text:
Talk:Spam (Monty Python sketch)

Renaming
"Spam (Monty Pythons Flying Circus sketch)" is a bit cumbersome. Shall we make it Spam (sketch), Spam (Monty Python), or something completely different...? -- Oliver P. 00:09 Feb 24, 2003 (UTC)

 * Does anyone call it just "Spam"? How about "Spam sketch" or "The Spam Sketch"? -- Tarquin

 * Ah, okay... I'll vote for Spam sketch. Argh, I still can't cope with this naming business... -- Oliver P. 00:42 Feb 24, 2003 (UTC)

Discrepancy in menu between audio and video of sketch
The audio of the sketch available at http://www.detritus.org/spam/skit.html and the video from http://linux.gda.pl/pub/spam/ seem to have different menus! Specifically, the video does not have the following menu item:

- Spam, Sausage, Spam, Spam, Spam, Bacon, Spam, Tomato and Spam

and the final menu item in the audio is:

- Lobster Thermidor aux Crevettes with a Mornay sauce Served in a Provençale Manner with Shallots and Aubergines garnished with Truffle Paté, Brandy and a Fried egg on top and Spam,

while in the video it is:

- Lobster Thermidor aux Crevettes with a Mornay sauce garnished with Truffle Paté, Brandy and with a Fried egg on top and Spam,

without the italicized portion.

The transcript of the sketch available from http://www.epicure.demon.co.uk/spamsketch.html seems to support the video rather than the audio.

Would appreciate any light on this issue!

 * The italicized part is sometimes present in different renditions of the sketch; I know it's there in The Final Rip Off. - Dasyati (talk) 18:08, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

More Discrepancies
In the video on Google at http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5627694446211716271

The Waitress suggests Spam, Egg, Sausage and Spam which is not listed on the Wiki menu.

Mr. Bun suggest Egg, Bacon, spam and sausage which is on the menu but in a different order (how pedantic is that!)

The Hungarian on the video actually says Spam, Egg, Spam, Bacon, Spam, Tomato, Spam, Spam, Spam not as listed Spam, sausage, spam, spam, spam, bacon, spam, tomato and spam which is listed as being from the radio version (which I have not listened to).

As an British English speaker I'd say that although it sounds like "sperm" he actually says on the video "Spam" with an attempted Hungarian accent.

"Spam" vs. "SPAM"
According to the spam.com website, the correct spelling of the product is "SPAM", not "Spam". Unless there's an authentic Monty Python transcript available where they use the spelling "Spam", I think all references to the meat product in the quotes from the skit should be changed to "SPAM". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Atkinson 291 (talk • contribs) 3 March 2006.

 * The manual of style says to "follow standard English text formatting and capitalization rules even if the trademark owner encourages special treatment". (The Wikipedia page on Spam doesn't capitalise the product's name.) --McGeddon 16:10, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

missing the other side of the same coin
I can't believe people are also missing the other side of the skit.

It is a comedy against spam, ok, pretty obvious.

But it's just 1 person who don't like it, everyone else does.

That note should be on the article, and if quoting in wikipedia is permited, then quoting showing that should be there too!

I'm not saying eletronic spam is good, but I suppose articles should be NPOV.

--Cacumer 02:40, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Shortness?
I'm taking out this bit: "Despite its shortness," since it's pretty normal length for a Monty Python sketch. Juryen (talk) 18:39, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Spam link
I changed the Spam link in the restaraunt menu to Spam (food) since that is what it is referencing, not Disambiguous Spam --user:chewbacca1010

I am disappointed. Nobody seems to know why the Internet nuisance is called spam. Yes, it is derived from the sketch, but through an intermediary, just as in radiation implosion, the x-rays bounce off the internal walls of the hohlraum before they evaporate the pusher-tamper to compress the thermonuclear fuel.

What happened is this: in 1994, an immigration law firm of Kanter (and another guy who got disbarred) created an advertisement about the green card lottery and their expertise at helping illegal aliens win the lottery. They then crossposted it to the entire Usenet. All 2000+ groups. (Remember, the internet was very small in those days, and the WWW was still embryonic; gopherspace was the bee's knees and Telnet: was the way to go.)

So when you loaded your Usenet point into the nn reader (gawrsh I feel OLD!!) you got the greencard add over and over and over and over and over and over. Kanter Kanter Kanter  Kanter Kanter Kanter <> Rinse Repeat.

THAT dear children, is where SPAM comes from.38.125.99.85 (talk) 15:35, 26 March 2011 (UTC)Kevin J. Connolly, Esq., decorated veteran of the Domain Name War a/k/a cybersharque kjconnollyesq@yahoo.com

 * You're just in the wrong article. Try Spam (electronic). - Denimadept (talk) 17:33, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

World War 2
The USSR and Japan were at peace until after the Hiroshima bomb, and during the war Japan permitted non-weapons shipments from the US to the USSR. Much of this was food aid, in the form of Spam, probably because it had a long shelf life and was a the most calories you could pack into a can. Russian troops called it "Second Front". I have seen quotations from Soviet generals that "without Spam, they couldn't have made it to Berlin". I have also seen a figure that Spam was something like 10 or 15 per cent of the entire calories of Soviet troops. When you examine the wartime Soviet economy, Spam is a factor.

Firstly, is this type of info relevant, even if it is a Python page?

Secondly, does this type of info need citations?

fbaube at saunalahti.fi —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.197.240.134 (talk) 09:11, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

 * This article is for the monty python sketch. Unless you have a source mentioning these facts in relation to the sketch, it is superfluous.  It may be appropriate information for the article on the food product, spam (I'm not familiar with the state of that article). -Verdatum (talk) 17:07, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

SPAM Museum
Removed "...and is performed every day by local actors". I've been there. It is a video, not actors. --MartyChang (talk) 20:00, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Spam source
The name "SPAM" comes from Hormel, true. The term spam as linked to in this article, does indeed come from this sketch, which references the Hormel product. - Denimadept (talk) 18:33, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Inspiration for the SPAM sketch: Bob Rafelson's iconic 60s counterculture film, 'Five Easy Pieces' has been cited as the inspiration for the 'Spam' sketch. Its most famous scene is Jack Nicholson's rant at a waitress in a roadside diner who refuses to accept his order to mix items from the menu, noted as a brilliant encapsulation of the rebellious attitude of 1960s American youth against the unthinking conformity of the older generation. Python managed to make their spoof even more iconic and subversive, suggesting both attitudes were equally ridiculous, as well as riffing on one of their key themes, namely British embarrassment when complaining about poor service. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.40.207.96 (talk) 19:50, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Rationing
The article states "Spam was one of the few meats excluded from the British food rationing that began in World War II ..."; in fact SPAM was rationed, but not as restrictively as fresh meat. See Talk:Spam (food) --Redrose64 (talk) 10:55, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Invalid external link
The external link to YouTube now goes to a video that has been copyright claimed and removed from the platform.

