MovieChat Forums > Rashômon (1951) Discussion > Some flaws I saw in Rashomon...

Some flaws I saw in Rashomon...

posted 10 years ago by The_TJT
41 replies | jump to latest

This film seems to be highly overrated, I didn't see it as that groundbreaking or brilliant... rather I was a bit bored throughout and was checking the time... that's never a good sign.

Trying to put into words what I thought was wrong with the film...

1. Camera work didn't impress me. Am I supposed to be awed by pointing the camera in to the sun? How groundbreaking, absolute genius. Imo cinematography is supposed to serve the story, not the other way around. Well, I didn't notice the camera work during other than the long scene when woodcutter was marching in the forest, thought to myself "so this is what constitutes fancy camerawork back then". Guess that's a positive that there was only one scene like that which means most of the time directing did serve the film.

2. Got already sort of bored during the too long woodcutter march to the forest. I was wondering why does he have to go that far into the forest to cut some wood, long way to carry it back... so that seemed a bit too deliberate reason getting him to the scene of the crime. I also felt that the scene was there to serve director's fancy camerawork and to merely use time in the film... these sort of protracted scenes are usually for exactly that, killing time in a film when the story is sort of minimal.

3. The rain seemed a bit clumsy excuse for telling the story, to keep the people together. Sort of like fetching wood that deep in the forest. I kept thinking that they need the rain to keep these people listening to this boring story, but that's probably because of my subjective feelings of boredom at the moment... maybe I wasn't in the right mood for the film. Still, the point about clumsy plot devices stand.

4. So if you're travelling with your extremely gorgeous wife and meet a bandit acting weird and aggressive the best thing is to leave your wife and follow the bandit to the forest for some hidden goods? Come with me to the forest, I have some stuff hidden there... Seriously? ...who would buy that?!

5. The wife was not at all beautiful in my opinion, on the contrary. Made this crime of passion even less credible.

6. "A medium"... seriously??? Another childish plot device, a clairvoyant talking with a dead man in court of law... Not that it hasn't happened in history but still... I understood that the idea in the film was that the viewer was supposed to take clairvoyant's testimony at face value - it was something that the dead man was saying. Of course another interpretation would be that clairvoyants lie, which really isn't that a groundbreaking revelation...
Anyways, I found this plot device unintentionally amusing.

7. Over the top acting. Yes, of course that was mostly on purpose since whoever was telling about the incident would see oneself's actions as noble and the rest less noble... fools. I don't necessarily agree with that social statement, if that was a statement at all. Still, back to the point: this kind of hammy acting is idiosyncratic for Kurosawa films and I don't like it. Japanese have this habit of "authoritative shouting and grunting" in their films, for the lack of better word. Which leads to next point...

8. Cultural differences. So the husband is supposed to look better if he killed himself instead of being killed by a bandit. That may be so in Japanese culture of the time, but in modern western culture it's pretty hard to relate with... which again takes away from viewing experience.

9. These can't be really used against the film itself but I thought I'll comment on this as well while at it... :)

a) Too much hype. All Kurosawa films have ridiculously high rating. Cause of the hype, imo. Not that I didn't like 7 samurais or Yojimbo, I did. Still I didn't rate them as 10 because I think they have some flaws, in general the theatrical acting and it's not like filming techniques or plots have declined since then...

b) People misunderstand or misrepresent the main point of the film... I quote the top imdb review:

To what extent does subjectivity affect perception?

...That is not at all the point of the film - the people telling what happened don't see it differently - they simply LIE in order to look better according to honour system of Japanese culture.

The film couldn't make it any clearer than it did with:

Everyone is selfish and dishonest.
Making excuses.
The bandit, the woman, the man and you.

10. Motives for their lies. I find their lies, as well, less than credible: making up things in court to look more "honourable" while perhaps making themselves look more guilty of the actual crime. It's not like a dead man wouldn't want their killer get caught or a killer wouldn't want to get off his punishment - yet in this film they care more about looking socially acceptable rather than getting off the hook, or condemning the killer. I don't buy that... yet another less than credible plot device getting to conclusion where the film wants to be. Speaking of which...

11. The conclusion is a bit of a cop out. First they come to conclusion that people are selfish and dishonest by definition - but another clumsy plot device, the baby, makes them change their mind immediately after...
(Speaking of which, I think it's not the best parallel between stealing clothes of a baby vs. stealing a dead man's precious dagger - not the same thing at all. Stealing baby's clothes was another over the top plot point)

Thanks to you, I think I can keep my faith in man.
Don't mention it. (The end)

So all ends pc. Human is bad but there's some faith. I'm so relieved to hear this.

