Truth/Reality and Ideology

I find this question of truth in film important because of film’s (and television’s) status as an ideological platform in modern society, and because the perception of reality within the medium is key to maintaining that status. What seems to be implicit in the blog posts thus far is an acknowledgment of the gradation of reality in filmic event—films that would be considered works of art (if all of them would not be) may involve more technical manipulation than, say, a documentary or reality TV show. But it must be understood that even the latter have been manipulated and present a highly synthesized version of reality; filmic events in documentaries or reality television shows still operate under ideological frameworks and therefore present their versions of “reality” from a quite specific point of view.

One of the things Rashomon does so well is highlighting and exposing the narrator, the point of view implicit in any narrative. And this is an especially crucial exposure in the medium of film where, as some of us have mentioned in their posts, the suspension of disbelief and willingness to accept what is viewed as unfiltered reality is so great. This leads me to wonder if the spectator’s response to the film (Rashomon) wouldn’t be different in different time periods; it seems to me that the average person today is so inculcated in the moving image and filmic event that I wouldn’t wonder if Kurasawa’s commentary on the nature of truth and reality was lost. We view this film for this seminar differently than one might who would watch it for pure entertainment value. Indeed, we are more attuned to notice and look for technical narrative elements—narrator, point of view, character developments, theme—and we are therefore more cognizant of the authorial forces at work in shaping the truth/reality we see on screen. Even so, I certainly had the impulse to ask: so what really happened? I can’t seem to undo the conditioning that leads me to believe the truth/reality will always be there in the filmic event.

Arnheim points to various cinematic techniques as a means of presenting a specific point of view of reality without disrupting the appearance of reality. In various examples, he demonstrates that “[a]n entirely natural view, justified by the [plot] action, [is] chosen, and the desired effect [is] obtained purely by taking the shot from a particular angle” (37). In this, Arnheim points to the film medium’s ability to present seamless narrative—a narrative always imbued with an ideological agenda but yet does not disrupt the perception of reality and therefore efficaciously provides for the communication of that agenda. This is not to say that most films/television programs are pushing some sinister propaganda, but because the ideology at work is so easily consumed because of its realistic façade, awareness of the manipulation of the filmic image is, I think, vital in interpreting that image.