A new source should be referenced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.219.72.214 (talk) 14:48, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Spam Song sleeve photo
Apparently that's the actual cover of a 7" single released by Charisma, but the photo is not from Spam: it's from the Dirty Fork restaurant sketch.

title: Talk:Spam (Monty Python sketch)


text:
User talk:Zoe/archive 7

Did you access to the page about "L'étrange Madame X" ? Ericd 23:32 Jan 26, 2003 (UTC)

 * No, did somebody create one? -- Zoe

Some of these people have no clue how to check the article's history Zoe, nor what wikified means. Good luck ;) BF

 * No I'm reffering to http://frenchfilms.topcities.com/nf_L_etrange_Madame_X_rev.html
 * Ericd

 * Oh, no, I hadn't, thanks for the reminder. -- Zoe

Oh Great Godess, controller of heaven, the earth and Wikipedia. What kind of moronic, idiotic, stupidity did you use to remove the name of the portrait of Amedeo Modigliani. Is this kind of ignorance part of the "Wikipedia Consensus" that you ONLY do because they tell you to? Don't think so. As I already said, you are going around screwing up articles posted by people who know what they are talking about. I repeat: Please stop. What you in fact did to Modigliani, and others I suspect, is in fact vandalism !...DW ESQ cc: Jimbo whoever

I have no idea what you're babbling about, DW. The caption under the picture is still there, is that what you're raving about? -- Zoe

What is it about Wiki that, as well as attracting committed capable people, also seems to draw the likes of DW? Ignore his abuse. The other 99.9% of Wiki users know you do a damn good job. It is a pity that we might have to ban DW; he does some good work. But even Jimbo seems to have had enough of this pompous, self-important cretin. We should open a special page: 'Today's ludicrous insults from DW' but it might exceed the browser limit too quickly. Keep up the good work. JTD 04:51 Jan 27, 2003 (UTC)

Keep an eye out. At 5.06 GMT DW inserted the word 'British' into the opening of the article on George Washington, claiming he was following your lead in inserting country of origin. (I've removed it.) Hopefully it was just a once-off bit of childishness. He has too much ability to waste it vandalising articles out of spite. I've put a warning on the List just to be on the safe side so people can keep an eye out in case he tries this stunt again anywhere else. What is it about Wiki that it seems to bring out the worst in some people? JTD 05:44 Jan 27, 2003 (UTC)

Yes. I'm now aware that I have one of the "bad browsers". I usually will not touch anything that looks too large. But usually it lets me edit them and only then truncates. You could be right then that it was the user before me. Spooked me out. Thanks. Arthur

Zoe, would you please have a look at my suggestion for a naming scheme at Talk:Mormon (Mormon's record), and comment if I've made a bad suggestion? I seems reasonable to me, and I looked atNaming conventions, but i'm kind of ineperienced a wikipedia conventions. We probably also need strict feedback from a few Mormons on this. Thanks. Arthur 01:17 Jan 29, 2003 (UTC)

I wish to apoligize for teasing you. As I would like to add some information on Salim I al Sabah, Kabbar, Abdul Aziz ibn Abdul Rahman ibn Saud, Najd, Faisal I, Political Titles of the Ottoman Empire, Warba, Abdulla II al Sabah, the First Kuwaiti Crisis, Abdullah ibn Hussein, Mashian, Failakah, Auhah, al Khalifa, al Jalahima, al Sabah, Abdul Karim Qasim, Jaber III al Ahmad al Sabah, Muhammad I al Sabah, the Second Kuwaiti Crisis, Zaki Arsuzi, Salah al Din Bitar, Ghazi ibn Faisal, Bakr Sidqi, Abdullah II al Sabah, Ahmad al Sabah, Abdul Ilah, and Percy Cox, as well as (obviously) the Anglo-Iraqi Treaty of October 1922, the Turkish Petroleum Company, the Basra-Baghdad Highway, the Berlin-Baghdad Railroad, and the Abudllah Khor Waterway, Nuri al Said, Abdulla III al Sabah, Aramco, the Kuwait Oil Company, and the Anglo-Kuwaiti Treaty of 1899; I would like to inquire as to what objections you might have to my doing so? Vera Cruz

Why did you erase the link to Texas on Laurel Clark?

Why did you erase the link to Texas on William C. McCool?

I haven't even looked at the Laurel Clark article, so it wasn't me. I changed Lubbock, Texas to Lubbock, Texas because that's the appropriate link. Please leave a name next time. -- Zoe

Ok...why is that the appropriate link? Lubbock, Texas is far more useful to the user Vera Cruz

 * Writing it Lubbock, Texas is better because:
 * It conforms to the established standard, &
 * The article Lubbock, Texas includes a link in it to Texas, so the two links do not need to be divided.

 * Why isn't this format useful to you, Vera? -- llywrch 02:46 Feb 2, 2003 (UTC)

 * The twice-banned Lir/Vera is just looking to cause trouble again. -- Zoe

 * He is doing nothing of the sort. You are dismissing a perfectly valid point of view out of prejudice. I explained the reasons for doing it his way in Talk:Laurel Clark. Writing Lubbock, Texas inconveniences no-one but the person writing it, and makes life a lot easier for the reader who will want quite likely want to refer to the article on the state, and who will also quite likely be thoroughly annoyed at having to go through two intervening (and usually boring) articles just to get to it. One has to go firstly to the city page, and then to the one on the surrounding county, before one has a chance to get to the page on the state! Lubbock, Texas does not link to Texas; one has to go via Lubbock County, Texas to get to it. Now, will you kindly stop messing about with Vera Cruz's perfectly valid edits, and stick to making your more helpful contributions. Thank you. </rant> -- Oliver P. 03:26 Feb 2, 2003 (UTC)

 * Lubbock, Texas does now link directly to Texas. I've just inserted the link. -- Oliver P. 03:29 Feb 2, 2003 (UTC)

Sorry for ranting at you, Zoe. I'm just in a bad mood, I think. Probably exacerbated by lack of sleep. I really don't know why I'm still up - it's gone 04:00 over here...! Hope I haven't risen too far up your list of evil people. ;) -- Oliver P. 04:11 Feb 2, 2003 (UTC)

 * That may be Vera's intent, Zoe. But I find it hard to think good of Vera when I find the following response on my talk page, with no indication where I posted the question Vera is answering -- llywrch 18:14 Feb 2, 2003 (UTC)

 * Pretend that you don't know what Texas is. You are sure Lubbock is a town and you don't really care about it, but you want to know where Texas is located; using Lubbock, Texas forces them to go to Lubbock and then to Texas, whereas, using Lubbock, Texas requires only one step. I started using this after noting that not all towns have articles, and thus Sometown, Wherever is completely useless for finding out about the region. Vera Cruz

