Brain Pain discussion

This discussion covers the Ryūnosuke Akutagawa short stories, In a Grove and Rashomon together with Akira Kurosawa’s movie Rashomon

In a Grove gives us three eye-witness versions of a rape and murder, along with four peripheral stories as testimony in front of a judge. By the end, it is unclear what really happened, and so In A Grove raises more questions than it answers about the nature of truth and man’s propensity to distort the truth to cover his/her crimes.

Akira Kurosawa and screenwriter Shinobu Hashimoto re-told the story, and used Akutagawa’s Rashomon as a framing device to expand and greatly dramatize In A Grove. In the expansive medium of cinema, Kurosawa was able to take a short moral tale and create a nightmare vision of a broken down society where no one can be trusted, not even one’s beloved.

As each of the different versions of the story were told, how did your sympathies change for each of the characters? At the end, who’s story did you most believe? Who seemed to be the most reliable character, if any?

I'll have to post when I'm back home at my computer. Thanks, Jim.

I always thought the point was the impossibility of determining which story is most likely, given the human propensity for self-deception. In this regard, it is troublesome that the ‘disinterested’ testimony of the woodcutter mainly supports Tajomaru’s side (i.e. the trampled ground in the book, the actual fight in the film).

In the film version, I thought that things were a little unfairly tilted against the wife, with its statements like “woman use their tears to fool everyone”, and the expanded woodcutter’s story further supporting Tajomaru’s assertion that she goaded the men into fighting. (On a related note, I loved the brave versus cowardly fights in the two versions.) It may be telling that in Kurosawa’s autobiography he says the original title of Hashimoto’s screenplay was “Male-Female”.

As far as your question about reliability, it’s hard not to give the most cred to the woodcutter. Despite the film making his theft of the dagger explicit, he didn’t have the psychological motivation for self-deception that the main three players did regarding their own actions.

Maybe because I'm a woman, but my sympathy has always been with her, regardless of who told the story. I know that in some societies, and in this instance the feudal Japanese society, a woman is considered tainted if she is not virginal or monogamous with her husband, regardless of whether she is raped or not. I believe her story that the husband looked at her with contempt after she was raped, like a possession that has been dirtied.

The woodsman said that the grounds were trampled on, which makes the bandit's account of a fierce sword fight the true one, since both the wife's story and the husband's story did not have a battle. I believe that the bandit would be smitten with the wife.

I also think that the wife would want the bandit to battle it out with her husband for her. Having a man win for her is a way for her to recover her honor, since honor is a strong factor in Japanese society. She cannot live with knowing that her husband thought her sullied, and that she was raped by the bandit. The bandit killing her husband in battle gave the whole thing a noble light, and made her a valuable object worth fighting over.

The husband, being a samurai, would not want anybody to know that not only did he fail to protect his wife, but when given the chance, he cannot even win her back. His samurai's pride was shattered, so he would rather have people believe that his love for his wife destroyed him, so he committed honorable suicide, putting the blame on her.

Thus, I believe the true story is the bandit's story. He did not live his life by honor, and he has no honor to prove.

The movie is pretty true to form regarding the woman, the samurai and the bandit's accounts, but embellished on the woodsman's account. The original only had him finding the body and noticing the clues. The embellishment is the place where Kurosawa can put his fourth point of view into it.

In Kurosawa's fourth point of view, the woman is portrayed as manipulative and the men were the weak pawns. In this sense, I do not think Kurosawa painted her in a negative, weak light, a victim of her circumstance. The woodsman account has her saying that she wanted the bandit to take her away from her husband, that she was sick of him. When the men would not fight, her husband because he did not deem her worthy, the bandit because he was confused, she goaded them on by using their manhood and honor against them, telling them that it was not her who was weak but them.

I have a question as to the end of the woodsman's account, when she ran away from him. She goaded them saying she will go with the stronger man, but she ran away from the winning man. Maybe because she sensed that the bandit found her manipulation distasteful and might hurt her?

But the important thing is, wasn't Toshiro Mifuni a babe and one hell of an actor? I've forgotten how attractive he was.

