telling the tale or something to that effect, i think you just really need to appreciate it for that aspect along with the well shot/well acted qualities of most of kurosawas films and this one gets a lot of credit.
Probably giving it a few points for it's influence on cinema, rather than looking at it in a vacuum.
That's not how I remembered it
It's certainly not bad, just felt it didn't live up to the critical acclaim it got.
>How do people enjoy this?
Not everyone has the attention span of a caffine addled chihuahua.
>And the story has little drama; the monk spergs out because, what, people lie to make themselves look better? Is that supposed to be some sort of revelation? And of course there's this whole mystery around it where apparently even the actors wanted to know which story was true, but it's obvious that the woodcutter's story was true, since he was the only one with no incentive to lie (except about the knife).
I've been saying the same for years. The mind blowing revelation at the end of the film just isn't to me, at all. I can't process how a society that lost an empire, had two cities burned off the map, and had their god-ruler renounce his divinity a decade earlier was asked to be shocked by something so banal as lying and murder for money. What innocence could they have had left to lose like that woodcutter and the monks did?
Yojimbo is his best
The pokemon adaptation is just as good
I agree, maybe it was better in the past
When it came out in 1950 the west hadn't been exposed to much Japanese cinema because of the war etc, it was a symbolic success that put Japan kino on the map for the film festivals or Oscars as the world opened itself to Japan and Japan opened itself to the world. kurosawa was always considered more western influenced and relatable than people like ozu and mizoguchi. So it's famous because of its historical role as well as for his narrative gimmick which became a meme in pop culture. As a film it's a bit dry and far from his best, but it was his first important work which then allowed him to get more freedom and exposure.
asian culture is really weird when it comes to conforming to societal norms, such as not lying at a trial. it's really strange since in western society we generally assume everyone will lie and backstab and everything else as the default but somehow asians won't break certain principals while still being capable of doing for more atrocious crimes. its bizarre and still exists today.
i love Rashomon and personally think its in his top 5, but a good deal of its rep is due to historical significance and the film's surprise win at the 1950 Venice Film Festival. before then, Japanese film just wasn't a big deal in the West
Looking at the Letterboxd rating and I found this review that sums it up pretty well I think. Apparently criticism of it is not confined to Sup Forums.
But the Japanese critics' poll I posted here suggests that love for Rashomon is not strictly a western phenomenon.
>Mike D'Angelo
stopped reading right there. shitty AV Club critic and dude has a bit of a contrarian streak, but at least he hasn't gone full retard like Armond White
and fuck him for giving Bergman's Cries and Whispers a 17/100
>bringing up backwards gender politics in a 1950s film set in feudal Japan
wew
ofc it's going to be "horrifically retrograde." can we save this criticism for when it's appropriate?
>43 for TDKR
Sup Forums btfo
Here's all his reviews, for anyone curious: panix.com
It was an interesting take on the bullshit "muh honoru" and "discprine" shit that permeates Japanese culture and glorification of samurai and nobility even to this day. Google Yamato-damashii for a better understanding
People are cowards that hide behind titles and farcical stories to impress others. The movie calls into question the moral conscience of these characters while knocking down the Japanese hyper-glorification of honor down a peg.
but the dark knight rises it's shit user, it's a meme
Its indorectly about Nietzsche's perspectivism. All the of the story's ultimately conveyed the same thing, but based on different interpretations. All of the accounts were equally correct (in that none of them were correct). The movie is often seen as an analogy for the way movies themselves distort reality, and how ever "true" story is essentialy a distortion of reality based on the tellers belief structure.
>indorectly
indirectly*
>ever
every*
Sorry, Im a drunk phone poster
But they weren't just different interpretations, the first three stories were just self-serving lies.
I always got thought that they were lies that the characters had convinced themselves of. Tojamaru for example, really believes that he is the greatest most fearsome bandit of all time, that is his "reality"
mandatory watch youtube.com
because it shows how perception can define reality.
Glad someone else got this from the film.
Yojimbo is certainly my favorite of his. Never gets old.