-- Are you working on February 2 yet? If not I was going to update it. If you are I'll of course followup with more events. --mav

That was quick, I only just added the Esotropia article within the last 20 minutes or so. Nice work :) --Chuggnutt

"alumnus. alumni is plural" Why not change all the alumni to alumnus on that page (Brigham Young University)?... B
 * Ok, just making sure I wasn't being targeted by you or something. Shame on me though for doing the same thing instead of correcting them. I did minor in latin after all. But heh, it was late too. B

I moved the following down here where it belongs: THAT CARL CRAIG BIO IS PUBLIC DOMAIN AND NOT FROM THAT SITE PLEASE REPLACE
 * So who wrote it? If you did, tell us so.  If you didn't what makes it public domain? -- Zoe
 * Did you see this at the bottom of the page? -- Permission is granted to download/print out/redistribute this file provided it is unaltered, including credits -- we can't guarantee that this information won't be altered. That's the nature of the Wikipedia.  And credits are usually not included, except on the Talk pages.  -- Zoe

If our ignoramus on Woman leaves any free time, maybe you could have a look at Cinderella: I added on some movies, but I'm sure you'll be able to add more or fix my mistatements about them -- Someone else 08:20 Feb 8, 2003 (UTC)

Zoe, no you are out of line. The articles on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is one long vile and racist attack on a suffering people. If you don't understand that I feel sorry for you. In Wikipedia, it is OK to write everything from a comepletely discredited Zionist perspective, but woe to the Anti-Semites who desire impartiality. The Al Naqba article was closer to truth than much else on Wikipedia. But you don't want discussion; so I won't discuss further. /Martha

 * Make them more neutral then, don't go over to the other side to try to make them one point of view. And if you think you can be better at it, please discuss it on the Talk page, don't suddenly come out of nowhere with no bona fides that anybone here knows of and suddenly try to tell us how to do things.  Introduce yourself and let us know why you think things are wrong on the talk pages.  -- Zoe

Taking a side, Zoe? Ethnocentrism not something your over quite yet? Rabbi Michael Lerner - A link for you, Zoe. And "we" know where your bigotries stand, now dont we? -Stevert

 * Actually that really isn't clear in this matter. And that means that Zoe is doing something right. Your views are very obvious, however. --mav

I saw your comments on the Jewish religion, SV, so I don't need to say any more on that subject. But no, we don't know where my bigotries stand, why don't you enlighten us? -- Zoe

Zoe, I must take issue with wholesale reverts of everything Martha is doing. For example, I don't think the Irgun article needed to be reverted. Please take a moment to read the changes she makes before reverting. Graft

Never mind, it appears you are doing so anyway. Apologies. Graft

I second that. Its important to actually read the material before you revert it. As for claims of my anti-Semitism - I dont know what to say. Im not Jewish. excuse me, for seeing issues quite differently. Be well. -Stevert

 * I know you're not Jewish. That's pretty clear from the attacks you make on the religion. Neither am I, by the way. -- Zoe

Hi Zoe,

I only meant that not -all- of what Martha was writing was POV. Much of what RK writes is also POV, but I don't think that means we should go around reverting everything he writes. We should not throw the baby out with the bathwater, is all I'm saying. Graft

I agree, much of what RK writes is valid. but some of it is not, and Im happy to call attention to it, regardless of what people in their assumptions, might chose to label me. The canary in question is in the very bad habit of blanket reverting anything some of us do without even reading it. The fact that its tolerated speaks volumes. The fact that its supported.... well. What more can be said? Be well, again. -Stevert

RK, I disagree with you on reverting Palestinian exodus. I don't think the current version is NPOV. -- Zoe

 * Disagreement is one thing. That is Ok by me. But Marth's wholesale censorship of pertinent facts, especially from the Arab point of view, seems irresponsible to me. Martha is pretending that the Arab views of the 1990s and 2000s are the same as the Arab views of the 1940s and 1950s. That is not only wrong, but I would hold deliberately deceptive. I don't mind of other people take a crack at NPOV that article at all. And it would be informative to see how the Arab POV changed. I just disagree with the inappropriate form of historical revisionism that Martha pushes. RK

 * For one thing, that article badly needs organization and summaries of the relevant opinions. Right now it reads like a badly glued together mess of quotes, and it's very easy to take a side by selecting only certain quotes. --Eloquence

Aack! I should have gotten an edit conflict on My Sister Eileen but for some reason didn't. You may want to take a look at it: I don't think anything got left out, but it would be good to check. (There are a LOT of actors/actresses etc. that don't have articles yet, I'm surprised!) -- Someone else 07:11 Feb 9, 2003 (UTC)

 * Why do you think you should have gotten an edit conflict? Good work on all the new additions, by the way.  -- Zoe

 * Thanks. I thought I should have 'cause I added "Wonderful Town" and then looking at the history saw that it had already been added (but it was already in there and I had to take out one version, so I was wrong about the conflict!) -- Someone else

---

Zoe, I left a response for you on my user talk page -sfmontyo

Hi. Please read my comments on User talk:Maveric149. Mintguy 04:17 Feb 11, 2003 (UTC)

Hello, Zoe. I've just noticed that you've deleted quite a lot of things from February 11. May I ask what criteria you used to decide what to delete? -- Oliver P. 05:33 Feb 11, 2003 (UTC)

 * They were a lot of nonentities. We either need to make very day page thousands of links long, listing everybody who was every born or died and every event that ever happened, or we need to be more concise.  Why list only a few of the people who won the men's and women's US figure skating championships?  Why not list all of them?  And then why not list every person who's ever won any country's figure skating championship?  I'm pretty well-versed in American sports, and I never heard of these so-called American athletes in basketball, baseball, football, whatever they were.  I did leave a lot of cricket players because I don't know how famous they are.  -- Zoe

 * Hmm... That's a good point about the page getting ridiculously long, but how are we to decide what to keep there? I'm a little worried that if the decision of who to keep is just based on how familiar they sound to you, then... well, isn't that inserting your own POV about what is important and what isn't? What we need is a good old NPOV criterion for deciding what to include, that doesn't rely on subjective judgements. Hmm. Well, for people, we could say that they can be included if they have a substantial article - say over 1 K in size - or something like that. That way it would discourage people from putting relatively unknown people in, or encourage them to do more work in writing articles! As for events, I'm not sure what criteria one could use. I don't know much about US history, but I gather that an African-American woman being hired as flight attendant in 1958 would be a pretty big deal, coming quite soon after the Montgomery bus thing and all that. And isn't the sinking of a passenger ship in which 322 people die quite a big thing? As I say, I can see why you want to shorten the page, but I hate to see information that people have gone to the trouble of typing in just going down the drain! I know this would be extra work, but I wonder if maybe instead of deleting the information altogether, you could just cut and paste it somewhere else, like the talk page, and then other people can work out a better place to put it...? That way the page would be shrunk, but the information wouldn't be lost. I hope that sounds reasonable to you! Sorry if it doesn't. :) -- Oliver P. 06:03 Feb 11, 2003 (UTC)

