Talk:Rashomon effect

Credit due

I don't understand why Kurosawa's film takes the credit, when the story on which it is based (duly noted in the article) obviously precedes the film... Batula (talk) 07:23, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps the film, although not the originator of the idea, popularized the notion? 66.24.238.22 (talk) 22:47, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

The film takes the credit because the story named Rashomon is not told from multiple perspectives and with conflicting facts. The film was named Rashomon, despite its plot being based on "Into the Grove," because "Into the Grove" was first published in a collection called "Rashomon" and thus the story often was better remembered for the title of the collection than for its individual name. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.174.150.14 (talk) 04:04, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Full text of Heider article

I found a site with the full text of the publication by Heider here: http://polaris.gseis.ucla.edu/gleazer/291B/Heider-Rashomon.pdf I'm not sure how to cite it and such, but I think it would be useful to link that site in the citation, so people who are interested can read it.67.188.216.255 (talk) 18:59, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Added to citation Vettrock (talk) 17:14, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Daffy and Porky

It's been used in The Looney Tunes Show episode "Reunion", where Daffy and Porky have different memories of high school.GoPeter452 (talk) 01:17, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

MLP:FIM

I removed the section from My Little Pony Friendship is Magic because it's not really a Rashomon effect; each of the six describe the same event in non-contradictory ways. ...OK, so this probably could have fit in the edit summary, but it seemed longer in my head. Wehpudicabok (talk) 08:05, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Use in Movies

Should the movie Vantage Point be included here? The first paragraph of the entry for that movie indicates that "The film is cited for its use of the Rashomon Effect." Sablesear (talk) 08:21, 11 September 2011 (UTC) Should the movie Les Girls be included here? The description reads "A Rashômon (1950)-style narrative presents the story from three points of view where Sybil accuses Angele of having an affair with Barry (Gene Kelly), while Angele insists that it was actually Sybil who was having the affair. Finally, Barry gives his side of the story.[1]" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fillups44 (talk • contribs) 01:03, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Shutter Island

How about Shutter Island? Should it be included? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 171.229.240.145 (talk) 15:44, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Rashomon effect or Rashōmon effect?

At WT:JAPAN we are discussing if adding macron (diacritic accents) to this title to conform to the Japanese romanization of "Rashōmon" is original research or correcting bad spelling and whether MOS:JAPAN applies to this psychological concept. You are invited to respond. -- 76.65.128.43 (talk) 11:04, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Remove "Go"

I'm not a regular Wikipedian, so I won't do it myself, but I wanted to strongly recommend that someone remove the film "Go" from the "Use in Cinema" list. It does not belong there. Just because a film is told from different perspectives does not make it Rashomon effect. It has to be conflicting perspectives. The movie "Go", like dozens of other movies, is told from multiple different characters' viewpoints, but they do not ever contradict one another, so it does not apply for Rashomon effect. I'm guessing this goes for a lot of the other films on the list too, but without having seen them all, I can't say for sure. In any case, I recommend a Wikipedian remove "Go" from the list. The list should be restricted to films that contain contradicting perspectives. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.250.25.105 (talk) 11:34, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Movie "Basic"

I am completely unfamiliar with editing, but I figured it would be worth considering the 2003 movie "Basic", as it seems to fit within the criteria on this page. 64.134.64.248 (talk) 19:38, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

I have removed this

"The disappearance of Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 has spawned numerous conspiracy theories and contradictory versions of journalistic reporting. This has been described as a classic example of the "Rashomon effect" " Although described by the author as the effect, it is not. The Rashomon effect involves the participants in the event to each tell a different version. What the author is describing is just standard conspiracy theory to fill the vacuum of knowledge. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 21:25, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

References

Movie Predestination does not belong here

Predestination is not an example of the Rashomon effect, but (almost) the exact opposite. Each time the main character visits the same events (s)he gets only part of the truth, but we can see a complete consistent version emerging. While each perspective is partial there are NO contradictions, that are central to the Rashomon effect. The movie should be removed from the list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.167.81.201 (talk) 00:20, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Lede Term Description

