Interpretations and reactions to fiction

I recently watched the film Risky Business. Some critics felt that it glorified the main character's actions, which they considered unethical, while others responded that it was a satirical criticism of those values.
This is a good example of how preexisting values effect interpretation of events. I don't know what the intention was, but my interpretation was that the main character Joel underwent a lot of positive growth. Regardless of how you feel about things, honesty about yourself and about how you see the world is a good thing. Without it you're doomed to hypocrisy and self-conflict and inner self-degradation.
Some say he exploited his workers and yet I'd say he was just facilitating interaction between customers and workers; there is an ambiguous line that the workers worked until they were exhausted, but I interpreted, I think accurately, that this was willing (over)exertion. A lot of money was made in an unconventional fashion; everyone, true to the ideal of capitalism, participated in the venture because they felt it was in their best interests to do so.

I also read The Princess Diaries Volume IV. While better than the third book, this book also felt like it was going slowly and repetitively to take up space; protagonist Mia's low self-esteem was trying. Mia also seemed to display a serious problem in distinguishing fact from fiction. She acknowledges that she used to like clowns but after reading a horror novel had an aversion to them, somewhat acknowledging that this fear was unreasonable but clinging to it. She also seriously believes that certain clothes bring good luck.
In an observation that's clearly an opinion, she thinks that getting into an accident is better than boredom. Of course, the grass is always greener on the other side ...
After reading Jane Eyre, she adopts some of the title character's styles despite initially considering them to be mean, because of the resolution.
And yet the resolution could well have been very different. I would argue that chance is a large part of life, and authors have a responsibility to emphasize how easily other results could occur.

I also remember a previous book where Mia dismisses The Scarlet Letter because she dislikes the characters, considers them and their society to be boring. I personally considered the characters and their reactions to their society in the novel to be very interesting; not all the characters were admirable, but they were understandable. To dismiss a work for Mia's reasons is, I think, wrongheaded; authors don't necessarily approve of their characters or settings, in fact some are very critical. It is possible, although difficult, to create interest, commentary and reader reaction from boredom and oppression. Mia thought the characters were so boring the novel should have ended before it did, but Puritan rule did last for a long time. The proper response to disliking a setting is to analyze why there is this dislike and how things could be different-in the fictional world and in the all-too-flawed (but improvable) real world.