Should this be considered to be true and exact? Absolutely not because we could still make the highly improbable assumption that this red mark could have been left later by a protagonist not even appearing in the film. Of course, such a hypothesis is extremely fragile and involves making assumptions which are not confirmed in the film itself.
Many reasonable arguments the spy handled the typewriter in question, this red trace is shown by the filmmaker to remind us of those visible on the fingers of the spied character, the film is a fiction built on this kind of clues intended for spectators to orient their understanding, etc. thus play in favor of the other interpretation which all the spectators recognize as true even if, from a strictly logical point of view, it must be admitted that it is only highly probable. Visiting https://new-fmovies.pro/ can offer you the look into it.
But what does all this imply in a situation of debate or animation? In such a situation, we are faced with a group that undoubtedly has different opinions and which also has kept different memories of the projection. And it is the confrontation of memories that will serve as a driving force for the discussion. A priori, as we have just shown, no opinion can be declared more relevant than neither another nor any point of view better or more just or more informed than another. But the confrontation will undoubtedly reveal to the participants a diversity of opinions and interpretations: spontaneously indeed, we easily believe that our point of view is shared by all, while the experience reveals differences of interpretation or analysis more or less important. The facilitator’s role should, therefore, be to encourage the expression of different opinions, in particular, those that are in the minority: these can indeed highlight elements that would have been ignored by other spectators while revealing approaches or different points of view. This will include questioning the most unilateral interpretations that can possibly be contradicted by elements that force nuance of such interpretations.
Expressing an opinion is not enough
However, and all of them should be supported by more or less elaborate arguments. Of course, there could be no question in a debate of constructing a critical analysis of the level of those found in specialized magazines, but the relevance of an interpretation is judged in particular by its power of conviction, even if this power does not is probably not only the result of rational arguments. The objective of such a discussion, however, is not to reach a consensus, let alone a unanimity, and the necessarily hypothetical nature of any interpretation implies that differences of opinion may remain on this subject: an interpretation which carries a large “suffrage” cannot be said to be more “true” than another, but only better “accepted”, and a minority interpretation with the exception of those whose objective elements are sufficient to show the falsity must not “disappear” because it is not shared by all.
It is obviously not possible for the animator as indeed for any analyst or theorist) to anticipate the range of possible interpretations of the same film, insofar as the points of view that the ‘one can adopt on a complex object like a film are in principle infinite, but also where the procedures and “systems” of interpretation which one can call upon cannot be determined nor limited a priority.