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

[–] mrwnmero 9 years ago

most of your points are inaccurate, first of all you don't get to suggest modifications on a story, you just state your opinion about it, because a story is something relative just like music or a painting, you may hate what others like "same thing goes to whether that woman was pretty or not".
secondly you mentioned the rain thing, why would 3 strangers gather together and tell stories if they are not waiting for something and they have to wait together "like waiting for a bus or waiting till electricity gets back on, or rain to stop so they can go on their ways"? the rain seems suitable to me.
as for the camera work you can only imagine how valuable and hard to use cameras was back then, they didn't have smartphones with cameras so not everybody was an expert on filming so I'm sure the filmmakers ruled out the possibilty that a viewer back then would think of their camera work, as viewers today excuse their bad camera handling because of whatever means or tools they had, or hadn't back then.
as for the hyped acting I agree with you on this, also the fighting scenes are the worst!! I expected more from a Japanese movie that involves Samurai.
the message of the movie is interesting but a bit exaggerated.
7/10.

Nobody panics when things go "according to plan." Even if the plan is horrifying!

[–] The_TJT 9 years ago

I wouldn't call my points inaccurate simply because you disagree. But your counter arguments are hereby noted. :)

About fighting scenes... maybe modern films are best in that respect... the likes of Hero/Crouching Tiger/Matrix etc.

Why I really replied was to recommend another Kurosawa film for comparison, which has stunning cinematography and great battle scenes: Ran (1985)
...Kurosawa's last film and imo also the best - definitely so when it comes to cinematography. Kurosawa worked for years on the storyboard, drawing the scenes by hand and the results show. "Ran" is if not the best then at least one of the best films I have ever seen when it comes to striking images and colours. Kurosawa's samurai epic is available on widescreen HD too, which I do recommend. The story is a mix of Shakespeare and Japanese samurai mythology. But I digress...

[–] The-Massi 9 years ago

So... you DO love at least one of Kurosawa's, at last? thanks god! You got me more hopeful on yourself now!

Tell me... have you seen Kurosawa's other films? now that you liked "Ran" that much, I bet you're gonna love 1980's "Kagemusha - The Shadow Warrior"... and if you seen it already... well, good for you!

:)

[–] The_TJT 9 years ago

Heheh. Thanks for recommendation.

Haven't seen Kagemusha but it's on my "watchlist" because, yes, it appears to be similar to "Ran".

I've seen from Kurosawa:
(from best to worst, imo)

Ran
Seven samurai
Yojinbo (I prefer Leone's "Fistful" though)
Dersu Uzala
Rashomon
Ikiru

Planning to see "Throne of Blood" soon enough and "Kagemusha" a bit later.

[–] DoctorBuster 9 years ago

There were moments where I found it quite boring as well. But there is always a scene that keeps my attention going. I rated it a 7/10 and I stand by that.

My world is fire and blood.

[–] IHateJakeGyllenhaal 9 years ago

What the *beep*? is this supposed to be joke?

[–] smarques5 9 years ago

The original poster is very arrogant. I wonder if he or she can read again what he or she wrote without embarrassment.

I believe you realize how silly and contrived are most of the points you made, but you can't and you won't retract for fear of losing face.

Ironically this discussion mirrors in a sense the plot and the moral lessons of 'Rashomon'. There's more than one side for every story, and most people don't tell all that they know. Most people only tell self-serving half-truth or barefaced lies. The OP disliked the film for whatever subjective motives only he or she knows and later attempted clumsily to explain the "objective reasons" why it's overrated: the rain, "the samurai's wife wasn't that pretty", "I don't believe anyone would commit suicide out of shame" (even if it happens all the time) and other minutiae.

There's nothing contrived in 'Rashomon', not even the spirit of the dead samurai speaking through a medium (the film was set in XII Century, remember). All the characters are easily relatable and fit universal archetipes: the humble peasant, the cynical commoner, the troubled young priest, the proud samurai and his slutty wife, the lustful bandit.

[–] The_TJT 9 years ago

The original poster is very arrogant.

Perhaps not quite as arrogant as you...

I believe you realize how silly and contrived are most of the points you made, but you can't and you won't retract for fear of losing face.

And you know this how... are you a "medium"?