Overall, I was somewhat bored during it and a bit disappointed afterwards. Still, one has to view the film through it's own time and culture so I think it deserves some credit for being the first film telling multiple vantage points etc - yet even that is overstated... it's not like that wouldn't have been covered in literature etc much before the film...

Yet, now, little afterwards I do find film's statement about the human nature somewhat interesting and it appears the film does linger in my mind longer than the average film. So despite all the numerous weaknesses listed above and despite the film feeling somewhat outdated there are some elements compensating for it. I don't think the film is at all worthy for it's classic status; it's outdated and a bit silly, even boring. But for that time it's not *that* bad either... I've seen worse classics... Maybe what fascinates me afterwards (not during watching it) is the absurdity of the plot and common perception of it's classic status. Moreover Rashomon might not be entirely correct about human nature yet the film and many people believing in it's message actually makes the premise interesting and perhaps telling.

6/10

[–] mevmijaumau 10 years ago

1. Camera work didn't impress me. Am I supposed to be awed by pointing the camera in to the sun? How groundbreaking, absolute genius. Imo cinematography is supposed to serve the story, not the other way around. Well, I didn't notice the camera work during other than the long scene when woodcutter was marching in the forest, thought to myself "so this is what constitutes fancy camerawork back then". Guess that's a positive that there was only one scene like that which means most of the time directing did serve the film.

The "komorebi" shot (apparently, the Japanese have a word for rays of sunlight filtered through leaves) is there for a symbolic function - to show the utter truth/the sun partially obscured by the characters' bias/the leaves. The technical achievement behind it is that it wasn't filmed using only natural light, but they had to reflect it in some innovative way which escapes my mind at the moment.

But yes, I also think it's not that big of a deal, considering Kurosawa's previous movie, Stray Dog, was probably the first one to point a camera directly into the sun, however it was seen through overhanging mesh.

2. Got already sort of bored during the too long woodcutter march to the forest. I was wondering why does he have to go that far into the forest to cut some wood, long way to carry it back... so that seemed a bit too deliberate reason getting him to the scene of the crime. I also felt that the scene was there to serve director's fancy camerawork and to merely use time in the film... these sort of protracted scenes are usually for exactly that, killing time in a film when the story is sort of minimal.

Different times, different understanding of pace. It's common for old films to have long, quiet scenes that seem to go for too long for today's standards. I don't think that the film is to blame here.

3. The rain seemed a bit clumsy excuse for telling the story, to keep the people together. Sort of like fetching wood that deep in the forest. I kept thinking that they need the rain to keep these people listening to this boring story, but that's probably because of my subjective feelings of boredom at the moment... maybe I wasn't in the right mood for the film. Still, the point about clumsy plot devices stand.

The weather is a crucial element in every Kurosawa film, and rain in particular seems to appear a lot, actually in nearly all of his films. There's always a reason as to what it represents, and in Rashômon, it symbolizes mankind's wickedness, and is present up until the ending, where the woodcutter retrieves his hope in humanity. The rain immediately stops, and the rainy clouds get replaced by sunshine.

4. So if you're travelling with your extremely gorgeous wife and meet a bandit acting weird and aggressive the best thing is to leave your wife and follow the bandit to the forest for some hidden goods? Come with me to the forest, I have some stuff hidden there... Seriously? ...who would buy that?!

The samurai was stupid. That was the point.

5. The wife was not at all beautiful in my opinion, on the contrary. Made this crime of passion even less credible.

Because of her eyebrows?
I found her to be quite beautiful. And even if I didn't, this wouldn't be a negative side of the film because Tajomaru might have thought otherwise.

6. "A medium"... seriously??? Another childish plot device, a clairvoyant talking with a dead man in court of law... Not that it hasn't happened in history but still... I understood that the idea in the film was that the viewer was supposed to take clairvoyant's testimony at face value - it was something that the dead man was saying. Of course another interpretation would be that clairvoyants lie, which really isn't that a groundbreaking revelation...
Anyways, I found this plot device unintentionally amusing.

The medium also appears in Ryunosuke Akutagawa's short story In a grove (one of the two of his stories the film's based on), so this is simply a matter of following the source material. I didn't think it was clumsy, I mean how else are you supposed to hear the dead man's opinion in Akutagawa's/Kurosawa's fantasy world where mediums are capable of summoning the dead? I doubt she was lying because she would have to be really familiar with the situation, considering all the detailes that she transmitted to them.

