As I said originally, I think that end products and authors intentions are two diffrent things. The two can overlapp, obviously. But there is nothing that says they have to. Not to mention that filmmaking is a collaborative effort, and that many peoples interpretations and opinions other than the director often tends to worm themselves into the films.
Also, what an director wants to achieve and what he actually achieves tend to be two different things. You'll find many a directors who have a multitude of gripes with their products. Basically, people who created exactly what they intended are a scant crowd indeed.
As a rule of thumb, I'm more intrested in the end product than what the author intended, becuse really, the end product is the only thing that exists in the material world and has something concrete for us to grapple with. While authors intention is something that exists in someone's head, and the question really is if the author communicated his intentions so skillfully and narrowly that you are guided to look at it from his perspective.
I'll explain why I took exception. You said this:
"Everything about this movie is about lulling you into a dormant, dreamy state-of-mind. You are not supposed to be 'alert' while watching it, you are not suppose to watch it like a normal film. You are supposed to allow it to sucker you into it's world, and when your mind is in that state, it's quite mesmerizing."
You make these statements as if they are fact, not your opinion. If you preface all of this with "I FEEL like" then okay, no problem. But when you say that all of this true . . . that it simply IS . . . then it's an objective statement of the director's intent. To say, "You are not supposed to be 'alert' while watching it, you are not supposed to watch it like a normal film," is it to say that when the film was being made, there was an intention for it to only be properly watched and properly understood by audiences who are in a "dreamy state of mind" (which would be quite a strange thing in a time when movies would only be seen in the theater and home video was still decades away).
If, however, this was NOT the director's intent, then you're merely stating how you feel about how the movie is best watched and that's something different.
EDIT: Not to mention, how the hell do we figure out what the author's intent is in the first place? He'd practically have to tell us for us to know for sure.
Don't be difficult. The Fast and the Furious is not about the holocaust. It IS about a young undercover cop who infiltrates a street racing gang. The director is clearly intending to deliver a fun and exciting popcorn experience, directed largely (but certainly not exclusively) toward teens and twenty-somethings.
If most movies were as abstract in their intentions are you're pretending here, then watching them would be pretty difficult going and every movie's meaning would be impossible to interpret.