 * Well, the information isn't lost, because it's still in the Older verstions page. -- Zoe

 * Well, most people don't go hunting through older versions just to check what's been removed. I do myself, but I'm just weird. ;) To go through every line in an "Older versions" page - and there can be dozens for some pages - just to find out what has been removed is quite tiring, believe me. It would be easier for everyone (except for the person doing it, of course!) if removed information were placed on the talk page, where they'd know where to look for it. Furthermore, talk pages are searchable using the "Search" function, whereas older versions aren't, as far as I can tell. So if you take out a note about an event which is only mentioned on a date page, no-one would be able to find it by doing a Search, and they'd probably just end up having to research when the event happened all over again. Why not copy the information into a relevant page, like, say moving the figure-skating champions to a figure-skating page or something? It really would make life easier for people. -- Oliver P. 06:31 Feb 11, 2003 (UTC)

 * But most of the people I deleted didn't have articles about them anyway. -- Zoe

 * You mean some of them did!? *gasp!* For those that didn't, you could always write stubs for them. Or send me the names, and I could write stubs for them. :) But in any case, I still don't see what's wrong with the idea of moving information to the talk page. You could just keep Notepad or whatever open, and then instead of "select, delete" you could do "select, cut, move mouse to Notepad, paste", which wouldn't take all that much longer, and then once you've collected all the cut bits, you just copy the lot and paste it into the talk page. Simple! :) Oh, go on, I'll write a message to the mailing list in support of your proposed sysop status if you do. Wouldn't that be nice? (Or has it been given to you already?) -- Oliver P. 06:50 Feb 11, 2003 (UTC)

- Hey Zoe: Moving the Bayamon article to it's new heading, I noticed you had asked the question of 'what is a holding bridge?" on the talk page. Honestly, I just noticed that you had that question, so Im sorry that Im answering so late, as the question was posted in September.

A Holding Bridge is what I use to describe such bridges as the Brooklyn bridge or the Golden Gate bridge. I used that phrase, because in Spanish, actually, thats how people call it. But I have no idea what the name of those types of bridges is in English. Maybe Cable bridge or something..I dont know...

Perhaps you could fix the article with the right name :)

Once again, thanks for reading my articles, and God bless you!!

Sincerely yours, AntonioMartin

--- Please tell us what you plan on accomplishing by doing this

Providing ground for self-references updates User:Anne

Zoe, First Past the Post is the formal actual name of an electoral system. We already have a mess on Wiki where people seem to mis-understand different systems and are merging slightly similar systems (eg, though the entire political science world refers to Proportional Representation through Single transferable Vote - PR.STV (and use capitals to denote it), Wiki insists on calling it Single transferable vote, which is not the same thing, particularly when by not using capitals you don't make clear that you are talking about the actual voting system, not a different aspect of the electoral process.)

The whole point with using capitals is to make clear that you are dealing with the formal process under the formal name. First past the post could mean an election result, a variation on the process or a topic unrelated to elections at all. FIrst Past the Post (using capitals) is the formal name of a clearly defined election system, just as Single Transferable Vote is a formal name of a clearly defined election election system, and Proportional Representation through SIngle Transferable Vote is the formal name of a clearly defined election system. If things have formal names, deliberately given to them to distinguish the formal system from a general description on something related to the topic, they should be used. There is absolutely no logic in not using capitals for what capitals are intended to do, formally distinguish definitions & titles from anything else. (I've had the nightmare of correcting essays of students who get all confused because they cannot recognise a name or definition from general information. Wikipedia is simply going to make people even more confused if it decides not to use capitals on formal names that are intended to be capitalised. Or maybe we should just forget about capitals and mix up queen and Queen, write about pope john paul the same way we would write about slippers. And then wonder why people cannot make head or tail of it all.) I am rather bolshie on this I know, but I have had the experience over the years of being b*******d by lecturers for writing first past the post when I should have written First Past the Post or pr.stv for PR.STV. Wiki should be about raising people's standard of accuracy and level of english, not dumbing down. High standards shouldn't just apply to the contents of articles. They should also apply to the titles. 'First past the post' makes no sense in political science terms and no sense grammatically as an article headline. JTD 03:19 Feb 14, 2003 (UTC)

Hey, Zoe. Check out my edit on Servant. You might want to put that article/user on your radar. Danny 04:04 Feb 16, 2003 (UTC)

--

I just wanted to say thanks for being a great editor. You're often criticized, but I wanted to make sure you know I think you're a valued contributor and I almost always agree with you, even when I don't (if that makes any sense). Thanks for being committed to the project. Tokerboy 07:37 Feb 16, 2003 (UTC)

 * Very true words. I feel the same. :) --mav 07:56 Feb 16, 2003 (UTC)

- Are you working on February 18 yet - I was going to give it a go but I don't want us to be working on the same thing at the same time. --mav 03:48 Feb 18, 2003 (UTC)

mav, I'm working on it right now. -- Zoe

 * OK - I'll work on something else. :) --mav

Ahh.. sorry I thought I'd created that test page in my user workspace and not the encylopaedia workspace. Mintguy - Dear Zoe: Hi! Thanks for fixing the Bayamon article with the phrase suspension bridge. Your observance is deeply appreciated as is your helpness.

Thanks and God bless you!

Sincerely yours, AntonioMartin - Dear Zoe: Well, thank you, and thank you again!!! LOL ...thanks for asking the question first, and then for letting me know who fixed the page. Im going to thank him right now.

God bless!!

Sincerely yours, AntonioMartin

--

Hey, I forgot that I read and then accidentally deleted your e-mail when my short-term memory wasn't functioning properly and, of course you can call me Tuf, as I am in fact quite tough, indestructible to all normal weapons (and also a cat, one of the rare Virginian-kind with opposable thumbs). Tuf-Kat

If you have a spare moment there is a formatting question at Talk:Historical anniversaries/Example. --mav Yes, Zoe, I am planning on linking all those (very very very small) pictures into a page (actually I already have) and I -promise- I **Promise** that it will make sense why I did. really.

To discuss the theological and historical idea of the construction of the "mother temples" around the world (all 7) takes the pictures. Trust me, I'm not blasting pictures all over the wikipedia, and I'm not going to do some weird religious screed. I'll be NPOV and try to be demure.

But I understand your concern. Really. But there's a point. Give me 48 hours to get it all cleaned up ok? Rick Boatright 06:41 Feb 21, 2003 (UTC)~

Zoe, I don't think changing the word 'with' to 'on' on the [UN. . . Iraq] page solves the problem. on and with are both used, the former by anti-war people, the latter by pro-war people. So we have just moved one POV and replaced it for another. I've another suggestion: instead call it ' The UN Security Council and the proposed Iraq war'. That way you avoid any hint of bias, by all words that could be seen as in any way expressing a POV and instead calling it a term that all sides would be able to use: the Proposed Iraq War. What do you think? JTD 00:28 Feb 22, 2003 (UTC)

Reply to your rude comment.. --KF 00:49 Feb 23, 2003 (UTC)

Hey Zoe!

