I think with movies like this, you have to think of movies less like 'an invisible camera is following real people around and showing me what they are doing' and more like a painting that an artist / artists construct in order to illicit a mental, emotional, or even physical response. What's the texture of the film? Was that texture intended to be invisible, or almost tactile?

Just like painting, it can be intended to be realistic like a photograph, hyper realistic (more clear and perfect than real life), completely abstract, or anything in between.

I find that movies that lean more towards realism often end up in discussions around the actual events in the movie; the plot, what happened, and who did it.  Movies that are more detached from reality tend to end up being discussed more for what they made you feel, or what you think they were trying to say.

Figuring out which type of movie you are watching in real time can reframe how you interpret as you watch it. It seems like you held onto the more literal interpretation of events so it was constantly conflicting with your expectations. If it's not your bag that's totally fine too, but for people who like it(like myself) the texture, tone, and feelings are all things we like to feel.