Perhaps they understand the meaning, but this:

> “It goes back to Hannah Arendt’s banality of evil a bit,” says director Andrew Neel. “These everyday things that are beloved to us, like food, can take on an entirely different dimension within the context of a dictatorship.”

Is still a misquote/misrepresentation. People can understand a subject but still say wrong things about it.

It seems your misinterpreting the quote, it does never says that

> “These everyday things that are beloved to us, like food, can take on an entirely different dimension within the context of a dictatorship.”

Is the definition of the banality of evil concept. I would argue though that within the concept you will interpret banal things differently. For a more blatant example, the banal act of putting an approval stamp onto a piece of paper will be interpreted quite differently in the context of a administrator in Reichsbahn in Nazi germanycompared to an administrator at the Bundesbahn now.