I forgot to mention that, to me, the main theme of In the Bamboo Grove is the irony that people who holds honor most dear would be liars to uphold it. Whereas the main theme in the movie is that women are not as helpless or as much a victim as you think.

I'm revising my theory of the movies' theme because Kurosawa would have a more sophisticated take. I think he's saying that man in general has a tendency to be evil, even a raped woman was not really raped but manipulated the situation.

I think Akira Kurosawa's outlook on life was heavily influenced by his older brother, who had him walk through Tokyo as a child , after the devastating earthquake. His brother said that he needs to see the world as it truly is. His brother committed suicide in his 20's.

Aloha wrote: "I'm revising my theory of the movies' theme because Kurosawa would have a more sophisticated take. I think he's saying that man in general has a tendency to be evil, even a raped woman was not rea..."

I'm pretty sure she was really raped, but she, like the others, told her version of the story in a way she believed would reflect best on her, in the eyes of the judge.

I'm basing it on the most credible version in the movie, the woodsman's, in which he had her wrapping her arm around the bandit as he started to rape her, and later admitting that she was glad that the famous bandit would be releasing her from the drudgery of her marriage.

Whitney wrote: "As far as your question about reliability, it’s hard not to give the most cred to the woodcutter. Despite the film making his theft of the dagger explicit, he didn’t have the psychological motivation for self-deception that the main three players did regarding their own actions. "

Aloha wrote: "I'm basing it on the most credible version in the movie, the woodsman's, in which he had her wrapping her arm around the bandit as he started to rape her, and later admitting that she was glad that..."

Hmm...I'm not so sure about that. Although he wasn't directly involved, I think he could still have reason to present the story in a particular light. If he admits he witnessed the whole thing, then he is also admitting that he stood by and did absolutely nothing. He did not help or try to get help, even refusing to help during the trial by telling his "truth". In his version, he presents the woman as slightly more in control and saying she wanted the bandit to help her escape her husband, with whom she wasn't happy. The men don't really want to fight, but they do so hesitantly. The woman gets away in the end, with the men doing what she wanted them to do. In his version, they are less helpless or in need of his help. Everyone is reflected in a somewhat negative light--they are on a more level playing field. He can feel better about doing nothing.

I think the point of the story, as Whitney said earlier, is the impossibility of discerning the truth. We construct our own version of events, no matter what our position or vantage point. I think the story calls into question objectivity in general, making even the supposedly more "objective" version of the woodcutter unreliable.

The Kurosawa embellishment throws everything in a foggier light to reflect the dubious quality of humans. This I think is his main theme. The short story, however, is clearer. The woodcutter only gave an account of discovering the remnants of the event, which includes a trampled area where a battle looks like it had happened. The questionable point, though, is who removed the blade from the samurai's chest. It would seem to be the woodcutter since he might be the first on the scene, but not necessarily so. Now, the trampled area tells me that the bandit's story is the most probable because his is the only account of a battle.

I also noticed that in the movie, the bandit's passion for the woman was downplayed in his version. In the short story, the bandit was more adamant in making the woman his wife in his version.

Comparing the difference between the body of work of Akira Kurosawa and Ryunosuke Akutagawa, Kurosawa's films often depict a movement between despair and hope, whereas Akutagawa likes to play with irony, such as The Nose and Hell Screen. I think their sensibilities is strongly reflected in their handling of the movie Rashomon and In a Bamboo Grove.

Aloha wrote: "The Kurosawa embellishment throws everything in a foggier light to reflect the dubious quality of humans. This I think is his main theme. The short story, however, is clearer. ..."

Appropriate to the discussion, I had the opposite opinion. The discrepancies in the written story balance each other more, making it impossible to discern the 'true' version (excepting the woodcutter's stating the ground was trampled, which is troublesome). In the Kurosawa version, the Woodcutter's story makes all three main character's less honorable than they presented themselves, to me implying that his version of the main action may hold more truth.

I agree with Ashley that the Woodsman is not completely trustworthy (still talking about the film). However, his lying is deliberate, not telling about what he saw until it's coaxed out of him at the gate because he was covering up his theft of the dagger. With the other characters the discrepancies have more to do with self-deception than deliberate obfuscation.

For those who have the longer book, Akutagawa's short story "Dragon: The Old Potter's Tale" is another great story about the power of self-deception.