While happening upon this page, this definition in the article's lede: "notorious unreliability of eyewitnesses" struck me as rather an aggressive way to define the effect / principle. "Notorious unreliability"? The definition of "notorious" is: "famous or well known, typically for some bad quality or deed." Which implies that each and every eyewitness has intentional ulterior motives. As well, "unreliability" (inability to be relied upon or trusted) would also suggest that each eyewitness cannot be trusted. This principle merely points out the "difference" in eyewitness accounts - not the intentionally divisive accounts. For example: Titanic Survivors and those who witnessed the Kennedy Assassination. I would not call the eyewitnesses to these occurrences as "notorious" or "unreliable" simply because they differ. Here is an online description: "Also known as 'Kurosawa effect', this refers to a phenomenon wherein the same event is interpreted in vastly different ways by different people." I propose to change the lede sentence to better represent the effect with the term: "Contradictory accounts"; unless there is vast opposition. Maineartists (talk) 14:38, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Eyewitnesses

Quote: The term, derived from the 1950 Japanese film Rashomon, is used to describe the phenomenon of the unreliability of eyewitnesses.

I would like to point out that the film Rashomon deals not with the different accounts given by eyewitnesses but by the participants (perpetrators and victims) of a crime. Maikel (talk) 14:06, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

I have seen this film. One account is from the supposed murder victim (from beyond the grave), one account is from the supposed murderer (who claims that he won in a duel, rather than a murder), one account is from the woman over whom they were fighting, and the fourth account is from a random bystander who was spying on them. Dimadick (talk) 16:14, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Flipped (2010)

What about Flipped (2010)? should it be included? 36.70.52.46 (talk) 13:12, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Monsters: The Lyle and Erik Menendez Story

Suriname0 It seems you have personal motivation against the inclusion and provided sources when it comes to a singular content regarding the Lyle and Erik Menendez Story as presented in the series: Monsters: The Lyle and Erik Menendez Story. You have not presented a clear and precise reasoning for why the Director's own words regarding his creative process in creating the film using the Roshomon effect is "primary"; nor any reason why the tag "Better Source Needed" was instituted when it was a perfectly reliable source stating the effect and its usage, and was in exact keeping with the other inline sources within the section (reviews). Furthermore, your immediacy to revert can be seen as the beginning of an edit war. Maineartists (talk) 15:32, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi User:Maineartists, a gentle reminder to WP:AGF. I tagged the source because it was a student opinion piece. Per WP:RSSM and the brief discussion here, we probably shouldn't rely substantially on such sources. That's why I tagged the source, rather than removing it outright. This would be a great opportunity for a third opinion, if you feel that an opinion piece in a student newspaper is an obviously appropriate source for inclusion on the list in this article. Regarding the definition of a primary source, see WP:PRIMARY, which tells us that primary sources "are often accounts written by people who are directly involved". So, I view the inclusion of this media as likely WP:UNDUE, because it is supported only by one student media source and by primary interview sources. Suriname0 (talk) 15:39, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

• Suriname0 References: (pick one and include) [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8]. It doesn't take long to simply type in "Ryan Murphy Roshomon Effect" as a Google Search to render results for reliable sources to keep content within an article rather than initally just "drive-by delete". Thanks. Maineartists (talk) 15:43, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Suriname0 Did you really just look through all these references and add an entirely new entry using one of the sources yet not find a source for your initial deletion and current tag? Maineartists (talk) 17:43, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm a little unsure how to respond to your comments here charitably, except to reiterate (as I mentioned in my original revert edit summary) that none of the sources I looked at (such as those you linked above; I had already looked at all of those sources) support the DUE addition of the show as an example of the Rashomon Effect. For example, the source from The Streamr specifically argues the contrary view! There's a softer claim - "Ryan Murphy says that ‘Monsters’ is Rashomon-like" - that is verifiable but probably UNDUE to include in this article, but that doesn't seem to be the claim you wanted included anyway. Suriname0 (talk) 18:20, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Suriname0 I am really struggling to understand your mode of editing here. You reject an interview about the film that the Director himself has stated he uses the Rashomon Effect; yet allow a mere mention of a television show that renders no other source as a plausible RS. If the template "Better Source Needed" were to be instituted anywhere, it should be here. There are endless examples for this writing style in television from All in the Family's episode: "Everybody Tells the Truth" (1973) to Frasier's episode: "Perspectives on Christmas" (1997).

