In his review of Akira Kurosawa's Rashomon (1950), James Berardinelli writes at length about Machiko Kyo's portrayal of the raped woman:
"The most striking portrayal belongs to the radiant Machiko Kyo, whose mesmerizing, seductive character varies the most from narrative to narrative. She can be wholesome, treacherous, sexy, sympathetic, or vicious. Depending on who's painting her portrait, she is a victim, a manipulator, an innocent, or a vixen. At times, she's 'like a child trying to be serious'; at others, she's 'fierce.' As good as Mifune and Mori are, they are constantly upstaged by Kyo. In casting her, an unknown at the time, Kurosawa knew what he was doing."
This week, please react to Berardinelli's conclusions about Kyo's portrayal. You might agree with the critic, disagree with him, or offer further assessments (e.g., perhaps you think Mifune's or Mori's performances stand out more than Kyo's, perhaps you think Kyo's wife comes across as something other than victim, vixen, etc.). But however you respond, be sure to provide specific evidence from the film to support your answer.
I will neither agree nor disagree with Berardinelli's conclusions. I think this movie is about selfish perspective and its relationship with the truth. The characters in the movie (at least the one's who tell a story) are all selfish. Each version of the story is told in a way to make the teller look better. When Tajômaru told his story, it was one of valiant and triumphant behavior. This is exemplified with his version of the murder. He indicated that he wanted the husband to die with honor. When Machiko Kyô told her story, it was to put the men down. She said neither of them was a man or worthy of her. When the husband (through a medium) told his story it was one of heartbreak and dishonor on behalf of his wife. Then when the woodcutter told his story, it was against what he had said in court. He did this because he could not take the time to get involved. All of these people are selfish. I don't think it has to do with Machiko Kyô at all.
ReplyDeleteI think Kurosawa wanted to portray truth from many angles. I find it possible for all story tellers to think their version of the story was truthful. This is similar to eyewitness testimony in my eyes. It is by far the least reliable form of evidence. That is because people have horrible memories. It is all based on context and expectation. Therefore, I think the portrayals of Machiko Kyô are irrelevant to the overall purpose of the movie. This movie is about the human condition and how it relates to truth or a lack of it.
While watching I thought quite differently of Kyo. While yes I agree she did change her acting for each part, I think in many ways she over acts a great deal of the time. A good example of this is in the court when she is telling of how her husband was slain. She falls to the ground and cries in such a way that for me was extremely distracting. A great deal of her acting seemed very forced in this manner.
ReplyDeleteI do not know a great deal about Kurosawa's films and therefore do not know if the over acting that many of the characters displayed was intended. I understand that some of this acting was to better show the point of view of the person telling the story, but I thought it slightly took away from the affect of the narrative because I became distracted by this acting style.
If however, this acting style was all done purposefully, I do not believe that Kyo portrayed her part any better than the men portrayed their own parts. In fact if I had to judge which was better I would have to say that the men out shined Kyo quite a bit.
I was surprised at how different kyo acted in each recollection. When the bandit speaks of her she is silent and kind, but as the story progress she becomes more disloyal in each tale, and at one point she even laughs manically just like the evil bandit.
ReplyDeleteWhen we see her character in court telling her story she is a miserable character. She has no idea what to do with her life, or at least gives that impression to the other characters. She cries throughout her monologue and her voice is filled with woe.
I think that her acting was probably the best of all the characters. Her role constantly changed and she was a completely different woman in each story. I can't even imagine how difficult that has to be.
The critic does make any interesting point on commenting how Kurosawa portrayed the wife. Each story tells a different personality of the woman. Tajomaru speaks of her fierce nature in defending her husband, then her docile state when she submitted to him, and finally her vixen state when she had them fight for her hand. The wife protrays herself as a heartbroken victim who had been unconcious for her husband's murder. The dead husband portrays her as a frightened, submissive woman that betrayed him and left him alone. Finally the man who "finds" the body tells of her, at first, pitiful, weeping state. Then she shows what could be described a insane state of mind when she demanded that the two men fight for her.
ReplyDeleteThe truth is jumbled and at times unbelievable. That is what makes the critic's comment so interesting. There is truth is his implement that no one story is true. Yet, the truth of Roshomon is determined with what aspects of the story the audience finds believable or which of the wife's multiple personalities they fall victim to. It all depends on the audiences in which the movie is shown to.