Aloha wrote: "But the important thing is, wasn't Toshiro Mifuni a babe and one hell of an actor? I've forgotten how attractive he was. ..."

Yes - let us not lose sight of the truly important things! The presence of Mifune played no small role in my early and ongoing love of Kurosawa films. Although, now I'd say "come for Toshiro Mifune, stay for Takashi Shimura". My admiration for Shimura (the Woodcutter in Rashomon, and one of Kurosawa's usual stable of actors) has grown with every movie I've seen him in. His performance in "Ikiru" in particular is completely shattering.

Aloha wrote: Comparing the difference between the body of work of Akira Kurosawa and Ryunosuke Akutagawa, Kurosawa's films often depict a movement between despair and hope, whereas Akutagawa likes to play with irony, such as The Nose and Hell Screen. I think their sensibilities is strongly reflected in their handling of the movie Rashomon and In a Bamboo Grove.

This helps me; I found the film tedious, and its message laid on with a trowel - the message, that is, that people can't be trusted, and do bad things. The film leads to the kinds of discussions here which try to decide 'what really happened'. Introducing the woodcutter's testimony reduces the impact which in the story arises from the perfect balance of the three accounts of the protagonists, each claiming the death as their own act. I found the story much more elegant: it throws the reader into her own lack of certainty, lack of being able to know.

I think part of the problem here is one that always arises when comparing a book to a movie. The comparison always gets made almost exclusively on the basis of plot and story, and the elements that make a great film are usually ignored.

For example, in the first part of the film, we have the woodcutter walking through the forest. There’s a constant interplay of light and shadow implying and foreshadowing the ambiguity to come. As he goes on, he’s entering a literal and metaphorical labyrinth with the body of the husband at its center. Look at it only in terms of ‘story’ and you have a lengthy segment where the only thing that happens is a woodcutter walks a long time and then discovers a body.

I also don’t believe the only message here is that people are bad. The main theme (IMHO) is more about the nature of self-deception and reality itself. In the film, it’s supported by the rich imagery of a world in decay (i.e. the bridge) and the complex and changing nature of the main characters.

I used to have a strict policy against watching Kurosawa on video. Too much is lost by not having the full screen and not being in a theater where you are effectively locked into his world for the duration. (True of all films, but Kurosawa in particular).

Whitney wrote: "I think part of the problem here is one that always arises when comparing a book to a movie. The comparison always gets made almost exclusively on the basis of plot and story, and the elements that..."
I'm sure you're right about judging the movie. I'm not a film buff; but I usually enjoy the old B&W slow-moving classics. Maybe this time I was too impatient to get to the point, but it didn't work for me. I'm sure watching it on the computer didn't help!

I agree that there are varying and differing ways in which a book or a movie foreshadows what is to come or the true nature of the message. In A Bamboo Grove is a short story, so there is less chance of the detail buildup. I agree with Whitney in the beauty of the Kurosawa film. In general, though his films do contain elements of the tragic, ultimately they contain messages of hope. I also think that it's more in a filmmaker's interest to capture and entertain a movie audience for the short time that they are watching the movie, so there would be more of the drama and visual aspect involved. However, a novel, which is of a much longer length than a short story, can have as much detail if not more than a movie.

Chris44 wrote: "Whitney wrote: "I think part of the problem here is one that always arises when comparing a book to a movie. The comparison always gets made almost exclusively on the basis of plot and story, and t..."

I find that more than troublesome. It's like bells, lights and alarms pointing to the truth.

Whitney wrote: "(excepting the woodcutter's stating the ground was trampled, which is troublesome).

There is also an element of personal biases influencing what a person sees. The woodsman may think he told the truth, but his bias may be colored by his opinions of women. If he thinks most women are sinister, he would see the raped woman as actually enticing the man. However, the part where she explictly stated that she wants the men to fight for her is too explicit to just be the woodsman's self-deception. If he wasn't lying, then the woman did control the whole situation. With the way Kurosawa ended the movie, with the woodsman penitent, the movie is skewed towards believing his story.

