Rashomon Effect

What does Rashomon tell us about facts and history?

http://johnstepper.com/2015/03/28/the-rashomon-effect-and-the-movie-inyour-head/
The term Rashomon effect refers to real-world situations in which multiple
eye-witness testimonies of an event contain conflicting information.
The truth is that our reality is actually a fiction. Our attention is so limited we
only have a sparse sample of whats actually going on, and we use stories to
connect the dots and make sense of things. What we experience as reality is
just a movie inside our head, a movie we can direct if we know how.
When youre aware of this, you can shape your experience not only in
hindsight, looking backward, but in the moment. You can choose what to pay
attention to, how you will react, and ultimately what will be a major or minor
part of your story. Based on individual experiences.
Think about what you pay attention to and what you ignore about yourself,
about others, and about whats happening around you.

http://www.rastafarispeaks.com/cgi-bin/forum/archive1/config.pl?
md=read;id=70841
The facts of the crime were the same but the "truth" concerning the criminal
act were different. One fact....4 truths.

http://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/8053/what-is-the-differencebetween-fact-and-truth
A fact is a reality that cannot be logically disputed or rejected. If I say "fire is
hot," I don't care how great your reasoning skills are, if you touch fire your
skin will burn (and don't give me that "but people can walk on hot coals!"
bull. There's a difference between the transfer of heat through conduction
and training one's body to deal with the agonizing pain of said conduction).
Now when I say this, I am not speaking a truth, I am speaking a fact. If you
say "fire is not hot," you are not lying, you are incorrect. Facts are concrete
realities that no amount of reasoning will change. When one acknowledges a
fact, they are doing just that. Facts are not discovered, facts are not created,
facts are simply acknowledged.
A truth on the other hand, is almost the opposite. Truths are those things
that are not simply acknowledged, but must be discovered, or created. If I

say "God exists," and I possess strong reasoning for the affirmative of that
statement, then God really does exist, that is a reality. However, if another
individual possesses strong reasoning for the negative, and because of this
reasoning they believe that God does not exist, then that is also a reality. If
we were to debate our ideologies, and my reasoning appeared stronger than
theirs, they may choose to adopt my belief that God does exist. If they do,
then the existence of God is just as true as the nonexistence of God which
they believed a week ago. Truths, as opposed to fact, are much more fluid
and malleable than their empirical counterparts.

http://www.crassh.cam.ac.uk/events/370
We are often faced with the Rashomon-effect in which we meet three or
more equally plausible explanations of an incident set in a context where we
feel pressured for an opinion or judgment. We cannot avoid the implications
of such incidents and pressures because they are accompanied by 'facts'
which leave us uncomfortable if unexplained. Because of this discomfort we
experience a pressure for closure, and we thus look for a more persuasive
version of events. But none is offered, none is forthcoming, and in fact none
may exist. Accounts of the incident vary, including by eyewitnesses and
experts, but no explanation is found superior. Since no definitive method for
choosing between these equally plausible accounts is evident in the
situation, we experience a frustrating pressure in which we are haunted by
our unanswered questions about it.
Based on this lecture, how should historians understand the truth and
different sources? What is there beyond facts?
https://hatfulofhistory.wordpress.com/2013/12/27/why-studying-film-helpedme-become-a-better-historian/
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Allow me to summarise my points to the discussion questions:
In my opinion, this question requires a deeper understanding of the
difference between the definitions of facts and truths as a scare quote was
used for fact. I came across this interesting interpretation on the definitions
of facts and truths. A fact is a reality that cannot be logically disputed or
rejected vs Truths are those things that are not simply acknowledged, but
must be discovered, or created.

The film, Rashomon, clearly highlights that there is only 1 fact and 4 different
truths. The fact being that the samurai was murdered and the truths were
the accounts of the 4 characters who were linked to the crime. The truths
were based on each characters motives. The truth they presented had been
shaped with regards to whichever outcome they wanted to achieve and
loosely based on what they experienced. For example, towards the end of
the movie, we found out that the woodcutter presented a different account of
what happened to the court in order to conceal the fact that he had stolen
the valuable dagger. The bandit chose to highlight himself as a brave fighter
while the wife had to lie in order to save herself from embarrassment. All
these accounts were shaped in retrospect, with knowledge of the
consequences. Therefore, from this movie, we can gain insights as to how
historical events are presented based on various perspectives and
experiences. These could also have been shaped by the experience and the
imagination of the storyteller.
We were given 4 different truths throughout the film and 1 fact. Assuming
that historians used the Rashomon effect as the basic principle to
understand history from a certain event, their aim would be to find the most
plausible truth even though all of them seem plausible. I am still in the
process of looking around for a method that historians use to deduce the
most probable account, therefore I do not have a definitive answer. However,
I came across this interesting piece where the writer says, historical
research should reflect more than just a singular metanarrative, but
recognise that history is often a series of competing narratives that overlap
and intersect at various points.
(https://hatfulofhistory.wordpress.com/2013/12/27/why-studying-film-helpedme-become-a-better-historian/)
Hopefully Ive some good points for you all to explore!
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Gone Girl
How does this film manipulate us the viewers?
One of the main themes of this movie is the notion of media exploitation.
Amy, Nick and even Amys parents used the media to further their causes
during the saga. The media in this case and sometimes even in our lives tend
to form opinions for us. Instead of objectively presenting facts to the general
public, media outlets tend to invoke our feelings for reasons such as
improving their viewership or trying to create a brand of social justice like in
this movie.