Last time you and I spoke, I had been here a week or so, and you seemingly forever (to a newcomer like me, anyway). I inappropriately called you out when your were being entirely reasonable. But newcomers like me (and you were one, once) don't see what's happening here until they get used to the culture[?].

Anyway, the business of (crap, what was it called?) Amerocentrism is a real one, I think. Please! Bear with me. I'm not angry at anyone, and I've learned to read your edits with appreciation.

It's not, for me at least (maybe there are others who are angry), whether Americans talk about what they know. It's whether they impose a US viewpoint on non-US issues. The example that most affected me is the page on Japanese cuisine. The current page is written almost entirely entirely by me, but I've seen four (five?) people edit that page with an eye to how Japanese cuisine has affected the United States. No one has edited it to say how it has affected any country in Europe, Asia, or Africa, however. There is an odd "Amerocentrism" that has affected the discussion of a cuisine 4000 miles away.

I deleted some of it, crunched most of it into a single topic at the end of article (so as not to censure Americans), but I'd still rather delete it all. Japan is not America, you know?

So i think that sometimes people are not unhappy about Americans talking about what they know (your really decent phrase), they're unhappy about Americans talking about stuff that has nothing to do with them as if USA is the topic.

Best wishes,

(and I totally respect you)

Arthur 01:52 Feb 23, 2003 (UTC)

My understanding of the deletion policy was that pages shouldn't be just be summarily deleted in the middle of a dispute about them. That's what the Votes for deletion page is for. -- Oliver P. 02:32 Feb 23, 2003 (UTC)

 * I recall a policy that one shouldn't delete pages until a week after they were listed, especially in the case of possible copyright violation. If you read the top of the VfD page it says, in bold no less, Page titles should stay listed for a minimum of a week before a decision is made. In this context I'm thinking of Pathological narcissism, Narcissistic Personality Disorder, Inverted Narcissists, all of which were listed on the 22nd Feb and deleted today (23rd Feb). One would prefer to have waited for a week (29th Feb). Martin

Hiya Zoe. I think the martini stuff can be deleted. Danny 03:50 Feb 23, 2003 (UTC)

Sorry, Zoe, perhaps I should have explained myself a bit better! I meant that my understanding of the deletion process is that when someone wants a page to be deleted, they put it on the Votes for deletion page, and, after it has been up for discussion for at least a week, another uninvolved sysop can delete the page, if that's what seems to be the general consensus.

It's just that on a few occasions now you have deleted pages in the middle of an ongoing conflict about whether they should exist or not. For example, on the morning of 16th February, you deleted one page (2000 Elections) four times in quick succession. Clearly someone thought the page was worth having, and you disagreed. So you should have put it on "Votes for deletion". I don't think it should be up to you to unilaterally decide that a page is worthless. What made me bring the issue up last night was a similar event. I'm not sure if I can remember the details correctly, because the history has gone. But it went something like this... Someone had made a page about a supposed swear word in Arabic. Someone else blanked it out, and then someone else added some more text. And then you deleted the whole page. Later this morning, you went on to delete several other pages that had been listed on "Votes for deletion" for only a very short time.

Now, I'm not making any comment about whether or not all these pages were worth having or not. But I don't think it's up to you to make unilateral decisions on the matter. That's what "Votes for deletion" is for. It specifically says on the page, in bold lettering, "Page titles should stay listed for a minimum of a week before a decision is made." That way the matter is no longer solely your responsibility; other people can debate the merits or otherwise of the disputed pages, and there's no need to get into "deletion wars" with people. -- Oliver P. 16:43 Feb 23, 2003 (UTC)

Leave it go, Zoe. I'm sure your suspicions are correct, but SM is behaving as well as any of us right now (better than some!) and seems determined to start afresh. If there is a return to the bad old days, I will be the first to join with you on this, but for now, why don't we just take her on face value as a useful Wikipedis contributor? Early days, but she's doing just fine. Tannin

Hello Zoe. Could you give me some reasonable pointers on how to compile an article in line with Wiki-principles? Especially how to use "outside" material, links, articles..etc..A link to a howto page would be highly appreciated too.. Starquake Thanxs, for tips, ZOE. Starquake

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: User talk:Zoe/archive 7


text:
Fiver

Fiver may refer to:

Currency

 * An Australian five-dollar note
 * A British five-pound note
 * A Canadian five-dollar note
 * A five-euro note
 * A United States five-dollar bill

Other uses

 * Fivers, a name for the Zaydi branch of Shia Islam
 * Fiver (puzzle), a math game played on a 5×5 grid, distantly related to Conway's Game of Life
 * Fiver (Watership Down), a fictional rabbit in the Richard Adams novel Watership Down
 * "The Fiver", a humorous daily football email by The Guardian newspaper
 * When a cricket bowler gets five wickets in a single inning

title: Fiver


text:
Rashomon

Rashomon (羅生門) is a 1950 jidaigeki drama film directed and written by Akira Kurosawa, working in close collaboration with cinematographer Kazuo Miyagawa. Starring Toshiro Mifune, Machiko Kyō, Masayuki Mori, and Takashi Shimura as various people who describe how a samurai was murdered in a forest, the plot and characters are based upon Ryunosuke Akutagawa's short story "In a Grove", with the title and framing story based on "Rashōmon", another short story by Akutagawa. Every element is largely identical, from the murdered samurai speaking through a Shinto psychic to the bandit in the forest, the monk, the assault of the wife and the dishonest retelling of the events in which everyone shows their ideal self by lying.

The film is known for a plot device that involves various characters providing subjective, alternative and contradictory versions of the same incident. Rashomon was the first Japanese film to receive a significant international reception; it won the Golden Lion at the Venice Film Festival in 1951, was given an Academy Honorary Award at the 24th Academy Awards in 1952, and is considered one of the greatest films ever made. The Rashomon effect is named after the film.

Plot
In Heian-era Kyoto, a woodcutter and a priest, taking shelter from a downpour under the Rashōmon city gate, recount a story of a recent assault and murder. Baffled at the existence of conflicting accounts of the same event, the woodcutter and the priest are joined by a commoner. The woodcutter claims he had found the body of a murdered samurai three days earlier, alongside the samurai's cap, his wife's hat, cut pieces of rope, and an amulet. The priest claims he had seen the samurai travel with his wife on the day of the murder. Both testify in court before a policeman presents the main suspect, a captured bandit named Tajōmaru.

