I am quite surprised that the authors of this article continually refer to film as a "naturalistic" experience akin to "real life". This framing shows a complete lack of awareness of how fashioned, encoded, and formed films are (and specifically narrative film) - there are even theories that draw analogies between language and narrative film.
An analogous claim would be that reading a novel is "just like real life", or that paintings or photography are "just like real seeing".
Film - and in particular popular narrative fictions - are fashioned, artificial experiences; much has been written on how they are put together and how they are perceived or experienced.
Without qualifying in what ways they feel that film represents "real experience", the authors are demonstrating just how ingrained certain conventions of realism are in our culture - to the point where these conventions of realism in narrative are taken to stand in for raw experience.
Or, to put it bluntly, the authors are demonstrating a very naive stance on film.