Thank you for coming and reading. Happy that you enjoyed it.

This is an interesting story and abstract discussion about the nature of films (or any other type of art for that matter) and their meaning.

Yes! :)

Kruzmaka doesn't care about what "every one else" might say about the film but what Rudger wants its main message to be. Since he is the producer and director alike; what makes him an artist. Kruzmaka wants to tickle it out by provocation (he is well intended).

As a storyteller I have something in mind, the famous "moral of a story" and I want my audience to catch it and to have it understood in the way I understand it. If I am unclear about it, I may run into the difficulty of trying to please everyone. But if I try to please everyone, I weaken what I myself want to emphasise.

An author takes authority over his work. What makes him the chief of meaning giving. If I were a teacher and would have my students make an interpretation of my given story, I would not rate them equally but unequally, since the student who came closest to the main message would score higher than the one who missed it completely. I'd be a bad teacher if I was to rate them all equally, since that would mean that I am not very interested in teaching students to refine their skills. Of course, there is a wide spectrum, on which one outer end there is "you missed it" and on its other outer end "you got it". But a lot of middle ground.

Which makes the statement that everyone experiences a story also subjectively an obvious matter of fact. Nothing to fancy about (what our chick excitedly expresses as "freedom" - LoL).

Kruzmaka wanted the audience to experience an "aha"-moment ;)