People project ideas on films they love all the time. Art isn't a thing you can just project ideas on because you feel like. You have to have evidence from the work of art that supports your interpretation. My comment is explicitly about that. Your review only seems to congratulate the film for making an allegory instead of actually investigating what that allegory is about or how it works.
I still stand by the basic idea of my sentence. If your main complaint is if I could have wrote it in a more polite way, maybe I could've figured a better way. But I felt then and a bit now that it would filter out the honesty of my reaction.
Hi, I'm a single person who would agree with the statement I made. Nice to meet you.
There's so much emotional abuse in the relationship and the mother shows that she's willing to fight back at so many times. Then incredibly illogical things happen. She doesn't escape or go with her husband. Not because she doesn't want to, she can't, because this about an allegory, not her characterization. She wants to voice her problems with her husband (and does), but then decides to have sex with him instead, forgetting everything that came before because this is about an allegory, not her characterization. He cares about her and her problems with him except when he doesn't... because this is about an allegory, not his characterization. He only stops caring for her when it's convenient for the allegory. Nothing about his character makes any sense. Why does he get mad when the crystal breaks when the couple has been blatantly mistreating his wife in front of him the entire time? Because the crystal is a more important macguffin in the allegory, not his wife.
Hi, I'm a single person who would agree with the statement I made. Nice to meet you.
Let's take it at a purely relationship level:
If the film is all about a woman suffering the erratic abuse of her husband, why is she given any agency at all? Where's the commentary on these kind of relationships? Why isn't she given any scene of escape? Why doesn't she actually physically fight back?
I hate to answer my own questions, but I don't see any other answers than "because that doesn't fit into the allegory". So we are forced to watch a woman being neglected, emotionally and physically abused all in service of this important allegory. I don't see any value in a film ONLY having an allegory, especially if it must require the sacrifice of character to get to it.
SPIRITED AWAY is an allegory for the modernization of Japan. Many crazy things happen, but all of them makes sense to the character and the logic of that film's universe. They're all justified. I didn't feel the justification here. All I see you doing is congratulating the movie for having an allegory, but an allegory has to work in tandem with other parts of the narrative to actually have significant cultural value.
If you don't want to have a conversation, don't assume that I didn't read your review when I wrote mine. Yes, it's not a response to my comment. If you knew that, then why did you link me to your review saying "I do" to a request of a response to a particular part of my comment?