Twilight Zone: Eye of the Beholder, or things people routinely misinterpret.

[smiling_bandit]

So then it is a comment on capitalism and not satirical? To be honest I interpret Animal farm as a criticism of those who abuse and weild power and the failiure of those who give up the ideals of their revolutions for the power gained by them.

The “humans” in question can also be read as the the old aristocracy. In Orwell’s time and youth they were much more influential in Europe than they were by his death, especially in Russia. However, I don’t think the ‘humans’ were ever important in the book nor that they had a specific target. They were just background, really, from start to finish.

Look at the theme of the film and Decker being a replicant does actually make perfect sense

I didn’t care much about the themes. I was looking at the logical, rational, literal meaning of the text. And it still makes no sense. This isn’t really a fantasy story, nor until the very end anything approaching a thematically driven movie. It was made as a solid mystery story with strong philosophical overtones; I don’t believe shooting the logic of the mystery in the back was a good idea, no mater what it does for the philosophy.

Wow on a literalist hot streak here. If Guliver’s travels has no lasting meaning I believe it would have quickly disapeared with many other forgotten fantastic yet pointless tales. It still works because it can still be open to interpretation.

But tis almost never read outside of college courses - and even there essentially defies any coherent meaning until explained.

You say it’s still around and therefore must have meaning. BUt note that the text is almost always played as a total fantasy: only a handfulk of people at all comprehend it has or had a deeper meaning. Aditionally, I think you overrate the universal aspects of the book. I don’t think it has terribly much to say outside of the political commentary, although I can see how one would get that out of book 4.

[Earl_Snake-Hips_Tucker]

I have nothing to advance the OP, but will add this anecdote about Frost’s poem:

In my English class, when were were going over the poem, our teacher mentioned the line about the horse giving “his harness bells a shake. . . .”, the relevance of it leading to her question, “What kind of animal is a horse?” Not realizing what she was asking, and taking her very literally, I dutifully replied, “Equine!” (And, no, I was not being a smart@$$.)

She corrected me, “No, it’s a creature of habit.”

That was the last time I offered any public interpetation in English class.