The standard misreading of Grave of the Fireflies is itself what Takahata was warning against

Most viewers read Grave of the Fireflies as anti-war. Takahata said that was not the film's subject. He made it as a study of how a teenage boy's misplaced pride — his refusal to humble himself to relatives who might have helped — contributes directly to his sister's death. The war is the context, not the argument.

The gap between what Takahata intended and what most audiences receive is not incidental. It is a demonstration of the spectator-fusion he spent his career trying to refuse. A viewer who has identified with Seita — who has been carried on the protagonist's rail — will experience the film as an indictment of the war that killed him. A viewer who retains distance can see that Seita's own choices kill Setsuko.

[!NOTE] Takahata wanted the second kind of viewer. The film's widespread misreading as anti-war suggests he didn't always get one — and that the pull toward identification is strong enough to override even a film designed to resist it.

The misreading also shows how politically consequential the distinction is. A film read as anti-war propaganda does something different in the world than a film read as a study in how pride destroys the people near us. Takahata intended the latter.

Source claim: Takahata intended Grave of the Fireflies as a study of a boy's pride causing his sister's death, not as anti-war film; the widespread misreading is itself an instance of the viewer-identification he was trying to prevent.