Cinema
Critical Reception of Rashomon in the West Greg M. Smith Asian Cinema 13.2 (Fall/Winter 2002) 115-28
Most of us who write about films may as well relax and confess that we know nothing at first hand about Japanese movie production; that all we have as data has come to us from press-sheets, from quick consultations with the nearest Japanese bystander, or. . . whatever we have been able to find useful in the way of analogy and of seeing the "unaccredited" performances of Kabuki. - Vernon Young (1955: 416)
When Rashomon appeared before Western eyes in the September 1951 Venice Film Festival (and in its subsequent 1951-52 release in the United States and Europe), reviewers were poorly prepared to comment on it. Most film reviewing depends on a knowledge of tendencies within the appropriate national cinema, an understanding of the auteur 's oeuvre and a film 's place within it, an awareness of the stars ' constructed images, or a familiarity with the film 's genre conventions. Film reviewing is a comparative exercise, construing the unknown (the new film) in terms of what one already knows.
Yet few of Rashomon 's reviewers had seen any film from Japan or were familiar with the highly specific classificatory system of Japanese film genres. Almost no one knew who Toshiro Mifune, Michiko Kyo, or Akira Kurosawa were (Variety 's review of the film lists Kurosawa as a cast member with an "impassive, glowering presence"). (1951:15) Little inside information was available concerning the details of the production, removing another important source of reviewer data. Without much of the information upon which a reviewer depends, how does one write about a film? Does Rashomon 's reception in the West constitute a moment in which film reviewers could confront a film purely on its own terms as a work of art which transcends cultural boundaries? This paper explores the contemporary critical writings concerning Rashomon not so much to provide fresh insight into the text
Most of us who write about films may as well relax and confess that we know nothing at first hand about Japanese movie production; that all we have as data has come to us from press-sheets, from quick consultations with the nearest Japanese bystander, or. . . whatever we have been able to find useful in the way of analogy and of seeing the "unaccredited" performances of Kabuki. - Vernon Young (1955: 416)
When Rashomon appeared before Western eyes in the September 1951 Venice Film Festival (and in its subsequent 1951-52 release in the United States and Europe), reviewers were poorly prepared to comment on it. Most film reviewing depends on a knowledge of tendencies within the appropriate national cinema, an understanding of the auteur 's oeuvre and a film 's place within it, an awareness of the stars ' constructed images, or a familiarity with the film 's genre conventions. Film reviewing is a comparative exercise, construing the unknown (the new film) in terms of what one already knows.
Yet few of Rashomon 's reviewers had seen any film from Japan or were familiar with the highly specific classificatory system of Japanese film genres. Almost no one knew who Toshiro Mifune, Michiko Kyo, or Akira Kurosawa were (Variety 's review of the film lists Kurosawa as a cast member with an "impassive, glowering presence"). (1951:15) Little inside information was available concerning the details of the production, removing another important source of reviewer data. Without much of the information upon which a reviewer depends, how does one write about a film? Does Rashomon 's reception in the West constitute a moment in which film reviewers could confront a film purely on its own terms as a work of art which transcends cultural boundaries? This paper explores the contemporary critical writings concerning Rashomon not so much to provide fresh insight into the text
References: Advertisement, New York Times, Apr. 11, 1937: sect. 11, 4. Joseph L Doris Arden, "Rashomon," Chicago Sun-Times, Mar. 6, 1952: sect. 2, 15. Edward Barry, "Japanese Film Beautiful, Tho Story Is Slight," Chicago Daily Tribune, Mar John Beaufort, "Tale of Eighth Century Set Forth in Rashomon," Christian Science Monitor, Jan. 2, 1952: 12. Joanne R David Bordwell, Making Meaning (Cambridge: Harvard UP, 1989). Richard L Bosley Crowther, "Intriguing Japanese Picture, Rashomon, First Feature at Rebuilt Little Carnegie," New York Times Dec. 27, 1951: 18. -------------------, "Gem from Japan," New York Times, 6 Jan James F. Davidson, "Memory of Defeat in Japan: A Reappraisal of Rashomon," Antioch Review, Dec. 1954: 492-501. John W Manny Farber, "Rashomon," Nation, Jan. 19, 1952: 66. "Films ' Biggest Mystery -- RKO," Variety, Feb Philip T. Hartung, "Getting to Know You," Commonweal, Jan. 11, 1952: 350. Robert Hatch, "Rashomon," New Republic, Jan "Kimiko," Time, Apr. 26, 1937: 42-43. "Kimiko," Variety, Apr Donald Kirkley, "Faith Returns to Old Priest," Baltimore Sun, Mar. 27, 1952: 16. "Life and Love -- Tokyo to Paris," Washington Post, Feb John McCarten, "Rashomon," New Yorker, Dec. 29, 1951: 60. Fosco Maraini, "Tradition and Innovation in Japanese Films," Geographical Magazine, Oct Luther Nichols, "Rashomon, a New Kind of Film, Is a Powerful Movie," San Francisco Chronicle, Feb. 15, 1952: 9. "Rashomon," Christian Century, Apr "Rashomon," Newsweek, Jan. 7, 1952: 59-60. "Rashomon," Time, Jan "Rashomon," Variety, Sept. 19, 1951: 15. Rashomon pressbook, Wisconsin Center for Film and Theater Research Donald Richie, The Fims of Akira Kurosawa (Berkeley: U of California P, 1970). Edward W Parker Tyler, "Rashomon as Modern Art," Three Faces of the Film (Cranbury, N.J.: A.S. Barnes, 1967): 36-43. This article originally appeared in Cinema 16 (1952). Mark Van Doren, "Japanese Triangle," Nation, Apr William Whitebait, "The Movies," New Statesman and Nation, Mar. 15, 1952: 45. Vernon Young, "The Japanese Film: Inquiries and Inferences," Hudson Review 8 (1955): 436-442 2. Mark Van Doren called it "one of the most moving films I know." (1937: 419) 3