The article dives deep into the relationship between Japan’s disasters and their portrayal in cinema. For starters, the author listed different perspectives of presenting disaster on the big screen. One presents natural disaster and war as dark and gritty as they actually are; one presents them in a light-hearted way; and of course, there is also one that aims to strike the balance between the two. I believe that there is no right or wrong here. The methodology chosen should entirely depend on the message that the film aims to convey. Cinema is supposed to be limitless. The idea and concept behind the film should be the backbone, while the ways of presenting vary according to it. If the goal of the film is trying to emanate the horror of war, it then would be reasonable to exaggerate the grim atmosphere. If the film tries to show hope in humanity during such hardships, downplaying the terrifying elements would not be unacceptable.
Li Ching Ho Leo 3035933517
The method can be originated from the message. Perhaps the criticism in the reading is about whether some kinds of messages are less acceptable. As you have said, the film is limitless, is it really limitless? Or are there some messages that are wrong?