7. Over the top acting. Yes, of course that was mostly on purpose since whoever was telling about the incident would see oneself's actions as noble and the rest less noble... fools. I don't necessarily agree with that social statement, if that was a statement at all. Still, back to the point: this kind of hammy acting is idiosyncratic for Kurosawa films and I don't like it. Japanese have this habit of "authoritative shouting and grunting" in their films, for the lack of better word. Which leads to next point...

You said it yourself. The over the top acting is just an extension to Japanese theatrical acting style. I'm not all too familiar with how the acting methods of the Noh and kabuki theatres were installed into Japanese cinema, so I'd rather skip a detailed reply to this point, and leave it to someone who knows more about it.
I do, however, like the acting in this movie. It may be over the top, but it was very passionate and charismatic. Something tells me it would be too sterile had the movie been made today.

8. Cultural differences. So the husband is supposed to look better if he killed himself instead of being killed by a bandit. That may be so in Japanese culture of the time, but in modern western culture it's pretty hard to relate with... which again takes away from viewing experience.

One of the strangest things I hear people complain about considering old films is that they're hard to relate to and that they "don't hold up". This is baffling to me because I want to get engrossed in the time period they were made in, or better yet, the time period they depict.

9. These can't be really used against the film itself but I thought I'll comment on this as well while at it... :)
a) Too much hype. All Kurosawa films have ridiculously high rating. Cause of the hype, imo. Not that I didn't like 7 samurais or Yojimbo, I did. Still I didn't rate them as 10 because I think they have some flaws, in general the theatrical acting and it's not like filming techniques or plots have declined since then...

Kurosawa's films are held in high regard because of their massive influence, unique directorial approach and the stories they convey. I also think that The Seven Samurai and Yojimbo aren't as good as people say they are, but I love Rashômon and I find some of them to be massively underrated even, such as The Lower Depths.

b) People misunderstand or misrepresent the main point of the film... I quote the top imdb review:

To what extent does subjectivity affect perception?

...That is not at all the point of the film - the people telling what happened don't see it differently - they simply LIE in order to look better according to honour system of Japanese culture.

The film couldn't make it any clearer than it did with:

Everyone is selfish and dishonest.
Making excuses.
The bandit, the woman, the man and you.

The first quote is one of the points of the film. While its main theme is the criticism of the characters' dishonesty, it's ambiguous enough to interpret it for yourself.

10. Motives for their lies. I find their lies, as well, less than credible: making up things in court to look more "honourable" while perhaps making themselves look more guilty of the actual crime. It's not like a dead man wouldn't want their killer get caught or a killer wouldn't want to get off his punishment - yet in this film they care more about looking socially acceptable rather than getting off the hook, or condemning the killer. I don't buy that... yet another less than credible plot device getting to conclusion where the film wants to be. Speaking of which...

I thought it was pretty credible - the samurai was obviously a very shallow man, whose honour code was his main pride and to confess to being bested by a petty, lowlife village bandit was simply unacceptable to him.

11. The conclusion is a bit of a cop out. First they come to conclusion that people are selfish and dishonest by definition - but another clumsy plot device, the baby, makes them change their mind immediately after...
(Speaking of which, I think it's not the best parallel between stealing clothes of a baby vs. stealing a dead man's precious dagger - not the same thing at all. Stealing baby's clothes was another over the top plot point)

I wouldn't call it clumsy, but I do find this to be the film's only flaw. The reason for their sudden change of opinion is perhaps laid out too vaguely. As for the second point, they had an immense respect for the dead, so it's not to surprising that the commoner compared the two types of thefts.

This is my favorite Kurosawa movie, and one of the few ones by him that I gave a 10 out of 10. I wouldn't call its message outdated, but its direction certainly might be (I mean, come on, it's 64 years old), and I don't see that as a flaw.

[–] Big G-2 10 years ago

I do, however, like the acting in this movie. It may be over the top, but it was very passionate and charismatic. Something tells me it would be too sterile had the movie been made today.

Which I thought was a big problem in the Hollywood remake THE OUTRAGE (1964), despite Paul Newman purposely hamming it up a little as the Mexican bandit, Carrasco.

