As opposed to a movie where people are brutally tortured and forced to eat feces. BUT IT'S OK BECAUSE IT'S A METAPHOR!!1
He could've conveyed his message a "limitless" number of ways, but he chose to convey it through shock value. Why would he do that unless he was trying to shock his audience?
Yes, it is not only okay, but it's
necessary. Stop saying he did it through "shock value" because you're simply wrong, he did it through the most necessary means ever captured on film. You clearly know nothing about the director. Stop arguing about a film you've never seen because you can't put what little I've revealed to you into context. It's necessary because in order to show people just how awful facism really is, you have do it in the most extreme and disgusting way possible, because that is what facism is. How easily people are quick to obey authority when they are afraid. How quickly they allow themselves to be ***** and sodomized and eat crap. If you don't show it in the most extreme way, then it
discredits the directors true feelings toward facism, hence why it was NECESSARY. Also keep in mind that this film is based on truth. Things of this nature have literally been done in facism, so how can you deny someone from making a film about it, that's like saying Spielberg made Schindler's List for "shock value". You're still my favorite ginger, but i won't argue about this film anymore.
It's great that you think you know everything and all, but you can't speak for the entire artistic community.
What happens if the artist intentionally leaves their work open to interpretation?
I've been arguing with you about a film that is not open to any and all interpretation. OBVIOUSLY if an artist leaves their work entirely open to interpretation, then like I said, there are good interpretations, and stupid ones. It's all a matter of taste (which is a very sensitive subject, blah blah) But in the end, there is good taste and there is bad taste, and a little in between. This is all dependant upon aesthetic value. If an artist doesn't have a message to convey then it doesn't matter, as long as the person gained aesthetic value from it. But what I've been talking about is material that is not open to free interpretation, so if you're finding aesthetic value there that the artist didn't intend...then i'm calling that person an idiot. The guy who walks out of "Saw" and say's "you know, that was a great movie in relating torture with the rise and fall of the Roman Empire", is an idiot. Remember Billy Madison. Remember the Puppy Who Lost His Way....I rest my case.