The passage does not suggest that Bordwell’s definition is confirmed by a more careful examination of genres like the musical. Instead, the author shows that a closer examination of genres like the musical reveals the weaknesses of Bordwell’s definition.

The passage does not mention whether or not Berkeley’s films depict events in chronological order. Also, the main point of the passage is the criticism of Bordwell’s definition of the classical style; the main point isn’t about Berkeley’s films.

This summarizes Bordwell’s argument at the beginning of P3, but this is not the main point of the passage as a whole. This is Bordwell’s argument, not the author’s.

The author’s main point isn’t about how to categorize Berkeley’s musicals. The author never claims that Berkeley’s films can’t be considered examples of the classical style of filmmaking. Instead, the author references Berkeley’s films to show the weakness of Bordwell’s definition of the classical style.

This is the main point. The author’s overall argument is that Bordwell’s definition of the classical style doesn’t work. The author references Berkeley’s musicals to show how Bordwell needs to stretch the definition of realism in order to account for the musicals of the 1930s in his definition of classical style, thus showing that Bordwell’s definition is not effective.