[–] baremu 10 years ago

2. Got already sort of bored during the too long woodcutter march to the forest. I was wondering why does he have to go that far into the forest to cut some wood, long way to carry it back... so that seemed a bit too deliberate reason getting him to the scene of the crime. I also felt that the scene was there to serve director's fancy camerawork and to merely use time in the film... these sort of protracted scenes are usually for exactly that, killing time in a film when the story is sort of minimal.

Different times, different understanding of pace. It's common for old films to have long, quiet scenes that seem to go for too long for today's standards. I don't think that the film is to blame here.

Today's standards? Haven't you ever watched one of those european art films? Many of them have scenes that are way slower than anything in this film.

And to the OP, how can you complain about the movie's pace, and say that the scenes you describe were only there to "kill time in a film when the story is sort of minimal" when you gave a 9/10 to 2001: A Space Odyssey? I feel like that movie is filled with long, boring scenes that don't seem to have any purpose, and I can't understand how could someone enjoy 2001 and complain about the slow pace of some scenes on Rashomon!

[–] The_TJT 10 years ago

And to the OP, how can you complain about the movie's pace, and say that the scenes you describe were only there to "kill time in a film when the story is sort of minimal" when you gave a 9/10 to 2001: A Space Odyssey? I feel like that movie is filled with long, boring scenes that don't seem to have any purpose, and I can't understand how could someone enjoy 2001 and complain about the slow pace of some scenes on Rashomon!

Well obviously for some reason I don't find 2001 boring... imo scenes and pace of the film do serve buildup and the story perfectly... space is a lonely, silent and timeless place, I'd imagine, which the film portrays perfectly. I do think that the ending of 2001 was rather long and pretentious though, hence the 9 - not 10.

[–] vojkan087 10 years ago

I think cultural difference is actually the biggest issue here.

[–] The_Mahatma_Fonzie 10 years ago

This post is like a perfect parody of everything that's wrong with modern movie watchers.

My smile is stuck, I cannot go back to your frownland.

[–] The_TJT 10 years ago

Care to elaborate?

[–] The_Mahatma_Fonzie 10 years ago

You start off calling an absolute classic "highly overrated" and boring."

1. Camera work didn't impress me. Am I supposed to be awed by pointing the camera in to the sun? How groundbreaking, absolute genius. Imo cinematography is supposed to serve the story, not the other way around.

You begin your critiques by stating that the camera work didn't impress you. Then you take one small scene that was well-shot, and complain because you didn't think it was particularly impressive. Then you say cinematography should serve the story and you don't want it be impressive! Yeah, Kurosawa and Miyagawa are real idiots, and clearly you have the knowledge to make such a claim.

2. Got already sort of bored during the too long woodcutter march to the forest. I was wondering why does he have to go that far into the forest to cut some wood, long way to carry it back...

Yeah, why doesn't he just always cut the wood at the edge of the forest? Let's think about that for a second.

And of course a maybe three minute sequence bored you.

3. The rain seemed a bit clumsy excuse for telling the story, to keep the people together.

Or maybe the most thematically relevant way to present a story about people telling their side of the story is for someone to tell the story from their point of view. And you really think a story about three people all claiming to be guilty of a murder is boring? I get that you found the film boring, but you really think, in real life, you wouldn't be intrigued by a story like that? Really?

5. The wife was not at all beautiful in my opinion, on the contrary. Made this crime of passion even less credible.

Who cares? She wasn't beautiful enough for you? Seriously? Even if she wasn't beautiful, which she was, she was clearly attractive enough in the context of the story.

6. "A medium"... seriously??? Another childish plot device, a clairvoyant talking with a dead man in court of law... Not that it hasn't happened in history but still... I understood that the idea in the film was that the viewer was supposed to take clairvoyant's testimony at face value - it was something that the dead man was saying. Of course another interpretation would be that clairvoyants lie, which really isn't that a groundbreaking revelation...
Anyways, I found this plot device unintentionally amusing.

Oh, Jesus Christ. Do you watch movies with wizards and go, "you know, magic isn't real, right?"

8. Cultural differences. So the husband is supposed to look better if he killed himself instead of being killed by a bandit. That may be so in Japanese culture of the time, but in modern western culture it's pretty hard to relate with... which again takes away from viewing experience.

Yeah, it must have been difficult to understand the characters. I know it's hard to understand why a person would value their honor. What a totally foreign concept one couldn't even begin to relate to. What kind of idiot dies for honor? Don't they understand that owning consumer goods and being intensely stimulated by entertainment is what's important in life?!