In Tajōmaru's version of events, he follows the couple after spotting them traveling in the woods. He tricks the samurai into leaving the trail by lying about finding a burial pit filled with ancient artifacts. He subdues the samurai and attempts to rape his wife, who tries to defend herself with a dagger. Tajōmaru then seduces the wife, who, ashamed of the dishonor of having been with two men, asks Tajōmaru to duel her husband so she may go with the man who wins. Tajōmaru agrees; the duel ends with Tajōmaru killing the samurai. He then finds the wife has fled.

The wife, having been found by the police, delivers different testimony; in her version of events, Tajōmaru leaves immediately after assaulting her. She frees her husband from his bonds, but he stares at her with contempt and loathing. The wife tries to threaten him with her dagger but then faints from panic. She awakens to find her husband dead, with the dagger in his chest. In shock, she wanders through the forest until coming upon a pond and attempts to drown herself but fails.

The samurai's testimony is heard through a medium. In his version of events, Tajōmaru asks the wife to marry him after the assault. To the samurai's shame, she accepts, asking Tajōmaru to kill the samurai first. This disgusts Tajōmaru, who gives the samurai the choice to let her go or have her killed. The wife then breaks free and flees. Tajōmaru unsuccessfully gives chase. After being set free by an apologetic Tajōmaru, the samurai kills himself with the dagger. Later, he feels someone remove the dagger from his chest, but cannot tell who.

The woodcutter proclaims that all three stories are falsehoods and admits that he saw the samurai killed by a sword instead of a dagger. The commoner pressures the woodcutter to admit that he had seen the murder but lied to avoid getting in trouble. In the woodcutter's version of events, Tajōmaru begs the wife to marry him. She instead frees her husband, expecting him to kill Tajōmaru. The samurai refuses to fight, unwilling to risk his life for a ruined woman. Tajōmaru rescinds his promise to marry the wife; the wife rebukes them both for failing to keep their promises. The two men unwillingly enter into a duel; the samurai is disarmed and begs for his life, and Tajōmaru kills him. The wife flees, and Tajōmaru steals the samurai's sword and limps away.

The woodcutter, the priest and the commoner are interrupted by the sound of a crying baby. They find a child abandoned in a basket along with a kimono and an amulet; the commoner steals the items, for which he is rebuked by the woodcutter. The commoner deduces that the woodcutter had lied not because he feared getting in trouble, but because he had stolen the wife's dagger to sell for food.

Meanwhile, the priest attempts to soothe the baby. The woodcutter attempts to take the child after the commoner's departure; the priest, having lost his faith in humanity after the events of the trial and the commoner's actions, recoils. The woodcutter explains that he intends to raise the child. Having seen the woodcutter's well-meaning intentions, the priest announces that his faith in men has been restored. As the woodcutter prepares to leave, the rain stops and the clouds part, revealing the sun.

Cast

 * Takashi Shimura as Kikori, The Woodcutter
 * Minoru Chiaki as Tabi Hōshi, The Priest
 * Kichijiro Ueda as The Commoner
 * Toshiro Mifune as Tajōmaru, The Bandit
 * Machiko Kyō as Masago, The Wife
 * Masayuki Mori as Kanazawa no Takehiro, The Samurai
 * Noriko Honma as Miko, The Medium
 * Daisuke Katō as Hōmen, The Policeman

Production
The name of the film refers to the enormous, former city gate "between modern-day Kyoto and Nara", on Suzaku Avenue's end to the south.

Development
Kurosawa felt that sound cinema multiplies the complexity of a film: "Cinematic sound is never merely accompaniment, never merely what the sound machine caught while you took the scene. Real sound does not merely add to the images, it multiplies it." Regarding Rashomon, Kurosawa said: "I like silent pictures and I always have... I wanted to restore some of this beauty. I thought of it, I remember in this way: one of the techniques of modern art is simplification, and that I must therefore simplify this film.'"

Accordingly, there are only three settings in the film: Rashōmon gate, the woods and the courtyard. The gate and the courtyard are very simply constructed and the woodland is real. This is partly due to the low budget that Kurosawa was given from Daiei.

Casting
When Kurosawa shot Rashomon, the actors and the staff lived together, a system Kurosawa found beneficial. He recalls: "We were a very small group and it was as though I was directing Rashomon every minute of the day and night. At times like this, you can talk everything over and get very close indeed."

Filming
Due to its small budget the film had only three sets: the gate; the forest scene; and the police courtyard. Filming began on 7 July 1950 and ended 17 August. After a week's work on post-production, it was released in Tokyo on 25 August.

The cinematographer, Kazuo Miyagawa, contributed numerous ideas, technical skill and expertise in support for what would be an experimental and influential approach to cinematography. For example, in one sequence, there is a series of single close-ups of the bandit, then the wife and then the husband, which then repeats to emphasize the triangular relationship between them.

The use of contrasting shots is another example of the film techniques used in Rashomon. According to Donald Richie, the length of time of the shots of the wife and of the bandit is the same when the bandit is acting barbarically and the wife is hysterically crazy.

Rashomon had camera shots that were directly into the sun. Kurosawa wanted to use natural light, but it was too weak; they solved the problem by using a mirror to reflect the natural light. The result makes the strong sunlight look as though it has traveled through the branches, hitting the actors. The rain in the scenes at the gate had to be tinted with black ink because camera lenses could not capture the water pumped through the hoses.

Lighting
Robert Altman compliments Kurosawa's use of "dappled" light throughout the film, which gives the characters and settings further ambiguity. In his essay "Rashomon", Tadao Sato suggests that the film (unusually) uses sunlight to symbolize evil and sin in the film, arguing that the wife gives in to the bandit's desires when she sees the sun.

Professor Keiko I. McDonald opposes Sato's idea in her essay "The Dialectic of Light and Darkness in Kurosawa's Rashomon." McDonald says the film conventionally uses light to symbolize "good" or "reason" and darkness to symbolize "bad" or "impulse". She interprets the scene mentioned by Sato differently, pointing out that the wife gives herself to the bandit when the sun slowly fades out. McDonald also reveals that Kurosawa was waiting for a big cloud to appear over Rashomon gate to shoot the final scene in which the woodcutter takes the abandoned baby home; Kurosawa wanted to show that there might be another dark rain any time soon, even though the sky is clear at this moment. McDonald regards it as unfortunate that the final scene appears optimistic because it was too sunny and clear to produce the effects of an overcast sky.

Editing
Stanley Kauffmann writes in The Impact of Rashomon that Kurosawa often shot a scene with several cameras at the same time, so that he could "cut the film freely and splice together the pieces which have caught the action forcefully as if flying from one piece to another." Despite this, he also used short shots edited together that trick the audience into seeing one shot; Donald Richie says in his essay that "there are 407 separate shots in the body of the film ... This is more than twice the number in the usual film, and yet these shots never call attention to themselves."