I agree with the critic, but I also was suspicious of the woman the whole movie. From the moment it started, I knew there was something fishy about her. When she told her story to the court system, and was so calm, it triggered my suspicion. She was raped, and made less of a woman, and was far to calm for that. She had to be fine with her husband being killed. That is why I knew that she was one of the bad guys.
ReplyDeleteThough that is my opinion, one may see the woman portrayed differently in every story. The first story had her as an object, the second had her as the victim, the third as the enemy, and the fourth as the cause of the her husbands death. I really think that she played a huge role in the film. Her acting is very good. It makes you believe who she is in every story. She acts so good that she even fooled the court in the movie. She is a brilliant manipulator of the audience, and I believe that she made the movie.
Personally I do not agree with the critic. I believe Tajomaru (Toshiro Mifune) was a much more powerful presence on the screen playing a character maybe more diverse than the role played by Machiko Kyo. While I believe that Machiko Kyo did a great job for the style of Rashoman and a film released in 1950, I just feel that Mifune potrayed the villian/victim of teenage-like hormones astoundingly. In my eyes Toshiro Mifune's character varied more than Kyo's. One moment he convinced the audience through his story that he was actually in love with the woman, honorably fought her husband, and didn't rape her but the next story he was nothing short a raping, stealing, ruthless barbarian.
ReplyDeleteIn addition I couldn't bear to look at Machiko Kyo's fake eye brows, it distracted me in every scene she was present in.
ReplyDeleteWith Berardinelli's conclusions on the casting of Machiko Kyo casting and performance, I could not agree more. She was by far the most cersatile chaacter in the entire film, by having to have the most varying characters as already expalined by Berardinelli. At first she portrays more womanly and feminine characters. This was not a suprise and only showed the usual expectance if what one would imagine of her character. But midway through the movie she hits a tipping point. It begins first with her most terrifying and powerful performance, as the spirit of her dead husband. This was a very emotional scene, which led the audience to really beleive she was the man, with her vicous screams and mood swings of hystericalness to angered calm. This was probably the most impressive part but at the end she plays the unusual "vicious" role again when shes in the story where she tells the two men to fight. Here she is more vunerable and human in one sense, with her almost being attacked, but at the same point meniacal and sisnster when she pits the men against each other. Which one could argue this part was equally as powerful. So yes I would have to reiterate that I agree whole heartedly based on the depth and range of character Kyo is able to prodcue, adding just that much more to the film.
ReplyDeleteI fully agree with the critic. In one story Kyo is a helpless woman, who loves her husband and is dedicated to him, while in an other, she is portrayed as an evil woman, by making the men fight for her love. She is a different type of woman in each story. While i watched this film, i think she did over react quite a lot, she was always falling to the ground with a face full of tears. I believed she only wanted the men's sympathy to hide the truth about her. She seems the most suspicious to me, and seems to be hiding something. But yes I agree with the critic when saying that Kyo seemed innocent in one story and viscious in the next and that the correct casting of her role was an essential element to the film.
ReplyDeleteAfter reading James Berardinelli review on Rashomon, I found really nothing to disagree with him on Kyo character. She is in every way what the film has portrayed her as a victim, a vixen, with a mind of an adult and a child at the same time. Viewing each version of the account of what happen in the woods on that day in court.
ReplyDeleteThe bandit version portrays him as infamous as his reputation speaks for him and that she would possess a vengeful attitude when trying to fought off the bandit. Her own version is shrouded with shame and misery for what has happen and that she only wanted to destroy herself after her husband could no longer accept her for who she is.
The dead husband tells us that she completely betrayed him and wanted to run off with the bandit only if he killed him immediately and the wood cutter says that the women pitted both men against each other as to show who's "The real man."
Again, only with someone that has the ability to change the character's mood at a snap of a finger could have pulled it off this film and Kyo just steals the show for doing that. Mifune's and Mori's role's as the bandit and the samurai were well executed too, but at the end of the film, the viewers are just thinking about Kyo and is she really a victim, an accomplice, or both?
