In the essay, Tsutsui discussed the role of film and film characters in relation to the local culture and society, or Japan in particular.
During recent centuries, Japan went through some of the most destructive disasters. These include the fire in the 1600s to the 1800s, the major earthquake in the Kanto region, and the atomic bomb dropped in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, along with some other natural disasters, all of which destroyed the cities and left numerous people homeless. In a highly pressurized society in Japan, some films would “distract people from the terror” while others may “normalize the unbearable” to solve the trauma and anxiety left in people’s hearts. For instance, Godzilla (Gojira) was a monster attacking Japan that resulted from nuclear experiments, which make people relate to the bombing in 1945. Whereas the monster is finally beaten and defeated, which is a happy ending acting as a metaphor that an American Science error was beaten by the more powerful Japan Science. Among the monster films created, their purpose of alleviating pain is especially clear given that the present ones are comparatively much “darker”. However much the monsters were and no matter how much destruction they caused, the city could always heal itself before the next monster begin destroying. It is the cycle of regeneration and abolition and the defeat of beasts that reflects the high-speed development and that gives people assurance in the post-war period.
Liu Jinheng 3035951959
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 “normalize the unbearable.” 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)?