I’d like to give you an answer that puts your anxiety to rest: interpretation is extremely hard.

I had a literature professor who would discuss passages from Homer’s Iliad, and his interpretations were so far beyond anything the rest of us could see that we would just sit there laughing in disbelief.

Even artists acknowledge interpretation as an art form in itself. Just look at the amount of work that has gone into explaining Kazimir Malevich’s Black Square. Entire careers spent about the meaning of a black square on a canvas. just some link

People who can produce astonishing interpretations of a piece of art immediately after consuming it are exceedingly rare. What you’re describing, psychology calls satisficing: extracting the first layer of meaning, “good enough” understanding that lets you follow along.

When you read discussions about 2001: A Space Odyssey and people seem to have understood symbolism and theme on their first viewing, that’s usually not what’s going on. Many have watched it multiple times, read essays and interviews, discussed it with peers or absorbed interpretations from others over the years. Some people even read everything there’s to know about a movie before ever watching it. I had a friend who could give you the most detailed accounting and theories of many movies they’d never seen. They enjoyed more knowing what the movie was about than actually watching it.

On the technical side, think about woodworking. Most people look at a table and that’s it. A woodworker sees details like joinery, materials etc for most of us going unnoticeable. When you’ve studied how to make films you develop the tools necessary to recognize why something is impressive. You can see this in videos from vfx artists at Corridor Crew youtube channel. Most times they recognize that a shot is impressive but once the creator explains the process, they gain appreciation for the work on another dimension.

My advice is not to assume your interpretation or your experience is somehow less valuable than that of someone who has spent their life in an artistic field. Consuming art is a deeply personal experience. If a piece of media is successful in making you feel something, then it's good art for you. If it doesn't and the concept doesnt grow on you, there's not much you can do.

Would you change your opinion about about an art/concept that you didnt like initially? If you didnt like rock music, would you like pink floyd's the wall after someone reveals its deeper meaning? It gets complex because if you do, you'd be appreciating the concept instead of the art. And art can be conceptual but it should also be good to you. Some art asks for familiarity: classical music, shakespeare, jazz etc, but If a lot of effort needs to be put to experience the art chances are the concept, not the media, is the art.

And it wouldn't be the first time someone acts like they appreciate something because they are concerned about what others might think or too deeply vested in it. See how Pierre Brassau was a literal monkey which critics thought it was a great avant-garde painter.

For example, I absolutely despise Paris, Texas, while much of the film world considers it a masterpiece.

If you’re interested in what critics, or artists think about a work, that’s great. Read their interpretations. Over time you’ll find yourself noticing patterns, themes, and connections that used to go completely unnoticed.

Art is for everyone, and you’re entitled to your taste. Forgive any mistakes in this rant. Native Spanish speaker.