Aite, the first film I watched was Rashomon. It's a 1950 Japanese movie which apparently had won a couple of awards. And inspired modern hollywood movies such as Vantage Point, Courage under fire and the Usual Suspects.
Anw, this is a little bit about how the film goes...
5 main characters went on a trail and each one of them was asked to give an account on what had happened in the murder of the Samurai. Each one of the characters describe the same event but in a very different manner.
The Bandit portrayed himself as a brave man who felt in love with the beauty of the Samurai’s wife. Due to this strong feeling of love, the Bandit managed to make the wife succumbed to him and he fought valiantly with the Samurai for his right to love the woman.
The Samurai’s wife on the other hand, depicted a very different picture. She was forced by the bandit and claimed to have been raped by him. As a helpless woman, he begged her husband to remain with her but the husband was just too disgrace to take her back. She did not mentioned how the husband was killed though.
The Samurai, through a medium (because he is dead), confessed of committing suicide because in his version of the story, he was cheated by the wife and was asked to be murdered by the Bandit. Due to the shame of such betrayal, he had to kill himself in the name of honour.
The woodcutter, being a witness and an outsider of the event, described the story also in a manner varying from all the other versions. He described both the Bandit and the Samurai as cowardice whom get into a fight only when the Samurai’s wife provoked their manly-hood.
The priest did not tell us much about the event. Just that he had seen the Samurai and his wife on the same day as the murder.
The Bandit portrayed himself as a brave man who felt in love with the beauty of the Samurai’s wife. Due to this strong feeling of love, the Bandit managed to make the wife succumbed to him and he fought valiantly with the Samurai for his right to love the woman.
The Samurai’s wife on the other hand, depicted a very different picture. She was forced by the bandit and claimed to have been raped by him. As a helpless woman, he begged her husband to remain with her but the husband was just too disgrace to take her back. She did not mentioned how the husband was killed though.
The Samurai, through a medium (because he is dead), confessed of committing suicide because in his version of the story, he was cheated by the wife and was asked to be murdered by the Bandit. Due to the shame of such betrayal, he had to kill himself in the name of honour.
The woodcutter, being a witness and an outsider of the event, described the story also in a manner varying from all the other versions. He described both the Bandit and the Samurai as cowardice whom get into a fight only when the Samurai’s wife provoked their manly-hood.
The priest did not tell us much about the event. Just that he had seen the Samurai and his wife on the same day as the murder.
Anyway, the discussion is: What does this film tell us about "facts" and history? To me...
“Facts” are often related to the truth or something that is known to have happened. However, in Rashomon, this is not entirely the case. “Facts” are instead something that is said to be true and something that is supposed to have happened. “Facts” provided by all the characters are highly questionable and should not be taken as the whole truth.
In all the different versions of the stories told, the story-tellers have their best interest at heart, portraying themselves in a manner that is favourable. The Bandit as a brave man fighting for his right to love the woman, the Wife as a helpless woman being harassed by the Bandit, the Samurai as an honourable man who was cheated by his wife, and the Woodcutter as an innocent passer-by whom happened to have witnessed the incident. Actual happenings are twisted and distorted to become the “facts” of the individuals’ story.
Not only the actual happenings are being tempered with, certain actual happenings may also have been left out to protect the story-tellers’ interest. One instance, in the movie, was when the Woodcutter conveniently withheld the information about the pearl-breaded dagger that was left behind at the scene which was believed to have been sold by him. Story-tellers can be selective with their sharing of knowledge and hold back information when providing “facts”.
On the other hand, certain “facts” of the event were undisputed. “Facts” such as who was murdered, who was raped and where and when the event took place were congruent to one another in all the versions. This is so as the evidences of these “facts” are clear and there is nothing to contest their authenticity. As such, Rashomon tells us that some “facts” are indeed true; correct happenings of the event but bear in mind that there are also some “facts” that are biased and their genuinity are questionable. “Facts” therefore cannot just be accepted but must be analysed and understood.
On the other hand, certain “facts” of the event were undisputed. “Facts” such as who was murdered, who was raped and where and when the event took place were congruent to one another in all the versions. This is so as the evidences of these “facts” are clear and there is nothing to contest their authenticity. As such, Rashomon tells us that some “facts” are indeed true; correct happenings of the event but bear in mind that there are also some “facts” that are biased and their genuinity are questionable. “Facts” therefore cannot just be accepted but must be analysed and understood.
History then, in my point of view, is the study of the Rashomon effect of a certain event and deriving the most accurate version. Historians put together different “facts” from different adaptations; analysing their strengths and weaknesses and come up with a complete understanding of the event. Of course history is also very much dependant on the opinions of the historians themselves. How history is depicted is largely based on historians’ interest, emphasis and motive. That is exactly the reason why the history of the World Wars differs from country to country.
This however, does not mean that history is all about different opinions patched together. Certain “facts”, just like in the movie, can be considered authentic with the support of concrete evidences such as artefacts.
In the study of history therefore, I believe, it is important to find more than one sources of the story and accept them with an open mind. Critical thinking about the “facts” presented in each of the story and proper analysis of the background of the story-tellers and evidences of the “facts” is very much needed. Only then, the most accurate derivation of the different stories can be merged and form “history”. But then again, it is His-story.
So next time, when you hear a story, ask, whose version is it anyway? 