Music
The film was scored by Fumio Hayasaka, who is among the most respected of Japanese composers. At the director's request, he included a bolero during the woman's story.

Due to setbacks and some lost audio, the crew took the urgent step of bringing Mifune back to the studio after filming to record another line. Recording engineer Iwao Ōtani added it to the film along with the music, using a different microphone.

Allegorical and symbolic content
The film depicts the rape of a woman and the murder of her samurai husband through the widely differing accounts of four witnesses, including the bandit-rapist, the wife, the dead man (speaking through a medium), and lastly the woodcutter, the one witness who seems the most objective and least biased. The stories are mutually contradictory and even the final version may be seen as motivated by factors of ego and saving face. The actors kept approaching Kurosawa wanting to know the truth, and he claimed the point of the film was to be an exploration of multiple realities rather than an exposition of a particular truth. Later film and television use of the "Rashomon effect" focuses on revealing "the truth" in a now conventional technique that presents the final version of a story as the truth, an approach that only matches Kurosawa's film on the surface.

Due to its emphasis on the subjectivity of truth and the uncertainty of factual accuracy, Rashomon has been read by some as an allegory of the defeat of Japan at the end of World War II. James F. Davidson's article, "Memory of Defeat in Japan: A Reappraisal of Rashomon" in the December 1954 issue of the Antioch Review, is an early analysis of the World War II defeat elements. The article has since appeared in some subsequent Rashomon anthologies, including Focus on Rashomon  in 1972 and Rashomon (Rutgers Film in Print)   in 1987. Davidson's article is referred to in other sources, in support of various ideas. These sources include: The Fifty-Year War: Rashomon, After Life, and Japanese Film Narratives of Remembering a 2003 article by Mike Sugimoto in Japan Studies Review Volume 7, Japanese Cinema: Kurosawa's Ronin by G. Sham , Critical Reception of Rashomon in the West by Greg M. Smith, Asian Cinema 13.2 (Fall/Winter 2002) 115-28  , Rashomon vs. Optimistic Rationalism Concerning the Existence of "True Facts" , Persistent Ambiguity and Moral Responsibility in Rashomon by Robert van Es  and Judgment by Film: Socio-Legal Functions of Rashomon by Orit Kamir. Another allegorical interpretation of the film is mentioned briefly in a 1995 article, "Japan: An Ambivalent Nation, an Ambivalent Cinema" by David M. Desser. Here, the film is seen as an allegory of the atomic bomb and Japanese defeat. It also briefly mentions James Goodwin's view on the influence of post-war events on the film. However, "In a Grove" (the short story by Akutagawa that the film is based on) was published already in 1922, so any postwar allegory would have been the result of Kurosawa's editing rather than the story about the conflicting accounts. Historian and critic David Conrad has noted that the use of rape as a plot point came at a time when American occupation authorities had recently stopped censoring Japanese media and belated accounts of rapes by occupation troops began to appear in Japanese newspapers. Moreover, Kurosawa and other filmmakers had not been allowed to make jidaigeki during the early part of the occupation, so setting a film in the distant past was a way to reassert domestic control over cinema.

Theatrical
Rashomon was released in Japan on August 24, 1950. It was released theatrically in the United States by RKO Radio Pictures with English subtitles on December 26, 1951.

Home media
Rashomon has been released multiple times on DVD. The Criterion Collection issued a Blu-ray and DVD edition of the film based on the 2008 restoration, accompanied by a number of additional features.

Box office
The film performed well at the domestic Japanese box office, where it was one of the top ten highest-earning films of the year. It also performed well overseas, becoming Kurosawa's first major international hit.

In the United States, the film grossed $46,808 in 2002 and $96,568 during 2009 to 2010, for a combined US$ in the United States between 2002 and 2010.

In Europe, the film sold 365,300 tickets in France and Spain, and 8,292 tickets in other European countries between 1996 and 2020, for a combined total of at least 0 tickets sold in Europe.

Japanese critical responses
Although it won two Japanese awards, most Japanese critics did not like the film. When it received positive responses in the West, Japanese critics were baffled: some decided that it was only admired there because it was "exotic"; others thought that it succeeded because it was more "Western" than most Japanese films.

In a collection of interpretations of Rashomon, Donald Richie writes that "the confines of 'Japanese' thought could not contain the director, who thereby joined the world at large". He also quotes Kurosawa criticizing the way the "Japanese think too little of our own [Japanese] things".

International responses
The film appeared at the 1951 Venice Film Festival at the behest of an Italian language teacher, Giuliana Stramigioli, who had recommended it to Italian film promotion agency Unitalia Film seeking a Japanese film to screen at the festival. However, Daiei Motion Picture Company (a producer of popular features at the time) and the Japanese government had disagreed with the choice of Kurosawa's work on the grounds that it was "not [representative enough] of the Japanese movie industry" and felt that a work of Yasujirō Ozu would have been more illustrative of excellence in Japanese cinema. Despite these reservations, the film was screened at the festival.

Before it was screened at the Venice festival, the film initially drew little attention and had low expectations at the festival, as Japanese cinema was not yet taken seriously in the West at the time. But once it had been screened, Rashomon drew an overwhelmingly positive response from festival audiences, praising the originality of the film and its techniques while making many question the nature of truth. The film won both the Italian Critics Award and the Golden Lion award—introducing Western audiences, including Western directors, more noticeably to both Kurosawa's films and techniques, such as shooting directly into the sun and using mirrors to reflect sunlight onto the actor's faces.

The film was released in the United States on December 26, 1951, by RKO Radio Pictures in both subtitled and dubbed versions, and it won an Academy Honorary Award in 1952 for being "the most outstanding foreign language film released in the United States during 1951" (the current Academy Award for Best Foreign Language Film wasn't introduced until 1956). The following year, when it was eligible for consideration in other Academy Award categories, it was nominated for Best Art Direction for a Black-and-White Film.

Upon release in North America, Ed Sullivan gave the film a positive review in Hollywood Citizen-News, calling it "an exciting evening, because the direction, the photography and the performances will jar open your eyes." He praised Akutagawa's original plot, Kurosawa's impactful direction and screenplay, Mifune's "magnificent" villainous performance, and Miyagawa's "spellbinding" cinematography that achieves "visual dimensions that I've never seen in Hollywood photography" such as being "shot through a relentless rainstorm that heightens the mood of the somber drama." In the early 1960s, film historians credited Rashomon as the start of the international New Wave cinema movement, which gained popularity during the late 1950s to early 1960s.

