This article focuses on Kurosawa Akira's adaptation ability.
As we all know, the movie is called "Rashomon", and it is from the original work of Akutagawa Ryunosuke, but in fact, in terms of content, it is basically based on another novel "In the Jungle" by Akutagawa, so why is it still called "Rashomon"? First of all, because Akutagawa Ryusuke also wrote "Rashomon", Rashomon was formerly known as Rashomon, the city gate of Kyoto's Rajo, and later extended to the world between the world and hell. Therefore, "Rashomon" has a stronger symbolic meaning than "in the jungle". From a conceptual point of view, "Rashomon" is an extension and summary of "In the Jungle". "In the Jungle" is characterized by a structural pioneer, a decentralized multi-voice narrative, but this narrative has no ending, it is a "circular narrative" rather than a "linear narrative"; while "Rashomon" It more directly expresses the values behind Akutagawa's use of this "circular narrative" method, that is, the truth that human nature exploits each other and the powerlessness of morality. The egoist's survival picture is basically in a vortex, they are spinning in place, no closer to the truth, and no closer to destruction. The result of combining "Rashomon" and "In the Jungle" is to make the film more complete and unified from the narrative to the theme, and at the same time, it also conforms to the traditional film narrative principles, which reflects Kurosawa's ability to integrate.
The second highlight of the adaptation is the strengthening of the walking monk and the woodcutter. These two characters are relatively light in the original work and belong to the outside world, but they become the highlight in the movie, because first of all, the film narrative needs to be complete, so the woodcutter The husband's narrative must be strengthened; more importantly, the woodcutter and the walking monk need to have a moral stance in the film to express the director's own stance. In addition, the movie also set up an "auditor", who was also under Rasho's family and did not participate in the murder at all. The movie was only responsible for showing his direct reaction after listening to the story. Such a setting constitutes two stable character relationships: the samurai-Masa-Tajomaru is the direct possible participant in the murder, and the woodcutter-traveling-observer is the narrator and reflection of the murder. The fluid figure linking these two sets of relationships is the woodcutter, who is the viewer, the narrator, and possibly the participant. The samurai, Masa, and Tajomaru are the main promoters of the film's story, while the woodcutter, the walking monk and the observer are the main presenters of the film's narrative as well as the presenter of the director's values.
Such an adaptation itself can reflect the major difference in the values of Akira Kurosawa and Akutagawa, that is, the former admits that human nature has an introspective and repentant side (the woodcutter), but this side requires two other people—walking monks and bystanders. excitation. The walking monk can represent good, and the bystander symbolizes evil (this role is a transplant of the character in "Rashomon"), but whether it is good or evil, the two even participate in the evil compared to watching the murder with one's own eyes. The woodcutters of the 1970s were even more powerless in moral judgment, especially the walking monks, whose influence was almost non-existent except for a scowling face. So what is their role? I think Akira Kurosawa still believed at that time that although this kind of babble based on moral and ethical judgments had no effect in itself, it could still wake up the woodcutter whose personal moral situation was more critical, because the weak cry of goodness Although it is close to muttering to himself, it is still superior in power compared to the real evil deeds of bystanders (ripping off the kimono of the abandoned infant under Rashomon). This was Kurosawa Akira's belief at that time. Of course, when it came to "Chaos" in the later stage, he didn't believe it himself.
In fact, as Akutagawa Ryunosuke and Kurosawa Akira agreed, the walking monks are almost negligible under the Rasho family, or in this world, and the sin is always stronger, more convincing, and more effective. power. After listening to this story, bystanders immediately robbed the abandoned baby's kimono, which shows that no one lacks the ability to comprehend and execute evil. This is basically the normal state of this world. But Akira Kurosawa still thinks that the wandering monk is needed. Even if he is weak, such an existence is at least indispensable at the symbolic level in the structure of interpersonal relationships. Otherwise, ethics will be destroyed, and the individual will be spun into self-sufficient evil. to go, and what are the consequences of this? Probably Akutagawa Ryunosuke's suicide.
View more about Rashomon reviews