The critic in this review: [9] is supplying his own personal opinion: "Murphy justifies the Rashomon comparison by saying that Monsters “shows many, many perspectives”, but he’s being facetious about the word “perspectives” here." This is what the critic believes and is challenging Murphy's definition of the Rashomon effect with his own definition. From the article: "Both Lyle and Erik Menendez allege that they were routinely sexually assaulted by their father, Jose Menendez." (Perspective) "Dominick Dunne, played by Nathan Lane in Monsters, was of the opinion that the brothers had an incestuous relationship" (Perspective) Critic: "but this was not something that was ever litigated or evidenced in court." That does not matter when it comes to "perspectives". Furthermore, (critic) "the Rashomon style, it means the literal definition, i.e. what someone saw and experienced with their own senses." The critics is actually contradicting himself. Rashomon effect "The Rashomon effect is a storytelling and writing method in cinema in which an event is given contradictory interpretations or descriptions by the individuals involved, thereby providing different perspectives and points of view of the same incident." 5 Great Rashomon TV Episodes (quote) "The point of a Rashomon episode is not that some witnesses’ knowledge is incomplete (though that may be true too) – it’s that different people perceive exactly the same events differently because they come to something with different attitudes and preconceptions."

Regardless of the above, I cannot understand how you can dismiss such source claims as: (Express) "Murphy also highlighted the 'Rashomon' effect used in the show, which incorporates multiple perspectives, stating: "If you watch the show, what the show is doing is presenting the points of view and stories from so many people who were involved in the case" and (article writer) "Dominick Dunne wrote several articles about talking that theory and how he thought that theory had validity, what we do is we are presenting his point of view just as we present Leslie Abramson's (the Menendez's defence attorney) point of view." Also, The Hollywood Reporter: Ryan Murphy's latest true crime series takes a 'Rashoman'-style approach to its storytelling "Hitmaking television mastermind Ryan Murphy’s latest reimagining of a sensational murder from the 1990s is the second entry in his Monster series, which goes plural as it takes a Rashomon-style approach in recreating the brutal 1989 murders of José and Kitty Menendez."

The LA TIMES: "Murphy has explained that he was aiming for a sort of Rashomon effect, telling the Menendez story from different angles, refusing to insist on a definitive version of the truth." The New York Times: "In the end, the “Rashomon” approach backfires." The New Yorker clearly states the use of the effect. This cannot be argued. Nor can this: The Washington Blade: "... it even employs a “Rashomon”-esque approach in which it variously portrays different versions of the same events depending on the character describing them."

Regardless of whether a critic thinks the effect "worked" or was "achieved" within the series or not, that is beside the point. The point is, the effect was used in the creation. One can find interview after interview with the creator stating the use of the effect in Variety, US Weekly, Vulture, Entertainment Weekly, Deadline, Vanity Fair; which is what the content line is stating: "a re-enactment of an infamous case uses multiple perspectives." There are numerous sources that back this. Finally, there are dozens of online sources (reviews) that state the effect when reviewing the series. We are not here to back the claim: "The Rashomon effect was successfully achieved by the director" in the eyes of one critic's personal opinion. We are here to find sources that state the claim that the effect was used; which the LA Times, Washington Blade, etc clearly does.

I see that you have taken issue on the Monsters: The Lyle and Erik Menendez Story itself and placed a "Verification failed" tag within the article; yet have not deleted the claim: "It incorporates the Rashomon effect by presenting the story from multiple perspectives, with the brothers' viewpoint serving as the central narrative" within the lead. Is there a reason? Maineartists (talk) 00:49, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm glad you went looking for more sources and found better support for this claim! The New Yorker and Washington Blade pieces both look good, and I didn't see them when I went looking. "Is there a reason?" - I personally dislike deleting claims I think are likely true on Wikipedia; that's why I tag them for improvement, as in this case where you found plenty of additional sources that support the claim. Thanks again, and I hope you edit both this and the Monsters article to resolve the tags I added. Please let me know if I can be of any help with those changes. Suriname0 (talk) 00:44, 1 November 2024 (UTC)