Renschler is clearly enamored with the films cinematic scope and its propagandistic means. The question for me was a film's ability to be both escapist and a piece of heavy propaganda. A propagandistic film intuitively connotes an engagement with the material that is active--a piece escapist theater connotes a disengagement from the faculties to the point of transcendence. Many films more or less fall into one category--to bridge both requires specific subject matter. The storyline must be fantastical nature to fulfill the demands of both propaganda and escapist art. The disengagement of the faculties as the audience settles into an alternate reality engenders a total receptivity. Because the film is a suspension of reality and natural law from the onset, the authorial power increases exponentially. The film can consider even the most far fetched ideologies with little regard to any 'normal' standards of thought and action. The audience will consider them because they have been conditioned to do so, and after all, its only "a movie".