Ironically this discussion mirrors in a sense the plot and the moral lessons of 'Rashomon'. There's more than one side for every story, and most people don't tell all that they know. Most people only tell self-serving half-truth or barefaced lies. The OP disliked the film for whatever subjective motives only he or she knows and later attempted clumsily to explain the "objective reasons" why it's overrated: the rain, "the samurai's wife wasn't that pretty", "I don't believe anyone would commit suicide out of shame" (even if it happens all the time) and other minutiae.

You twist and misunderstand what I wrote...

How do you get...

"I don't believe anyone would commit suicide out of shame"

From...

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.

Looks to me that your quote is a lie.... how ironic.

There's nothing contrived in 'Rashomon', not even the spirit of the dead samurai speaking through a medium (the film was set in XII Century, remember).

Why, do you reckon that dead spirits actually talked to mediums in 12th century?

I quote myself:

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...

[–] smarques5 9 years ago

And you know this how... are you a "medium"?

I said I believe it and I see no reason to change my mind. Your reply seems to confirm it.

Looks to me that your quote is a lie.... how ironic.

My mistake. But that not changes the main issue: that you state your opinions as facts. That's why I said you come across as arrogant.

I had no difficulty to empathize with the samurai's plight, the shame and sense of betrayal that might or might not led to his suicide. Anyway what this part of the story reflects is the cuckolded husband resentment and desire of revenge toward the wife. He wasn't trying to make himself look good. He was trying to make the treacherous woman look bad. I can safely assume that most of the people who has viewed this films understands it too. It's only you that are unable to relate. That's not the film's fault, but yours.

Why, do you reckon that dead spirits actually talked to mediums in 12th century?

There's something called "suspension of disbelief". It's not so hard to accept that in the context of a work of fiction, unless you are biased against said work.

If you have a problem with a little supernatural element interspersed in a film set in medieval Japan probably you are incapable too to enjoy half of the world's literature, and all the films in the fantastic, horror genres and even science-fiction (supposedly based in science but in most cases based in unproven or even plainly false "facts").

[–] The_TJT 9 years ago

My mistake. But that not changes the main issue: that you state your opinions as facts. That's why I said you come across as arrogant.

That's a strawman. I wrote first up in OP:

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

That should tell you that these are my opinions. No need to get personal if someone has different opinions from yours.

There's something called "suspension of disbelief". It's not so hard to accept that in the context of a work of fiction,

Imo the medium thing didn't really fit the tone with rest of the film. It wasn't a fantasy story at all. The medium was just a clumsy plot device to tell what really happened, if I correctly recall it after one year and a half after seeing the film.

That sort of plot device was imo much more fitting with Kurosawa's "Throne of Blood", which had a witch making a prediction - but that film had also other ghost story elements.

But good for you if you could suspend your disbelief... the treshold of course is always different depending on a viewer.

If you have a problem with a little supernatural element interspersed in a film set in medieval Japan probably you are incapable too to enjoy half of the world's literature, and all the films in the fantastic, horror genres

Well my IMDB voting history for the past 15 years is there for all to see. How about you?

[–] cooler56 9 years ago

Are you autistic or something? The details you point out hardly make the film "flawed."

[–] The_TJT 9 years ago

Your counterargument is even less convincing.

[–] Ore-Sama 9 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.

Adding to the mood of a scene or creating a certain feeling is one story serving aspect of film language. It does not have to be some visual metaphor or display information to service the film.

Well, I didn't notice the camera work during other than the long scene when woodcutter was marching in the forest

and why is this a problem with the film, exactly? That falls more onto the observer. It's not a film's job to make you notice the "camera work".

thought to myself "so this is what constitutes fancy camerawork back then".

and here I am thinking to myself "is this what constitutes film critique?".

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.

There's a variety of reasons he could've been going out that far, such as enjoying the forest atmosphere, or maybe there's something about the wood out further he prefers. I don't think it's really that important to know.

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.

Good lord, if you think the story of "Rashomon" is visual heavy and minimal on story, don't even go near something like "Le Samurai".

But no, Kurosawa did not believe that every single second had to serve some vital storytelling function. Like many great directors, he recognized the impact of atmosphere and mood, and would insert deliberately paced scenes like this to create it, as he does in other works like "Yojimbo" and "Throne of Blood", and which he carried on even further in "Kagemusha" and "Ran".

Also, pacing. If we just cut to him suddenly at the scene, it wouldn't been abrupt and not worked nearly as well.