Rotten Tomatoes, a review aggregator, reports that 98% of 52 surveyed critics gave the film a positive review; with an average rating of 9.3/10. The site's consensus reads: "One of legendary director Akira Kurosawa's most acclaimed films, Rashomon features an innovative narrative structure, brilliant acting, and a thoughtful exploration of reality versus perception." In a 1998 issue of Time Out New York, Andrew Johnston wrote: "Rashomon is probably familiar even to those who haven't seen it, since in movie jargon, the film's title has become synonymous with its chief narrative conceit: a story told multiple times from various points of view. There's much more than that to the film, of course. For example, the way Kurosawa uses his camera...takes this fascinating meditation on human nature closer to the style of silent film than almost anything made after the introduction of sound." Film critic Roger Ebert gave the film four stars out of four and included it in his Great Movies list.

Remakes and adaptations
Rashomon spawned numerous remakes and adaptations across film, television and theatre. Examples include:

 * Rashomon as a play, various versions of which have been performed since the 1950s, including on Broadway in 1959 as written by Michael and Fay Kanin.
 * Andha Naal, a 1954 Tamil film was inspired by Rashomon.
 * Valerie, a 1957 American western inspired by Kurosawa's film.
 * On The Play of the Week, in 1960, season 2, episode 12, "Rashomon". Based on Kurosawa's film. Directed by Sidney Lumet.
 * On The Dick Van Dyke Show, in 1962, season 2, episode 9, "The Night the Roof Fell In". Rob and Laura's perspectives of their day is countered by a goldfish.
 * The Outrage, a 1964 American western directed by Martin Ritt. Screenplay adapted by Michael Kanin from the 1959 Broadway version he co-wrote with his wife, Fay Kanin (above).
 * On The Odd Couple, in 1972, season 2, episode 21, "A Night To Dismember". Oscar, Blanche and Felix all remember the New Year's Eve when the Madisons split up differently.
 * Yavanika, a 1982 Indian Malayalam-language film loosely based on the film. The film stars Bharat Gopy and Mammootty.
 * On All in the Family, in 1973, season 3, episode 21, "Everybody Tells the Truth". Mike, Archie, and Edith recount competing tales of the evening's interactions with a refrigerator repairman.
 * "Rashomama", a 1983 episode of Mama's Family
 * On thirtysomething, in 1987, season 1, episode 4, "Couples". Each of the 4 main characters remember differently their evening at a restaurant and a marital fight afterwards.
 * Star Trek: The Next Generation, where a 1990 episode called "A Matter of Perspective" was produced and aired with a similar plot line to Rashomon, this time told from the view of Commander Riker, the assistant of a murdered respected scientist and the scientist's widow.
 * Courage Under Fire, a 1996 war film, in which events surrounding the rescue of a downed Bell UH-1 Iroquois helicopter in the First Gulf War are recounted in flashbacks by three different crew members.
 * On Frasier, in 1997, season 5, episode 9, "Perspectives on Christmas". The family each recall their day from different perspectives.
 * King of the Hill: in the tenth episode of the third season, "A Fire Fighting We Will Go". The gang each recalls the burning down of a firehouse from their perspective, each portraying themselves as the hero.
 * Farscape's second season's 17th episode, "The Ugly Truth", which aired in 2000, follows this format, challenging the crew of Moya as liars, as the interrogators are a species with eidetic memory who can't comprehend subjective viewpoints.
 * "Suspect", episode 13 of season 2 of Smallville from 2003, depicts the mystery of who attempted the murder of Lionel Luthor with contradictory flashbacks from multiple perspectives.
 * Virumaandi, a 2004 Tamil film written, directed and produced by Kamal Haasan,depicts an incident in view of two prisoners, Virumaandi thevar and Kothala thevar.
 * On CSI: Crime Scene Investigation, in the 2006, Season 6, Episode 21 "Rashomama". Nick's car containing all the evidence for a murder is stolen and the team attempts to continue the investigation based on their conflicting memories of the crime scene.
 * Vantage Point, a 2008 film with multiple viewpoints focusing on an assassination attempt on the President of the United States
 * The Rashomon Job, an episode of the series Leverage (2008–2012) telling the story of a heist from five points of view (S03E11)
 * At the Gate of the Ghost, a 2011 Thai film by M.L. Pundhevanop Devakula, adapting Kurosawa's screenplay to ancient Ayutthaya.
 * Police Story 2013, a 2013 film partially inspired by some plot elements.
 * The Affair, a 2014 series portraying an extramarital relationship where the leads recount different versions of their liaison.
 * Ulidavaru Kandanthe, a 2014 Kannada film directed Rakshit Shetty, where a journalist narrates the story of a murder in 7 different viewpoints by giving special reference to local Tulu people and their culture.
 * Talvar, a 2015 Hindi film narrates the story of a double murder through multiple contradictory viewpoints.
 * The Bottomless Bag, a 2017 Russian film by Rustam Khamdamov, also based on Akutagawa's In a Grove.
 * Tombstone Rashomon, a 2017 film that tells the story of the Gunfight at the O.K. Corral in the style of Rashomon.
 * The Last Duel, Ridley Scott's 2021 epic historical drama of a rape and duel told through multiple points of view.
 * Monster is 2023 Japanese drama film.

Preservation
In 2008, the film was restored by the Academy Film Archive, the National Film Center of the National Museum of Modern Art, Tokyo, and Kadokawa Pictures, Inc., with funding provided by the Kadokawa Culture Promotion Foundation and The Film Foundation.

Awards and honors

 * Blue Ribbon Awards (1951) – Best Screenplay: Akira Kurosawa and Shinobu Hashimoto
 * Mainichi Film Concours (1951) – Best Actress: Machiko Kyō
 * Venice Film Festival (1951) – Golden Lion: Akira Kurosawa
 * National Board of Review USA (1951) – Best Director: Akira Kurosawa and Best Foreign Film: Japan
 * 24th Academy Awards, USA (1952) – Honorary Award for "most outstanding foreign language film"

Top lists
The film appeared on many critics' top lists of the best films.
 * 5th – Top ten list in 1950, Kinema Junpo
 * 10th – Directors' Top Ten Poll in 1992, Sight & Sound
 * 10th - 100 Greatest Films list in 2000 The Village Voice
 * 76th - "Top 100 Essential Films of All Time" by the National Society of Film Critics in 2002.
 * 9th – Directors' Top Ten Poll in 2002, Sight & Sound
 * 13th - Critics' poll in 2002, Sight & Sound
 * 290th – The 500 Greatest Movies of All Time in 2008, Empire
 * 50 Klassiker, Film by Nicolaus Schröder in 2002
 * 1001 Movies You Must See Before You Die by Steven Jay Schneider in 2003
 * 7th – Kinema Junpo's The Greatest Japanese Films of All Time in 2009.
 * 22nd – Empire's "The 100 Best Films Of World Cinema" in 2010.
 * 26th - Critics top ten poll, 100 Greatest Films of All Time, Sight & Sound (2012)
 * 18th - Director's top ten poll, 100 Greatest Films of All Time, Sight & Sound (2012)
 * Woody Allen included it among his top ten films.
 * 4th - BBC's list of "100 greatest foreign language films" in 2018.

title: Rashomon