I personally found this movie interesting and was shocked that Amy would go
as far as to try to frame her husband for murder just because of the affair
(and it wasnt her first time). Yet, she managed to escape scot-free even
though she slashed NPHs throat in the movie. The FBI, the other policeman
and the public all did not bother to further the investigations regardless of
flaws in her story. Some of us as viewers even felt that her actions were
justified. Why? Because everyone (thanks to the media) had a pre-existing
opinion that a pregnant lady who had been cheated on by her husband
could do no wrong.
I agree with Zainab that the context plays a larger role in this movie as
compared to Rashomon. It was largely due to Amys plans to frame Nick.

Sheng Jie, I like your points on how Amys childhood and the existence of this
overachieving character that her mother created affected her mental state. I
totally did not recall that part. I guess it is just like what most of us
mentioned, how the media painted the events affected our opinion on
whether who we felt should win, Nick or Amy. I personally felt a good
ending would have been a clich one where Nick somehow managed to get a
confession out of her and there would be a scene of Amy in a straitjacket
haha.
Daniel, I really like this point of yours where you mentioned that the media
tries to instill into us notions of societal behavior. Ive never really paid much
attention to when the local media here tried to sway our opinions. Im sure
most of us heard of the Bangladeshi workers being detained or deported for
being part of a jihadist terror cell. Maybe Ive been made more aware after
the previous lecture, but I noticed The Straits Times publishing multiple
stories/interviews where other Bangladeshis working in Singapore have been
asking Singaporeans to not blame them or associate them with those that
were caught. Im not sure if this message of Singaporeans not blaming

"In Memento we are faced with the question of how much of Leonards memory of
the past is real and how much constructed from beliefs and wishes.."

Also, the question, History relies on facts and their context to interpret
events, in terms of this movie we see that the one fact is that Amy is
missing. The context then changes as public opinion over Nick and Amy
changes from bad to good. In Roshomon, the one fact is the death of the
samurai that is the one thing consistent in all the differing stories. The
context then changes when each person tells a different account that serves
his or her own purpose.

Memories can change the shape of the room. It can change the colour of the
car.
http://littleredsurvivor.com/2015/06/04/why-facts-alone-are-not-always-thetruth/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/eldon-taylor/truth_b_4631982.html
http://winklerfilmtheory.blogspot.sg/2011/12/rashomon.html

Memento
How much of Leonards memory of the past is real and how much is
constructed from beliefs? I came across this question on the Wiki page of
the movie and I think this is the real takeaway from watching the movie.
During the course of the movie, Leonard keeps mentioning that he does not
suffer from amnesia, but he has anterograde amnesia (deficit in short-term
memory according to him). At the end of the colour sequence, i.e. the actual
start of the story, it is more or less known that the so-called second man had
already been killed. Yet Leonard conveniently chooses to erase the photo
from his collection and go on another witch-hunt. During the scene at the
diner, Leonard already showed his deep understanding of memories vs facts.
This ishow the dialogue went.
Leonard: Memorys unreliable.
Leonard: Look, memory can change the shape of a room, the color of a car; and
memories can be distorted. Theyre just an interpretation; theyre not a record.

He goes on to talk about how police investigations are only based on facts
and rarely on eyewitness accounts. As far as we can see from this movie, the
facts that Leonard use as part of his witch-hunt for the killer were definitely
subjective to his personal belief. We saw that he recorded the license plate of
Teddys car thinking that he was John G after convincing himself that he did
not already revenge his wifes death. As Zainab and Yufei mentioned, the
truth markers werent really that truthful.
Do facts alone tell us the truth or show us reality?

I found this interesting quote online. Truth is not always factual. Truth can
be subjective, based not in fact but rather in personal belief. Many a times,
when we look at oral accounts or written accounts, we might not be
analyzing facts. We might actually be looking at the perception of the truth.
The definition of perception according to the Cambridge dictionary is a belief
or opinion, often held by many people and based on how things seem. Our
perception might be influenced by certain factors such as illusions,
preferences and beliefs. Sometimes, these factors might accentuate false
perceptions which undermines the truth that some people believe in.

Robbins, S.P, Judge, T.A, Millett, B, Waters-Marsh, T. (2008).

Organisational Behaviour.
Pearson Education Australia. Sydney.
Dorland, W.A. (2003). Medical Dictionary for health care consumers.
Saunders. Philadelphia.