-=Whitney wrote: I agree with Ashley that the Woodsman is not completely trustworthy (still talking about the film). However, his lying is deliberate, not telling about what he saw until it's coaxed out of him at the gate because he was covering up his theft of the dagger. With the other characters the discrepancies have more to do with self-deception than deliberate obfuscation.

Takashi Shimura is great! I loved him in "Ikiru." He was perfect for the role. He has that tragic, every man, trustworthy kind of feel that makes you sympathize with the characters he play.

Whitney wrote: "Aloha wrote: "But the important thing is, wasn't Toshiro Mifuni a babe and one hell of an actor? I've forgotten how attractive he was. ..."

Yes - let us not lose sight of the truly important thin..."

Reading through this thread now. The thread is almost longer than the 2 short stories together, hahaha.

Oi, even if I can manage to make time to read on my kindle and so on, I just cannot get to a convenient place that will enable me to finish watching the film. I was interrupted at about the end of the wife's retelling. So frustrating.

Anyway, about the 'trampled area'. The trampled area needn't necessarily indicate a battle though, does it? ...since it could be the area where the wife was raped. Hmm, except that in some versions, she "passes out" but... there is still some "trampling" going on, anyway, isn't there? Which reminds me of something that struck me in the film. The bandit tells the couple that he's just returned from a grove where he has hidden some swords and mirrors. Yet when he takes them there, the path is so overgrown that he needs to clear a path to walk in, with his machete.

I found it rather strange that the samurai didn't find this rather suspicious. That samurai wasn't a very good samurai, methinks...

Oh yes, and Toshiro Mifune is absolutely a babe, (though I like him even more with a clean-cut look) which reminds me that I wanted to watch Jojimbo as well. Grr can't even get to watch Rashomon...

Oh, and after reading In a Grove, I also thought what Whitney an Ashley (and Chris) said: I think the point of the story, as Whitney said earlier, is the impossibility of discerning the truth. We construct our own version of events, no matter what our position or vantage point. I think the story calls into question objectivity in general, making even the supposedly more "objective" version of the woodcutter unreliable.

Whitney wrote: "I think part of the problem here is one that always arises when comparing a book to a movie. The comparison always gets made almost exclusively on the basis of plot and story, and the elements that..."

I kept wishing I could be viewing that beautiful scenery in colour.

Traveller wrote: "I kept wishing I could be viewing that beautiful scenery in colour.
.."

Kazuo Miyazawa is a master of black and white cinematography. I wouldn't trade his contrasts for all the color in Gauguin. For everyone who has only seen Rashomon on a TV or computer screen, I beg you to check it out if it's ever playing at a revival theater near you. You will see a completely different movie, I swear.

Will do, Whitney! I actually noticed just last week, in fact, that our closest local theater is now screening 'revival' Black and Whites (This one was so ancient it didn't even have sound). So that's good, we'll see what they'll still be dishing up.

I'm thinking stuff like Casablanca, which I saw everywhere on store shelves just a bit more than a year (or 2?) ago. (And which I bought and then never watched :P)

The idea behind this Cluster Headache read is to look at the choices writers make when selecting which character, which type of narrator, and which voice to use (first person, third person, etc.). With ‘In a Grove’ Akutagawa chose to use multiple characters to tell their respective version of events in the context of a criminal investigation. Kurosawa took the characters’ testimony, added some extra characters to serve as framing narrators, and then added an additional version by the woodcutter told outside the investigation.

If you were re-writing this story, but could only choose one version to tell, which character’s version would you choose? How would that change the meaning of the story?

Imagine for a moment re-telling the story of Shakespeare’s Hamlet. In the play, the primary perspective is Hamlet’s, but if we apply the technique of Akutagawa, we could have:

Claudius’s version (the usurper/murderer)
Queen Gertrude’s version (the unfaithful wife)
The ghost of Hamlet’s father’s version (the murdered king, told via a spirit medium)
Hamlet’s version (the confused son who was not an eyewitness to the events)

I would imagine each version would differ much like the Akutagawa/Kurosawa stories.

Will think upon what you said in your post, Jim, but while I'm pondering your question, I just want to mention how I absolutely adore this 'shifting narrative voice' technique. It's what made me give 4 stars to an otherwise mediocre author, for her novel The Rich Are Different.

