Having read two translations of Rashomon and In the Grove before watching the film, I appreciated the film even more than I would have otherwise. The film adds layers to an already masterful story, in both cases.

So based on what I’ve seen of Kurosawa’s work so far I thought Rashomon was going to be a humorous samurai movie. Which it is not. Still, some of the themes he used there recurred: things and people are not always how they appear – who’s good and who’s bad – and what is bad anyway?

We should have watched this in my high school’s Religion & Ethics class (instead of making us listen to all those tedious Supertramp songs). It would have been great to discuss everyone’s view on the characters and their actions. I wish I’d seen this with some friends now too, it’s great food for conversation/philosophising on human nature.

Our best stories reflect our character, with contradictions and complexities in place and in perspective. They show what drives us to do what we do, and how our acts become who we are, without cliche. Our best storytellers present instead of interpret, which allows us to engage intellectually and emotionally.

Rashomon is well-told because it does not pass final judgement on any character, or dictate which version of the tale is true. It would narrow the scope of the story to do so, since all versions of the tale have been, and will be, true at some time. Each point of view is presented clearly, with all bias in each point of view from the speaker.

If there is a point of view from outside the tale, it may be this: the hard rain falling coincides with the priest’s crisis of faith. Both abate with the woodsman’s act of kindness, which is selfless, true, and good—the only act in the story unambiguously so.