Even if you couldn't relate to the characters, why should a Japanese film from the 50's, which is set even further in the past, have to be relatable to you? You seem to understand that that's how Japanese people were back then, but the fact that the characters acted the way they should have in the context of the story - took away from the experience? Why would we want all movies to have characters that act like they're in modern Western culture?

You seem to like plenty of classics, so I'm not saying there's anything wrong with your taste or your opinion (well, maybe a few things). But your post encapsulates the attitude of a certain section of modern movie watchers, who watch old movies, then complain that they didn't live up to the hype, were too slow and boring, are unrelatable because the characters act differently than people do now, and nitpick little issues they wouldn't even notice in newer movies because they'd be so entranced by the beautiful enough people and quick flashing lights.

My smile is stuck, I cannot go back to your frownland.

[–] PKLarkins 10 years ago

Why would you list "cultural differences" as a flaw in the movie? It wasn't made for 21st century Westerners. If that's a flaw, it's a flaw in the viewer, not the film.

Cultural differences explain most of your complaints. It seems obvious to me that the reason you don't think the woman is beautiful is because she looks very, very Japanese. To a Japanese man of that era she may well have appeared a goddess.

There is an American film called The Outrage that is based on Rashomon, but set in the Old West. You might find yourself better able to relate to that.

The one thing I agree with you on is that the woodcutter had to walk a little too far. Where was he going for the wood, China? But that's very minor.

[–] The_TJT 10 years ago

Why would you list "cultural differences" as a flaw in the movie? It wasn't made for 21st century Westerners. If that's a flaw, it's a flaw in the viewer, not the film.

I believe I explained that in OP: It's harder to relate to the motives that drive the people since they seem far fetched. The fact is that we are not Japanese people of that time and we look things differently from them which affects our opinion of the film whether we like it or not. If you want to look at the film and rate it in terms of cultural history then that's your prerogative but I mostly rate films based on my own entertainment value aka based on what I get from the film. I am not a Japanese film critic from that time and don't pretend to be one.

If your argument is that films should in every aspect forever be seen as a product of their time then that also means that no film can ever "age badly" - which I think is not the case.

...Imagine a film made by Neanderthals, it has a lot of hunting and grunting (probably fashionable shaky cam as well). It may be fine film in terms of anthropology but the problem with those classics is that when you've seen one you've seen them all. They were brilliant in their time but didn't age so well, the film making and stories have sort of evolved from that. Ha-ha.

Now seriously I try to take into context when and where the film was made and often rate it accordingly but I also take into account how relevant I find the film in context of modern day. Perhaps my rating is a medium (pun intended) between historical and modern context.

[–] mevmijaumau 10 years ago

If your argument is that films should in every aspect forever be seen as a product of their time then that also means that no film can ever "age badly" - which I think is not the case.

It's strange to me that people usually don't like to perceive films as products of their times, and will classify them as "dated" or say that they "aged badly". Really, a great deal of old movies' charm is that they offer a window into the past, and in case of old foreign films, a window into the past of a distant culture.

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

[–] kfantastico 9 years ago

Regarding the woodcutters long walk: I'm surprised that some folks think it doesn't make sense. To me, it makes perfect sense, especially in retrospect, since the main incident of the film reflects one of the dangers of the time, i.e., marauding bandits. Chopping wood makes a lot of noise. Noise attracts attention. Some of the attention may come from desperate criminals. Therefore, going deep into the woods seems like a wise decision to me.

[–] spookyrat1 10 years ago

Some flaws ...

Quite a number of "flaws" you point to (prevailing weather, woodcutter's journey, samurai's actions etc. are criticised for being unrealistic by your contemporary standards. (Almost surprised you didn't give the Tajomaru character a serve for him being too demonstrative and attention-seeking.)

The film is strongly allegorical in nature and as such, certainly IMO, it is almost expectant that the veracity of onscreen characters and depicted actions are exaggerated, never mind being deliberately false and misleading, if the four stream narrative is any thing to go by.🐭

[–] RKharlamov2001 10 years ago

I really can't be doing with replying to each and every point you have. So i'll choose the shortest one. And it's the last one I read because it's really dumb, no offence.

5. The wife was not at all beautiful in my opinion, on the contrary. Made this crime of passion even less credible.

Just the fact that you have this as a point, discredits you a huge amount. You don't know these characters, and you don't know how beautiful they need their women to be... There, do you get that? Do you see why that point instantly becomes irrelevant? It's like hearing a story about a rapist who goes after people in their 80's. "Oh but they aren't beautiful so the story isn't believable". Well, that DOES happen so.. what the hell are you going on about?