I completely agree with Beradinelli, Kyo steals the show with her portrayal of the wife. In each of the tales, the bandit and the husband remain essentially the same character, while the wife is very different within every incarnation of the story. She is presented as a pathetic sobbing mess, a conniving femme fatale, and a damsel in distress.
ReplyDeleteAlso, Kyo's character is the core of the movie. The entire film revolves around her various alleged reactions. She serves as the motivation for Tajômaru's attack, therefore triggering the events of the story. In every version of the story, her reaction is the trigger for the action. Her importance to the plot is juxtaposed with her lowly status as a woman in 11th century Japan. In this way, Kurosawa can "hide" her, belittle her importance so that we are even more shocked by the depth of her character.
I agree with the , and was somewhat interested by the way she is portrayed in the film. I believe the director intended not only to give her dynamic character traits, but also is showing the varying outlooks that the Japanese culture had upon women during this time. In the film she is a victim, a harlet, a deviant, manipulitave and you can go on and on, each one though she is the main focus, or distraction, or detriment or burden. The men meltdown and doom themselves all due to her, or at least in the most part. I dont know that the director intended to skewer women as a whole, just pointing out when dealing with women, proceed with caution. Even as the bandit and the husband seemingly didnt want to fight over her, they did anyway, without a ton of reason to do so.
ReplyDeleteI would have to agree with James Berardinelli on Mchiko Kyo portrayal of the raped woman and how she changes in every story. When the movie starts you see this woman as a ordinary woman and that after the murder of the samurai and at the trail when everyone tells what happen it seems that the woman changes in every story. A few examples that does show her changes in every is when the woman tells her story, she seems to play the innocent victim trying to beg for forgiveness from her husband but when her dead husband tells his story, from the spirit world, it seems that she is now the woman that wants to go with the bandit and wants him to kill her husband, and the final example would have to be the final story told by the witness and that she changes to a angry woman that doesn’t care about the two men anymore. From these entire examples that I just explained, you could defiantly see how the woman changes in every story that is told. That’s why I have to agree with James Berardinelli on he his explain Mchiko Kyo portrayal of the raped woman.
ReplyDeleteI thought that Machiko Kyo gave a really great performance. What Berardinelli said about her performance is true, her character does change greatly with each telling of the story. In Tajomaru's story, she is innocent in all regards. She didn't want what happened. She tries to fight back with a little dagger, but it increases the lust Tajomaru had felt for her. In her own story she is the victim again, but we don't know for sure if it was her that killed the husband because she blacked out. In the husband's story, she wants Tajomaru to do what he did. In the final story she is portrayed as the villain. She manipulates both men by telling them that they are not in charge and that they are weak. She wanted to run off with Tajomaru because she can't stand her life as it is, but when Tajomaru does kill her husband, she refuses to leave with him because she was just manipulating him into doing what she wanted to do. She does give a versatile performance as stated by Berardinelli.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Caleb; I also found the painted on eyebrow squares to be distracting.
I agree with Berardinelli’s conclusion about Machiko Kyo who played the wife in Akira Kurosawa’s Rashomon. Depending on who is telling the story, her character changes more than the others. Her character drives the stories and motives for those involved. In the first three stories, the actions of the bandit (Toshiro Mifune) and the husband (Masayuki Mori) are more or less the same. Not until the woodcutter (Takashi Shimura) tells his story again do we see that the two men were actually cowards. In the first story told by the bandit, the wife is a siren. It is because of her that the bandit decides to attack her husband and goes back to get her to show her his dominance over her husband. She is an innocent woman in this story and when he kisses her she cannot overcome him and obliges. She requests a duel because she cannot stand to have two men know of the shame. She runs away the first chance she has. The wife’s story shows herself as a victim and she wants forgiveness and peace. It was not her fault what happened and is trying to seek forgiveness from her husband. She begs for him to kill to make everything right after he would not stop staring at her. After he is killed, she tries to find peace by killing herself, which she fails at. When the medium tells the story of the samurai husband, she is unfaithful and uncaring. She wants to leave with the bandit and wants him to kill her husband so she doesn’t feel guilty for being with two men. The last story, told by the woodcutter, reveals her to be in control and a very strong woman. She laughs at both men and tell them they are pathetic and guilts them into fighting.