Of course, we have different narrators for some of our other Brain Pain novels as well, for instance The Waves and The Sound and the Fury.

I think an author needs a good degree of skill to pull the technique off successfully.

Jim wrote: "The idea behind this Cluster Headache read is to look at the choices writers make when selecting which character, which type of narrator, and which voice to use (first person, third person, etc.). ..."

Which point of view an author would select, if only one choice was allowed depends on what they are trying to convey. The wife's version is about honor, the husband's is about honor and about making himself appear to have acted in accordance with the Samurai code, and the bandit wants to make himself look like he is attractive to women and has power over men, even trained fighters like the Samurai. The most objective character could be the woodcutter, although in both the story and the movie he has reason to mislead the audience.

I think that the most interesting to write about would be the bandit. He is a larger than life character who can write his own story. The wife and husband are constrained by the expectations of the society they live in. The woodcutter is expected to tell a story that is close to the truth.

Jenny

Traveller wrote: "Will do, Whitney! I actually noticed just last week, in fact, that our closest local theater is now screening 'revival' Black and Whites (This one was so ancient it didn't even have sound). So t..."

I have always been fond of older movies, but in the last two years, I have become very fond of silent movies. It is very interesting to start at the beginning of a decade and watch cinema develop or to watch the works of a single director or actor in order and see how they change over time.

Jenny

Aloha wrote: "I agree that there are varying and differing ways in which a book or a movie foreshadows what is to come or the true nature of the message. In A Bamboo Grove is a short story, so there is less cha..."

I am interested in what people think of the addition of the baby to the end of the movie. It adds a hopeful note to the ending that is lacking in both short stories but it completely changes the story of the Temple and makes the characters much less desperate.

Jenny

Jenny wrote: "I am interested in what people think of the addition of the baby to the end of the movie. It adds a hopeful note to the ending that is lacking in both short stories but it completely changes the story of the Temple and makes the characters much less desperate..."

There are two things at work here. One is that movies are designed as entertainment and must have some resolution that is uplifting, upbeat, or at least shows that justice is served and there is hope for humanity. Knowing that the abandoned baby will survive allows the audience to avoid despair about its fate. The adult world may be hopelessly corrupt, but at least there is the chance the new generation might do better.

Secondly, the movie was released just five years after the nuclear attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Radiation poisoning would have caused hair loss in survivors. To include the Akutagawa character plucking hair from corpses would have been in poor taste and would have been unlikely to pass whatever film censorship boards were in place in Japan.

Jenny wrote: "I think that the most interesting to write about would be the bandit. He is a larger than life character who can write his own story. The wife and husband are constrained by the expectations of the society they live in. The woodcutter is expected to tell a story that is close to the truth..."

I can see that. Outlaw stories are always more exciting than bourgeois domestic scenes.

Rather belatedly, it occurs to me to wonder about a couple of things.
1. The question of multiple narrators in this story is unusual. Here there is a fact - someone killed the man. Each of the three claims that they did it. Usually, multiple narrations give different perspectives, but the essential facts remain the same however different the understanding and explanations might be of those facts. So I wonder what Akutagawa is doing here? Are the three characters all being honest, yet two of them are completely mistaken; or are they lying, and if so, why?
2. I don't think anyone has commented on the fact that the dead man speaks. Just saying.

Chris44 wrote: "Rather belatedly, it occurs to me to wonder about a couple of things.
1. The question of multiple narrators in this story is unusual. Here there is a fact - someone killed the man. Each of the thre..."

I suppose Akutagawa is commenting on the elusive, unreliable nature of "the truth" that comes from testimony in court. Each tells the story that best suits their ego and their self-perception. The bandit claims responsibility to protect his reputation. The same with the wife and the samurai.

The woodcutter story is more ambiguous. It is more probable that the version he told at the Rashomon gate is a fabrication. He was a witness to all of the other testimony and then told what "really happened" outside of the court setting and after he had contemplated everyone else's version. He did not need to be an eyewitness to the actual events to tell the second version, so he isn't any more credible than the others.

Chris44 wrote: "So I wonder what Akutagawa is doing here? Are the three characters all being honest, yet two of them are completely mistaken; or are they lying, and if so, why?
2. I don't think anyone has commented on the fact that the dead man speaks. Just saying...."