[–] The_TJT 10 years ago

I really can't be doing with replying to each and every point you have. So i'll choose the shortest one. And it's the last one I read because it's really dumb, no offence.

Well you got further than we expected, no offence.

As to your point about taste being subjective - true, but if I recall correctly she was supposed to be a beauty according to all people involved, not just one man. You think replacing her with 80 year old wouldn't decrease the actor's credibility at all? Ok...

[–] RKharlamov2001 10 years ago

None taken at all. Seeing as you had no idea of who I was before you read my post, you must have made a guess based on how boring your writing was, that the average person wouldn't get up to point (5).

Would it take away from the story? The story would be a very different one, about someone very *beep* up.. I was showing you an extreme as an example of people not necessarily needing to have sex with attractive people. And then you have an average girl like in the movie.. Is it really that unrealistic? I agree she definitely could be hotter, but does she need to be? Not in the slightest.

[–] The_TJT 10 years ago

Not so fast... actually I have previously seen some of your board posts.

As for the looks thing basically you agree with me... you just confuse sexual preference with aesthetics. I repeat; the woman was portrayed by everyone as gorgeous, not just one man. That disturbed me personally and that's how we do evaluate films: based on our own frame of reference as I already explained in another post in this thread which you would have seen if you only had the patience to read before growl.

Also I notice you rated the film as 7, while I rated it as 6. So based on that it appears you, either, don't think that the film fully deserves its classic status... maybe you just wanted to be rude.

[–] christomacin (4683) 4 years ago

Come on, the late Machiko Kyo had a beautiful face in her prime... who seriously disputes this? OK, maybe she could have looked better with some eyebrows, but other than that why is she not attractive? All Tojamaru saw was her face in the dappled light when they wind blew her veil from her face (or so he claimed). All her saw was her face and that was enough. To Tojamaru the lack of eyebrows wouldn't even have been noticed because that's how Japanese women of that era groomed themselves.

[–] ajh506 10 years ago

You are aware that this takes place in a surrealistic "cinematic" world meant to represent the real world. I found everything plausible and necessary or why else tell the story. Had he stayed with his wife there would have been no crime, no crime= no Rashoman. You can apply that thought process to every single question you had about plot.

Who said the technical camera work is supposed to be ground breaking? The hype is how clever the camera work was especially for 1950. The characters broke the fourth wall without really breaking it, instead the audience breaks into the story.

What's great about this film is what it says about ego. It is entertaining and enlightening. My favorite directors are Sergio Leone and Sam Peckinpah so I'm big on grandiose and fun cinematic experiences that move you. Like them, Kurosawa is great because he found that rare medium where a film can entertain and enlighten and be a great piece if art.

It's obviously cool if Kurosawa isn't your cup of green tea, but it kinda looks like you're reaching when you could easily say, "not for me."

[–] JurijFedorov 10 years ago

I gave it a 5 at the end. It's just way to boring. I really enjoyed Seven Samurai as it had a rich story and some good scenery. This only had forest, a wall and a ruin. And a lot of talking and walking around. It's a miss but I usually give 6 to movies that at least kept my attention this didn't. I even gave a 6 to Fantastic Four as it had some good jokes and interesting scenes. It was not a great movie but much more rewatchable than this one.

[–] zsutton42 10 years ago

The rain is a perfect reason to tell the story.

[–] ultam93 9 years ago

11. The conclusion is a bit of a cop out. First they come to conclusion that people are selfish and dishonest by definition - but another clumsy plot device, the baby, makes them change their mind immediately after...
(Speaking of which, I think it's not the best parallel between stealing clothes of a baby vs. stealing a dead man's precious dagger - not the same thing at all. Stealing baby's clothes was another over the top plot point)

The baby is a symbol rather, for a new generation, a place to find hope.
The commoner( parasite ) stole from the baby as he knew no better, but the priest and the woodcutter saw hope in the baby, a promise for a better future, as a new seed that could 'maybe' grow honest. It's an optimist ending.
Also the priest by his nature a man who wishes to believe, was absolutely desperate to find hope and would even accept a lie that gives hope, just to believe in something.

It's probably the only symbol in this movie that doesn't feel completely organic in my opinion ( the rain, the pillars, light either hidden by the leaves or the rain, the narrow paths, etc. all fit perfectly to the set and story)