ReplyDeleteIn some ways i agree and disagree w/ James Benardinelli. Machiko Kyo's role in this film might have been breathtaking back in the 50's (in which the film was made in), but i saw her as an actress who was good at times and terrible at others (eg. she was pretty good when the film had her as the devious manipulator forcing the two guys to fight...well kill over her, but was just plain terrible when she was in front of the judge explaining her version of the murder, didn't know if she was seriously trying to act for us the viewers or just playing an act on the judge but in either case it was just bad for me!). If anything, i thought the husbands role (Mifune i do believe) was the standout for me mainly because of his facial expressions (he had little dialogue in the film). I felt his pain when his wife was i guess "raped" (eventhough it looked as if she gave in to the bandits powers.....women loved badboys in 16th century china too lol!), and felt his discuss w/ his wife when he gave her "the look that could kill". These expressions were believable to me and heartfelt. The bandit(Myo)gave a decent performance (eventhough i could NOT stand that stupid ass sinister laugh of his that i guess he was trying to do), the priest and other two bandits under the bridge gave stellar performances as well. All in all, the wife (Machiko)was the weakest link in the film to me due to her up and down performance!
ReplyDeleteI agree with Berardinelli in that her portrayal is the most striking. In each of the stories all of the characters remain mostly the same with the exception of the last story in which both the bandit and the husband are made to look like cowards. But in each story her character changes and has a different attitude. In the first story she starts out tough and tries fighting and then in the later stories she ends up just giving in. She is also kinda deceiving and seductive in some ways. At some points I could not tell if she was the victim or if she was a mastermind trying to get away from her husband.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the critic about her portrayal because she is the most changed throughout each rendetion of the story. She could be seductive in one scene and be an innocent victim in another. I interpreted her portrayal quite differently than others because I found that instead of belittling womens importance in Japanese culture but it mocks mens power. In the final telling of the story Kyo mocks her husband for not protecting her while she was being attacked after he told her to commit suicide. Portraying both men as buffoons shows how men sometimes arent as powerful as they may seem and how women can ultimatly become authoritative if there life is at stake.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Berardinelli. Her acting is very convincing. I felt that her role in the film was the most changed because she is the deciding factor of the outcome. She is the one who taunts the bandit to slay her husband. She is the one who pressures them to fight. Her emotions are the widest of range as well. In the final revision scene she quickly changes from sad to hysterical to fearful. The most shocking scene of the film for me however, was the final battle. Seeing two men who were supposed to be courageous fighters stripped down to weak images living out what it is meant to be "male" was an exhausting experience for me. Machiko Kyo is still the most striking person in the film. Rashomon is definitely an interesting portrayal of males and females.
ReplyDeleteAlthough all the actors in RASHOMON were talented, I agree that Machiko Kyo's portrayal of the raped woman was the "most striking" in the film. While telling her side of the story, she does act a little over-dramatic, but it fits her character well, and the viewer can either feel sorry for her, or disbelieve her. Her character is the one that changes most in each side of the story being told; in her viewpoint, she seems to be the helpless victim whose husband won't forgive her, while in her dead husband's view, she was selfish and manipulative, as she wanted to run away with the bandit, and have the bandit kill her husband. The bandit's portrayal in the film was also striking at times, such as with his intense mannerisms when telling his side of the story. However, his character for the most part stayed the same in every account, it was just his actions that differed. The raped woman completely changed personalities in each account, making her the most "striking" and memorable character.
ReplyDeleteI don't agree or disagree. All POV's of the characters story are all dishonest and selfish and make each individual look better. Machiko Kyo's version on the story was very dramatic and she made man seem very un-honorable. she told her story this way to persuade the audience, while Tajômaru's story was about battle and how the husband battled with great honor but still lost. The film has very interesting points on how both women and men act in a tight situation.
ReplyDeleteI do agree with James Berardinelli that Machiko Kyo varied much more than the other characters. She goes after the bandit with a dagger, which has an aggressive appeal. In another vision she is crying and helpless on the ground. In the final vision she is angry with both men because neither are trying to fight for her. Kyo’s personality has a much bigger spectrum than anyone else. The actress’s performance on the other hand repeated too much for such a changing character. Her crying became to much to handle at times and distracted the attention away from other performances.
ReplyDelete