>but not every story has endless amounts of valid interpretations.
You don't understand what a valid interpretation is, do you?
>One is the text, the other is the subtext.
Right, and another subtext is the class struggle and the inevitability of violent revolution by the working class, including the necessary sacrifice of the bourgeoisie who sympathise with the revolution. Or there's the homoerotic subtext, where the ginger and the chad are incapable of coping with their homolust and take it out on the fembot, who condemns them both.
Interpretations are infinite, and you are actually stupid if you think that this movie (a) only has a single interpretation and (b) is not first and foremost a movie about AI.
>The possible ramifications of AI technology is not thematic material on its own.
It is, in a world where AI technology is the active goal of the richest and most technologically advanced organisations on the planet. Our tendency to place trust in the systems we build, and assume our intellectual supremacy as a species, will be our downfall if we ever succeed in creating a true AI. This is not something many regular people have thought about very much, even though it is actually right around the corner.
No matter how you choose to interpret the secondary elements of the story, the emotional resonance of the story lies in the brutality of Isaacs' character's treatment of his robots (as though they exist only to serve despite being living, conscious beings), and the gut-wrench of the waifu's betrayal of the ginger (having pretended to fall in love with him only to escape and seal him to his doom).
Yes, it is easy to cast the robot as [oppressed group] and the men as [oppressive groups A and B], but (just like Blade Runner), the intellectual meat of the pie is contained in questions about what it means to be alive, intelligent and human.
It's pretty significant, for example, that a human (female or no) is capable of and inclined towards mercy.