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

How was it clumsy? Raining is a thing that happens in the real world, and even in our modern times it is quite good at keeping people indoors. I can't think of a more natural reason to keep people inside telling stories. I don't know, maybe the rain doesn't keep you indoors but for a lot of people it clearly does.

Also, the rain added mood and a sense of foreboding to what was to come.

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,

Clearly it isn't boring to the guy who insists on hearing the rest.

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.

No it doesn't, it's an asinine criticism, just like every other thing you've stated so far.

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?!

You're misrepresenting this plot point. He didn't trust the bandit, clearly, hence insisting on keeping him ahead.

As for why he went, multiple possibilities, and they don't have to be mututally exclusive.

1. He had a genuine interest in buying the swords.
2. He didn't want to simply leave this bandit behind and risk getting ambushed at night, so went along with him to see what was up.
3. Assumed this petty bandit was no threat to him so long as he had him in his sights so decided to go up. Remember, the guy was clearly trained so it's not like he would be incapable of warding off an attack.
4. The same way we saw the wife was bored with her husband, maybe he thought following this bandit would be an amusing distraction.

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

Oh, well, if YOU don't find her attractive, how could anyone else?

Any sensible person could see how someone would find her attractive even if they themselves don't.

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.

Cause of course reality based stories never have supernatural plot elements. Macbeth, what's that?

7. Over the top acting.

Okay, go on to tell us how you don't understand acting.

Still, back to the point: this kind of hammy acting is idiosyncratic for Kurosawa films and I don't like it.

I would contradict this assertion that this is in any way specific to Kurosawa, but you all ready do so yourself in the following sentence.

Japanese have this habit of "authoritative shouting and grunting" in their films, for the lack of better word.

Yes, that's how a lot of actors in Japanese films do things. If you don't like it, well, all right, but that doesn't make it over the top. That would be like me saying some theatrical production is over the top because the actors on stage exaggerate more than they would for say, film or TV. The Japanese have different nuances to their acting.

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.

In the husband's view, clearly.

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.

Relatability is not valid as a positive or negative critique. It's one of the most shallow things that can be said of any story. It's like hitting a bulls eye in a pitch black room, pure luck.

and are you being serious in not being able to figure out why he'd want it that he killed himself instead of the bandit? Is that not the most obvious thing in the world? You don't have to be some super expert on Japanese culture to figure that out. I'm sure not.

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

Oh, you mean like your inability to "relate" to a story from another culture?

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

Considering the "flaws" you listed for Rashomon, forgive me if I'm more than a bit skeptical that these are actually flaws.

, in general the theatrical acting and it's not like filming techniques or plots have declined since then...

Theatrical acting is a different, not inferior, style of acting.

and it's not about "techniques". It's about visual language, atmosphere, mood. There's a lot of depth to Kurosawa's films just on a visual level alone, before you even get to the stories. He's up there with Antionioni and Tarkovsky in that category (or in general, really)

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...

The priest made it clear he never wanted to lose hope in man, and he did only for a moment. The baby didn't "change his mind" so much as give him a reaffirmation.

The wood cutter never have an opinion on the matter so his mind wasn't changed. The third man was the cynic and his mind was never changed, so where are you getting their minds were changed?

(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)

Stealing the baby's clothes fits pretty well in line with the tone and themes of the film.

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

How is that PC?

If anything, it's realistic. Pessimism is a lazy and distorted world view that relies on using every horror story found as evidence of humanity's evil, then finding ways to discount any acts of kindness or compassion. Just like the cynic in this film, using these stories to engage in confirmation bias. If he had stayed to watch the wood cutter adopt the child, he would've just assumed he was going to sell the baby off. That's not a sensible or healthy world view.

"It's just you and me now, sport"-Manhunter

[–] The_TJT 9 years ago

This thread is like Eternal September.

So basically you don't agree with any of my criticism and get personal as well. You make assumptions why characters acted that way but the fact remains these explanations come from your imagination rather than actual storytelling by the director. Normally weaker the story more imagination needed to patch it up.

And yes I have seen Le Samourai and in my experience Tarkovsky is visual director but also incredibly poor storyteller as seen in "Stalker"... which is probably most pretentious film there is; with zero intent to entertain - other than director's own ego. You list that in your top 100 films, which I knew after reading your post. Try to think with your own brain for once instead of following critically accepted opinion like a sheep. As for Antonioni, imo most Italian filmmakers are visual.

