Just saw the movie for the first time. Didn’t blow my mind, but it was enjoyable, especially for a foreign movie made in 1950 (neither are my two favorites for movie enjoyment). But there was one part that was so confusing I was sure I must have missed something.
The scene in question is (iirc, and please no “thats not how I remember it jokes” =D) the last fight, where the women calls out the samurai and the bandit, calling them both weak and demanding that they fight each other for her. The 2 men grab their swords, square off, then engage in the weirdest action sequence I can think of. Both men act like they have never held a sword before, and indeed barely seem in control of their limbs as they flail about. The bandit spends half his time trying to run up various hills unsuccessfully. Swords get stuck in various places, then finally the bandit corners the samurai, who doesn’t really try to get away or run to his sword at all, just slowly backing away until the bandit kills him. Then, after the deed is done, it turns out that despite them spending the last 10 minutes running around the forest, they never really left their starting spot and the woman is sitting right there. Adding to the weirdness, there is no music or sound effects. Just 10 minutes of the two men grunting.
The whole thing didn’t make any sense to me. Through the rest of the movie, the swordplay may not have been the best but at least seemed competent-ish. Did I miss something where they explain this? Why was this scene done this way?
The first retelling of the sword fight casts them as two mighty warriors, experts with the blade, in a mortal clash of steel and will.
The retelling that you’re talking about casts them as two cowardly jackasses, who barely know how to hold a blade, flailing around wildly until one them falls on his ass and gets skewered like a pig.
I see. I thought one thing that wasn’t in question was the Bandit’s skill at banditting. If it is open for question his skill as a fighter, why was he a wanted criminal?
He’s good at making a show–threatening and intimidating by drawing his weapon–but he probably has never been confronted with the need to actual use the thing (probably because of who he chooses as his victims).
Was it competent, I mean, in a real-world sense? I’ve seen fights in movies. I’ve seen boxing. Two men, squared off against each other, with fists raised, leading with their left, looking for an opening to throw their Sunday punch. What little I’ve seen of fights in the real world has been nothing like that. There’s kicking, and scratching, and spitting, and grabbing, and rolling around on the ground. If you’re really fighting for your life, rules be damned, you do what you must.
That’s what I took from the last fight in Rashomon. Take away the bragging and the posturing, and what are you left with? I’ve seen sword fights in movies, and I’ve seen fencing. Sometimes it’s really good, and sometimes it’s not, but I have no idea if it’s real. But it stands to reason that two guys with swords, really trying to kill each other, wouldn’t be quipping like Westley and Inigo (in what is still a great movie); they’d be scared and desperate and grabbing and running if they thought it was the way to survive.
Possibly, but I think Miller & ArchiveGuy’s explanation makes more sense - he was trying to convey a stark contrast to the fight in the other story by making them bumbling incompetents. I was just confused because I assumed that the one thing that was true was the skill of the bandit.
Have I been whooshed? The whole “gimmick” (sorry, can’t think of a better word) in Rashomon is that every teller puts his own spin on the telling, based upon his or her own character. The last is related by the peasant who witnessed the fight and reflects his timidity, fear and inexperience.
The peasant wasn’t impartial. He may not have had a reason to lie, but he most certainly had his own perspective. His version is just as warped as the others.
Agreed. (Or is it allowed to agree on something in Rashomon threads?)
Funny, the scene described is my favorite one in Rashomon. It’s got a very dark humor to it and is probably the most realistic movie fight scene I’ve ever seen. (ETA: Not that I’m saying this scene necessarily depicts the real “truth” of what happened during the confrontation; we don’t know whose story was closest to what happened or if any was more accurate than the others.)
Think about why that strikes you as “weird”. Would a real sword fight to the death would have music or sound effects? Of course not. It would just be two men grunting until there was only one left to grunt. It seems “weird” because it resembles a real fight more closely than does the average movie fight scene.
Of course, it’s still a staged fight and thus every bit as “fake” as any other movie scene, but that’s another discussion.
Sure, wrt the events of the day. But it never occurred to me the possibility that this infamous Bandit who, no matter who’s story you believe, gets executed for his crimes against humanity was really a fraud who had never been in a fight before.
I suppose, if you accept that neither of these “swordsman” have ever actually been in a fight.
Whether or not it was more “real” (which I think is a bad term to use with the obviously staged fighting in this film) it made the scene extremely awkward for me to watch and left me scratching my head at the directorial choice. If that was the whole point, than kudos to Kurasawa, mission accomplished.
Well, keep in mind that in feudal Japan, pretty much any crime would get you executed. Hell, at some points in history, “not being a samurai” was effectively a capital crime.
Actually, I think you were supposed to laugh at it. It’s meant to play as slapstick, as much as anything else.
The peasant lies (by omission) too, as we discover in the last scene. The underlying theme of the film is that there are no impartial observers; everyone brings their own interpretation, bent to favor their perception and experience, to the story.
