Fidia

I understood the meaning of the text (and that's what distinguishes your fight, after all), but honestly, I might have leaned more towards the comedic aspect (as you've done other times) rather than the social aspect. But perhaps it’s that you used terms I don’t know, and that’s why I didn’t quite grasp it (drone, mushroom, zombie freak, etc.), even though I repeat, the general sense, I believe, is your battle mark.

Thank you Federico, hello.

I'm asking you this question because from your post you seem to be the most open-minded person to discuss such a situation (but perhaps it's an excessive question, I realize that).

Saputello and Alias, you are both completely right, but I meant someone entirely different. Let me explain with an example: years ago, I met a girl who dressed a certain way, spoke a certain way, and above all, talked to me in a certain way about how she saw life, about what she did, her experiences, her worldview. I fell in love with all of this and not so much with her physical appearance (to be honest, she was kind of plain). Everything she said was pure poetry to me.
Then, overnight, I suddenly discovered that she was playing a role. In short, she was nothing like what I had idealized and what she wanted me to see (she was simultaneously involved in another relationship with another guy whom I later met, and who told me things about her that were diametrically opposed to what she said and showed me).
So, I don’t know who she really was, but from that moment on, I no longer loved her. Maybe because I felt betrayed, but I stopped loving her just like that. Because, essentially, she wasn’t the person I had fallen in love with. She wasn’t how I imagined her to be and how she presented herself. Alias, I’ll ask you another question: what if you found out that the woman you love so much was actually a man?

Would you continue to love someone who turns out to be completely different from how you first knew them?

Your analyses, Alias and Bartle, are very interesting.
Bjork, with my reviews, I mainly aim to stimulate discussions about the film (and not only).
You may notice that often commentators enrich my writing with their contributions.
It may be appreciated or not, that’s understandable, but comments like the first one from El Guevo, which implicitly told me that I don’t understand a damn thing, just don’t sit well with me.
Bjork, can you answer my initial question?
Bartle, Alias, and Arnold, you too. Regardless of the film, I would like to see how you respond.

Come on El guevo, without controversy, explain to me your opinion and what the movie means to you (like everyone else does).

If I had written this last post instead of the first, I wouldn't have taken it at all. But you know, it's easier to shoot down than to articulate one's own opinion.

The important thing is that you understood it, sir.
But, anyway, how would you respond?
Why don't you express your thoughts on the matter?

It's clear, then, that even in this film there may be common denominators with others. After all, we're talking about Cronenberg and not Neri Parenti.