This is what make Rashomon unique in its use of multiple unreliable narrators. In most stories you usually either get get different interpretations of the same event, or deliberate lies from people covering up their misdeeds, and the truth will usually out in the end. The point of 'In a Grove' is that because of the extent of peoples' capacity for self-deception, the truth is ultimately unknowable.

There was some discussion of the dead man's testimony previously. Aloha also mentioned the Ambrose Bierce story 'The Moonlit Road' which has been suggested as an influence on Akutagawa. That story also has a dead man speaking through a medium to tell of earlier, mysterious events.

For the record, I believe the dead man, Tekehiro, as the most truthful in the short story. I believe he incorrectly read his wife's actions and motivations, but he spoke the truth as he understood it. His wife saw contempt in his eyes -I believe she misread her husband's emotion and saw what she feared most from him. She continuously lost consciousness and was extremely stressed. She had been raped, after all. Tajomaru was a braggart and a criminal, and probably did not feel he would be let off or considered innocent after his capture. He would be most interested in inflating his actions, so I don't believe there was a fight.

After raping her, Tajomaru, I think, added insult to injury and tormented Masago, only increasing her distress and her certainty that her husband would despise her. In reality (?!?), the thief only wanted to rape, torment and rob. She would have been wild with shame and fear of rejection by her husband, as well as having been degraded.

Tekehiro would have been dishonored and shamed by his impotence, greed, dupability and perhaps his wife's loss of respect for him, which would lead him to believe she could easily want him dead for that, and not see she might have been thinking of wanting to hide her shameful acts of wanting to save her life and the dishonor of wanting to save her life by going with the thief, who she believed wanted to take her with him (I think that's what he whispered to her in the short story).

The thief forced her to choose living over loyalty, so by his trick, she shamed herself by her choice of desertion. When the thief revealed his treachery, she was doubly humiliated - first the rape, and then her choice of deserting her husband. After the thief left (why would he untie the husband, realistically?) I think, unable to face her wretched self-betrayal and afraid of her husband's revenge and rage, she did try to stab him, but perhaps incompetently. She was 19, a young girl. After she ran away, he killed himself in self-loathing. The girl's mom said he was kind at heart, and he was a man of honor. At least that's how it makes sense to me, given what I know of human nature.

Of course, uncertain narrators abound, so what all of us judges can go by is what we know of human nature along with the testimony. Akutagawa has made the reader one of the characters in the story, has he not? As judges, truth must be assigned as a probability instead of a certainty. Although I believe in my synopsis as the closest truth, Tajomaru confessed. I believe he raped and robbed and played a horrible spiteful trick in the couple which doomed the marriage, but as a judge, I don't believe he dueled or killed the husband physically, although he committed soul murders of two, perhaps. But he has confessed out of misplaced pride and braggedo, and I'm happy to condemn him for the murder, given no other physical evidence.

It's not often I can say I was written into a story! The author is so clever. Now WE know the uncertainty of determining truth of phenomena which is dependent on human interpretations of reality. I have become an unreliable narrator, even though I'm doing my best.

The innocent, unscarred baby is symbolic of the continuity and hope of life, and perhaps a reminder we are born unreliable even as we begin life. I think the baby was to allow us to relax from the tension of being judges, to help us remember our humanity and our frailties, and forgive ourselves, so we don't go off overwhelmed by the drama of ourselves.

Too much? : )

I completely disbelieve the Woodcutter. Despite appearances of being disinterested, his story does not make any sense unless you accept the complete dissonance of a young wife being more like a hardened psychopathic prostitute moments after being abducted, imprisoned, raped, by an armed man threatening death and humiliation.

April the Cheshire Meow wrote: "For the record, I believe the dead man, Tekehiro, as the most truthful in the short story. I believe he incorrectly read his wife's actions and motivations, but he spoke the truth as he understood ..."

That is a really complete analysis. I felt more like I was part of the story when I read the book than when I was watching the movie, even though the camera's vantage point was such that the characters were facing and addressing me.

I found that same sense of being a character in the story in many of the other short stories I read, and I have noticed that in other works of Japanese literature.