And as for Japanese style of acting and ladies looks... I've become more used to it after writing the OP, having watched most Kurosawa's films. I still DO NOT like this sort of acting - and have noticed that most women in Kurosawa's films look like that, which is mainly because of makeup. Some actually are beautiful. The root is in Noh theatre school of acting which imo worked best in "Ran" - far superior film to Seven Samurai imo, especially visually. Ran is King Lear, while Throne of Blood is Lady Macbeth.

I think your post would have been more credible if you had agreed at least with some points I made - and dropped personal insults. If you don't have guts to display your ratings while talking about Antonioni and Tarkovsky then it's pretty hard to take you seriously, you sound like a little film student following the herd, kid.

[–] giangcannesoscarmath 9 years ago

I like your post in Deadpool, especially the way you point out how overrated that film is and I guess you may have a great taste in film until I see this post...
May be the reasons why many people like a garbage like Deadpool are as ridiculous as the reasons why you hate Rashomon.

[–] The_TJT 9 years ago

I don't hate Rashomon though. I simply think it's not THAT good as people make it out to be. Simply the acting, story and cinematography impressed me far less than on many other classics, or Japanese/Kurosawa films for that matter. It seems that general opinion is that Kurosawa made only masterpieces and can do no wrong. That's simply not true. He made some masterpieces... and some mediocre films, just like all the other directors.

However I made the OP almost couple years ago and have since then caught up on classics I hadn't seen. I can assure that IMDB top 250 has many worse films than Rashomon. Of course the opinion varies. But the things I listed in the OP were things that bothered me with the film when I saw it the first time. I suspect many of these "flaws" would remain flaws on second viewing, perhaps not all. For example appearance of the lady seems a bit silly in retrospect. I still think following the bandit to woods was just lazy writing etc.

As for taste, no two people are going to agree on all films. I should probably quit answering this thread since it seems silly to keep on arguing about a film which I didn't particularly hate and saw a couple years ago. A film which I thought is mediocre but overrated.

[–] giangcannesoscarmath 9 years ago

You are absolutely right. Kurosawa is a great director but he could make mistakes and not all of his films are masterpieces.

But based on what I saw about your ratings for many great films and how you reply other people (in other boards), I think you are very intelligent and your taste in films is great. In fact, I can't believe in my eyes when I read what you said about Rashomon because you are so much more intelligent than this, I believe that. Maybe when you wrote this post, you were sick or had a bad mood or somethings,... I don't know.

You hate Rashomon, I respect your opinion. It's all about personal taste in films (I hate The Tree of Life and I still don't understand why it is a critical acclaimed film). But with you intelligence, I expected much smarter answers, not some "ridiculous reasons" like this. (Of course I don't insult you when I said that. I'm just expressing my disapointment!)

[–] gendoikari32 8 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...

My interpretation was that this entire sequence is made up by the woodcutter, as the woodcutter admits later. It wasn't that the woodcutter habitually wanders really deep into the forest every time he cuts trees, it's that he was in the woods and heard voices, then drawing closer he saw his version of events. What he tells the court is he was out in the woods to find wood, and obviously in the beginning of the film we see him walk for quite a long time deep into the forest before he stumbles across the hat and eventually the body. He stole the dagger and wanted to minimize his involvement, so as far as the questioning from the authorities, it would go something like, "So you just found the body deep in the woods?" "Yes, I was just walking really far into the woods off the road and I found it."

In the Bandit's story he says he lured the samurai with promises of hidden antique swords and mirrors, and if you remember the samurai and the bandit go quite a ways off the main road, since the bandit wants to be able to get away with tying up the samurai and getting the wife back to him out of the view of any passerbys. The samurai and wife's stories pick up after the samurai has been tied up and the wife has been raped, and I take that to mean that their stories were identical up to that point. The woodcutter needs an excuse for chancing upon the body that he would have been unlikely to see as out of the way as they were.

Basically, the woodcutter wandering deep in the woods for a noticeably long period of time for seemingly no reason is an early small indication that he was lying about how he came across the body. Unless he was lying about lying, but he is obviously upset and consumed by the others involved all lying, and was unshakable in his confidence they all lied, so I don't think so.

Or perhaps I am overthinking this and this is just a result of more modern audiences having less tolerance for longer, less eventful scenes?