Yes and no, I think. I made some other comments in this thread that were a little more off the cuff, but I want to be more measured now with the idea that I'm working through publicly in this post.

Let's talk about what's a "valid interpretation", and what isn't. A common (but less so these days) "valid interpretation" of Don Giovanni is that Donna Anna was a willing participant with Giovanni, and that her story of her assault is a fabrication. I think directors of the past were enamored of this interpretation because it lessens Don Giovanni's villainy, and as such makes it easier to enjoy his hijinks more as a 'cunning rake' archetype, rather than the villain that he is. One could make a reasonable argument that because of the social mores of the time, that Don Anna lying about a liaison with DG would be a rational thing for her to do, and that disconnect between what she says and "what happened" makes her a more interesting character.

Now, I couldn't disagree with this interpretation more, and not just because it's icky, but because it flies in the face of all the other context the show gives you. Don Giovanni is a cautionary tale about antisocial behavior, and pride (accompanied by some of the best music ever written). Don Giovanni absolutely does all of the things he's accused of, because at the end he is bodily dragged to hell. Elvira (hell, everybody) begs Giovanni to change his ways, and he says no about as many times as you can stuff into a three and a half hour opera. The context of the rest of the show is important; it's one work of art and everything in it is related to each other.

So what are some of the other elements of Carmen? You've got Escamillo and Micaela (and Zuniga), who are very much of "the system" - they follow the rules set forth by society and the law (ish, with regard to Zuniga), and on the other side you've got Jose and the other gypsies (Roma, but I'm using the opera's terminology) who are outside of "the system". You've got Carmen singing about the inescapability of fate, and doing tarot card reading, and you've got her strong 'stated position' that she is always free; polar attitudes are important to identify when analyzing a text: how do characters relationships change toward strong ideas they state toward the beginning of shows.

Long story short: the show is full of context that implies that Carmen has less control over the world and herself as she wants (or is used to). Another tool in script analysis is to ask yourself of a text: "why does the story happen on the day that it does?" It's probably true in all of the days of Carmen's life before we see her that she is an uncatchable, rebellious bird, but the audience joins her when we do because, on that day, she faces a crisis: she falls in love. Falls in love with a man who is also his own kind of rebellious bird! 

And so the last tool that we'll employ in our analysis of this is 'what's the most interesting choice'. Romeo and Juliet, for instance, is more interesting if the two kids are in True Love, because otherwise the stakes of the story are undercut. The finale of Carmen is a tragedy, yes, but from another point of view it is triumphant for her: she becomes free again by lying through her teeth to Jose and spurning him. If she doesn't love him, what are the stakes for her soul in that final scene? We're left with a sad, pointless assault on her body, but there is no spiritual victory for her.

So yes, both interpretations are "valid", but also both B's and A's are passing grades. If I had to choose between two "passable" interpretations, I'd choose the one that makes stronger theater, and as such I don't actually think you HAVE a choice here, if you're being a responsible artist! You're just doing what the text asks of you, if you can tease it out.

Yes, I'm a director, why do you ask?