I don’t disagree that Rashoman did some things really well. The cinematography and acting were truly superb. I just feel that it didn’t live up to the interesting premise it set out.
Exactly how many ways do you think he could possibly have died?
Since he sure as hell wasn’t going to implicate himself in the story, short of inserting a fifth party appearing out of nowhere and killing him, the woodcutter’s version of events will match one of the three other stories in who killed the samurai.
And, of course, neither being killed by his wife nor himself serves the woodcutter’s agenda.
There were only three possible killers in that clearing. If you ask four different people what happened, at least one of the answers is going to have to be repeated. That doesn’t necessarily mean that’s the right answer, though, and the bandit and the peasants account still differ significantly, even if they agree about whose hand was on the blade.
It sounds more like it didn’t live up to the premise you expected, not the premise it set out.
There’s thousands of ways to die in a sword fight. Having your opponent knock you down, stand over you, and then throw his sword into you is one of the more obscure ones. The bandit and the woodcutter didn’t simply agree that the bandit killed the Samurai. They agreed on the exact, very unusual, manner of death.
How would the woodcutter have come up with “he stood over him and threw his sword into him”, unless that’s how it happened?
The differ significantly until the manner of death. At that point it is essentially exactly the same. The Samurai is seated in the woods, the bandit holds his sword with two hands above his shoulders, and then throws it downward like a javelin.
My point is not that the woodcutter and bandit said the bandit killed the Samurai. My point is that they are in perfect agreement about an unusual manner of dispatching someone. There’s no realistic mode for that to occur unless they both witnessed the same event, and have accurately retold it.
Because he’d just heard the bandit’s version of the story, and when dissembling, it’s useful to have someone else’s story to build on - especially when the story is so easily twisted to your agenda.
Of course there is. He’s sitting right there, when one of the other travelers tells the bandit’s story.
I feel like an echo in here.
Eh, I don’t really buy that. It would be one thing if it were simply similar, but being exactly the same? I don’t really see that coming about from just hearing some testimony.
Why not? He just heard the bandit’s testimony from his own mouth. It’s not remotely far fetched that he would could then confirm the bandit’s testimony in all the particulars that make that samurai look bad.
Because the human memory isn’t good enough to listen to a story once and exactly recreate it.
And now the thread is a synecdoche of the topic of the thread.
The point of Rashomon isn’t just that memory is subjective, but that objective testimony of any event is essentially impossible as any observer will bring their own experiences and prejudices to their statement, especially in any way that conceals their own culpability or weakness. The most salient dialogue from the film is thus:
*Commoner: Well, men are only men. That’s why they lie. They can’t tell the truth, even to themselves.
Priest: That may be true. Because men are weak, they lie to deceive themselves.
Commoner: Not another sermon! I don’t mind a lie if it’s interesting.*
We don’t mind deception as long as it is entertaining and unchallenging (i.e. doesn’t conflict with other accounts) but we can’t cope with multiple interpretations in which we have to use judgement to distill the probable (but uncertain) truth,
Stranger
But he didn’t exactly recreate it. The two stories are significantly different. 
Well, the woodcutter’s story wasn’t exactly the same as the bandit’s. None of the stories in the movie are exactly the same. If you’re talking about only the specific manner in which the bandit killed the samurai, how do you know they told exactly the same story? IIRC we don’t actually hear them describing the death in specific terms, it’s something we see onscreen. None of the witnesses could have described everything in the scene in as much detail as we see (e.g. exactly what everyone was wearing, what kinds of plants were growing there), and we also know that in this film we cannot trust that everything we see onscreen is objectively true.
Even if the bandit went to the trouble of saying “I held my sword with two hands above my shoulders, and then threw it downward like a javelin” then the woodcutter could have said “I saw the bandit kill the samurai, just like he said”. Heck, even if the woodcutter is lying then it doesn’t seem that difficult to remember something more specific, like “He lifted his sword, then thrust it down like a javelin.”
The manner of death is exactly the same.
We don’t really hear them telling anything about their stories. IIRC all we hear are motivations that can’t be visually represented. I think we are meant to take the various stories as perfect visual recreations of the story being told.
I correct the name of the movie in the thread title. That’s my story, anyway.
Yes, we’ve been over that. But now you’re making a new claim: that the woodcutter must have been telling the truth, because it is impossible for him to have heard a story once, and then repeat it exactly. But that’s manifestly not what happened - he told a very different story, that happened to end in the same way as the bandit’s. But that doesn’t require an epic feat of recall, by any means. Hell, you’ve just done the same thing in this very thread - you watched the movie once, and were able to relate exactly how the samurai died, not just once, but in four different versions of the same event. If you can remember exactly how the samurai died when the bandit told his story, why couldn’t the woodcutter do exactly the same thing?
I don’t think that’s a reasonable assumption, for the reasons Lamia pointed out. A picture conveys vastly more information than can usually be conveyed through words - particularly, through the spoken word. I doubt that, in any version of the story that gets told, anyone bothered to describe, say, the patterns on the woman’s robe, or the exact number of times the bandit swung his sword during the fight. Realistically, if we heard the characters telling the stories, they’d be highly abstracted.
I don’t remember misspelling the name.
I actually had to go back and check how he died in the woman’s story. To be quite honest with you, I wouldn’t get most of the major details right. I don’t remember which stories had her submitting and agreeing to marry him. The only things that really stick in my memory are the comical nature of the woodcutter’s fight, and how the samurai died the same in the two stories.
I think we’re getting a little into birther territory here if we can’t accept the film version of the stories as an accurate representation of said stories.