The consistent appearance of the destruction of cities in Japanese movies is closely associated with its history and culture.
Japan has always been vulnerable to numerous disasters from natural (tsunamis, earthquakes) to manmade (wars), and these disaster films seem to act as memory and therapy of the society. Because of the optimism present in society, the movies usually have a happy ending in which the Japanese people defeat the catastrophe and rebuild the society instantly, and this symbolizes the faith of citizens that the nation would always reboom and revive, which further promotes the unity among Japanese people.
For the cultural aspects, since Japan is also a highly developed but stressful society, citizens are always living under the pressure and suppression in this relatively conservative East Asian cultural circle, and that might be the reason why Japanese people enjoy the pleasure of the destruction of the city, to release their stress by witnessing the current society falling and being destroyed, and with the hope to rebuild and embrace a whole new and better world in the future.
Sun Manling
3036099502
It is awesome that your discussion opens a dual way of interpreting monster-themed films in Japan. The last sentence “Oh no, there goes Tokyo…but it will be back, and it may even be better than before” might shed light on your understanding of the “aesthetics of destruction.” Regarding the destruction and reconstruction of Japan (especially, Tokoy), I would suggest framing your analysis based on the sentence that “Tokyo or Hong Kong—tend to be a mixture of all three kinds outlined in Isozaki and Asadas typology: they are real, surreal, and hyperreal all (P.77).” Hong Kong and Japan were facing “disappearance” even though they are under the distinguishable circumstance. So, how did films present these two sorts of “disappearances” differently and similarly (like the ghost film in Hong Kong Vs. the monster film in Japan)?