添削してください。

質問

ある映画についてのペーパーです。

「森を壊すことは生きために必要な手段であるため、人間が「悪」だとは一概には言えない状況なのである。さらに山犬に夫を殺された女性を登場させたりし、言わば「加害者」としても自然も監督は描いた。
ここから見て取れるように、人言と自然の関係性を善悪の価値観で判断するのは間違いだと思える。また、アシタカは最後まで、「森と人、双方として生きられる方法はないのか？」と、その答えを探して葛藤します。」

Thus, to break the forest is a necessary means to live, so it is a situation that human beings are "evil" can no be said unconditionally.
Moreover, the director appeared a women who got killed her husband by wolf, so to say he expressed a nature as "perpetrator".
As can be seen from this, it seems that it is a mistake to judge the relationship between humanity and nature with the values of good and evil.
Also, Ashitaka struggles to find the answer, "forest and people, as both sides can live," until the end of the story.

・一概に言えない状況、というのをどのように英語で言えばいいのかわからず…とりあえずそのままsituationとしました。
・こちらの英文の添削をお願いします。

回答No.2

92128bwsd · ベストアンサー

Thus, to break the forest is a necessary means to live, so it is a situation that human beings are "evil" can no be said unconditionally.
⇒ to break the forest → destroying a forest
⇒ is a necessary means to live → is a necessary action for some people in particular environment to survive 最後はliveでも良いですが、surviveの方が切迫感がでると思います。
⇒so it is a situation ... ここは前からつなぎにくいので、ちょっと言い方を買えます。 → so we can't just blame such people as evil
evilはかなり悪徳な感じですが（evil empire 悪の帝国、とか）ニュアンスがわからないのでこのままにします。

Moreover, the director appeared a women who got killed her husband by wolf, so to say he expressed a nature as "perpetrator".
⇒ Moreover 「そのうえ更に」よりも In addition 「それに加えて」の方が良いような気がします。
⇒ the director appeared a women ですが、appear を買うのであれば a woman が主語になります。監督が～を登場させるはいろいろな言い方がありますが、例えば、→ the director created to show a character of a woman in a scene who lost her husband killed by a wild dog
⇒ , so to ... 前の文を一旦ピリオドで切ったほうが良いと思います。→ . It seems that he tried to depict the nature from an aspect as a perpetrator.

As can be seen from this, it seems that it is a mistake to judge the relationship between humanity and nature with the values of good and evil.
⇒ As can be seen from this → As we can see from this
⇒ it seems that → we can't simply tell the relationship between human and the nature by good or evil.

Also, Ashitaka struggles to find the answer, "forest and people, as both sides can live," until the end of the story.
⇒ Also, Ashitaka struggles to find the answer → Ashitaka has been struggling to find how forest and people can coexist though the story to the end.

お礼

どちらにしようか悩んだのですが、やはりbreakよりもdestroyの方がいいのですね。
なるほど、survive。確かに切迫感がありますね！
もうベストアンサーにしてしまったので聞けないのですが…viceはどうでしょうか？（evilではなく）

回答ありがとうございました。
大変参考になりました。

回答No.1

cbm51901

Considering that the destruction of forests is a necessary means to live, one cannot unequivocally[*1] say that human beings are "evil."
Moreover, the director added a women character whose husband had been killed by a wolf, so as to express that the nature can be the "natural predator"[*2] to humas as well.
As can be seen from this, the relationship between human beings and nature cannot be expressed in terms of good and evil.
Throughout the film, Ashitaka struggles to find the answer to the ultimate question[*3]: "how can forest and people live together without destroying each other."

*1: https://eow.alc.co.jp/search?q=unequivocally
*2: https://eow.alc.co.jp/search?q=natural+predator
*3: https://eow.alc.co.jp/search?q=the+ultimate+question

お礼

回答ありがとうございます。
参考にさせていただきます！