Rashomon Effect Essay

While analyzing Kurosawa Akira’s Rashomon in the essay, “Irreconcilable Realities”, Aaron M. Kerner writes, “The substance of the film hinges on what is irreconcilable, and “resolving” the narrative would run contrary to the film’s central concern.” In this quote, Kerner is addressing the fact that the film does not have a conclusion where the audience knows the truth about the characters in the film. Rashomon instead addresses the natures of reality and real life through his filming of this unusual mystery story. He addresses storytelling through the eyes of different characters and shows how the different points of view can have a major impact on the telling of the story. By telling the story this way the film creates a commentary on

Juror 3 was basing his failed relationship with his son on the accused boy. The reason that he had such a bad relationship with his son is because when the boy was young, he ran away from a fight and Juror 3 said: “I’m going to make a man out of you or I’m going to bust you up into little pieces trying”. Later on, when his son was older, they got into a fight and Juror 3 hasn’t seen him since. This experience probably left him the impression that all kids take their loved ones for granted, and that they deserve severe punishments. Juror 3 is not the type to provide the sharpest evidence or information, but he is very determined to prove that the accused really did murder the victim. Juror 8 practically gives nothing away about his real life, probably because he did not want to add his own prejudices to the case. Juror 3 gave both his ill-mannered personality and bigotry away in the play.

The first witness is Gordon Arnold he said that he parked his car behind the grassy knoll because there is a parking lot. Gordon was getting ready to go over to the railroad bridge so he can take a good picture, but a CIA agent told him he cannot go over there so Gordon moved. The CIA agent came to him again and told him to move so he went on to the grassy area in front of the fence. Gordon was getting his camera ready to take a picture and he heard a shot go by his left ear so he got down of the ground because he served in the war he says that he heard another shot go over his

The story “Killings” and the film “In the Bedroom” are one in the same. Between the two, one can identify several differences and some similarities. Although one of the main differences/similarities is that the film plot seems to provide more sympathy towards the Fowler’s. Both “Killings” and “In the Bedroom” expose sympathy towards the Fowler’s, but by examining the similarities and differences the film version allows the audience to have more sympathy. Between them both the audience can see how some scenes are different and how some are the same, how there is a similar theme yet have a few differences, and how one is killed between the two which all leads to the film having more sympathy for the Fowler’s.

He showed the police who were calm , the narrator showed the corpse to the

Overall, the film did exactly what any good dramatic film would do and that is make the audience feel something. The tragedy of the Holocaust has never been fictionally depicted from a German child’s view until this movie. The depiction of how a child who is protected from certain elements war might have thought in that era makes this film unique. The unbelievable conclusion is what makes this film unforgettable. The most important scene in the film is the ending, when Bruno

The reliability if an eyewitness testimony is questionable. The witness may be so certain that the person that thy are pointing out is one hundred per cent the suspect or they could be so certain when it comes to retelling the incident, although these people are so sure on what it is they are doing, their testimony cannot always accurate. Due to the lack of accuracy with eyewitness

Tom Hanks who is the main character couldn’t believe his eyes. He was shocked that those cruel scenes were happening right in front of his face. Spielberg also stops the music and makes the screen kind of blurry to instill a sense of reality to the atmosphere. This definitely added more reality to the movie. Tim O’Brien said credibility might be threatened by telling an unbelievable story but this unbelievable aspect of the movie adds more credibility. The way he shot the film almost gives us a feeling that we were watching a documentary about war. These are the aspects Tim O’Brien exactly talks about in his text. Spielberg includes unbelievable aspect to his movie but he does not lose the credibility as Tim O’Brien states on his text.

I picked who I thought was the most consistent or who’s stories were the most similar to each other’s. I focused on the locations they mentioned, specifically around the town house and King street because they seem to have the most eyewitness backing. They I focused on a few different little details. Like the number of soldiers that witnesses say shot somebody. Then I focused on what was said. Witnesses say that they heard a soldier with their back to them say “Fire”. For the people I didn’t believe. I just felt that some of their key points were just too far off the facts that were trending between some of the other people. I know that there is several people that I do not have on wither list and that’s because I felt that I didn’t have enough information to definitely say who goes on

This movie was sorrowful and some parts terrifying, for example, when the Jews getting killed for no reason, just because they were Jewish. These aspects were affective in the movie because it helps the movie look more realistic and more historical. The creators do a good job capturing empathy because the audience knew who were the characters and knew what was going on, most of the audience were hooked on it.

Juror 4 was able to communicate his ideas and thought like a professional and did so in an organised fashion. He analysed each piece of evidence with care and used logic and his skills of deduction to guide his vote. Rose intended for the audience to realise that the not guilty vote was the right choice and used Juror 4 as a catalyst for the final vote change.

movie had some flaws, it did closely represent the feelings of the era that was depicted. This paper intends to analyze and give

Juror three is a stubborn and short-tempered person. Juror three made solid sentiments in the beginning, which actively kept him involved in the discussion but he started losing control as the discussion continued. Because he disliked Juror eight, the argument between them strengthened the discussion. His loud and demanding personality made jurors go against his claim because his rage was intolerable by others. Later in the discussion, it was also revealed that he had a poor relationship with his own son, which led to believe that this was one of the causes to his intolerance against the suspect. When Juror three understood that he is only presenting an insight of his feelings regarding his own son onto the suspect, he changed his decision.

The first fallacy I consider in this movie is the statement of 8th jury that the reason behind this murder is the area in the boy live. According to 8th jury the murder just took place because the boy live in slum area & the atmosphere of slum area force all the persons to do the same things like this murder. I think effect of atmosphere must be there on any person but it can’t force anyone to kill his father or take decision like that. This is an example of hasty generalization.

It may be satisfying to know that someone had already confessed to the crime. But the story became more puzzling as it went on to the last two testimonies. The next one was the confession of Masago. She began with, “After the man in the dark blue robe had his way with me…” This only confirmed the previous testimonies – Tajomaru was definitely the one who was with the couple. Masago said that when she looked up to see his husband’s reaction after what the bandit did to her, she saw the contempt in his eyes. She went to her husband saying, “…, I am prepared to die here and now. But you – yes, I want you to die as well…” She was saying that they both should die since they both lost their dignity. She believed that this was what her husband wanted