A commentary track that tries to fully interpret it would be nice because as John Wooden once said, "It's what you learn after you know it all that counts."
John Wooden needs to shut the hell up, whoever he is. i addressed the problem in 2003 when someone tried to put the movie together chronologically as if it was a puzzle..
it seems u've managed to explain the outline of the film, like the structure, but not the meaning of any characters or even lines for example the cowboy, the twinky's freak-out person, the scary bum behind twinky's, the final line "silencio" said by the blue haired woman.. these are ppl whose roles exist almost outside diane's reality/dream.
u may hav put the film together in an editorial way, but the significance of individual elements, other than arbitrary time-markers, has still gone unanswered.
Lynch is amazing (INLAND EMPIRE notwithstanding) because like so many other greatest filmmakers, he has been massively misunderstood. the purpose of making his films like a puzzle, if we can put it that way, is to use a basic method to get ppl to actively participate in the creation of narrative in his films. that has the function of undermining conventional standards in much the same way that any twisted chronology has done in the past -- the unravelling of Mulholland Drive into a straight forward story is no different than someone who watches Pulp Fiction and spends about 1 minute putting the stories together in chronological order.
i think for a lot of ppl this is as far as they want to go with a film. "can i understand it on ANY level.. can i get a story out of this?" then if they can, that's it, the work is done. unfortunately in all the years of cinema this has not changed. most ppl won't/can't/don't care to go beyond simply passively absorbing a story, and when a smidgen of effort is required in that front a lot of them simply drop out. cos seriously who has the TIME and ENERGY -- I HAVE KIDS TO RAISE AND A MORTGAGE TO PAY, SHEESH MR LYNCH HAVE SOME CONSIDERATION.
so there's no denying that art is not for everyone, and that's a shame. but even if you take a film like Mully D and put it back together, so it feels almost like a normal story, you are not getting everything the film has to offer. it's like looking at a picasso painting and thinking you "get it" because you can sort of put the face back together. what's the point of that? did you just want to test yourself? is it just a million dollar mental diversion? why didn't you just go look in the mirror if you what you really want is a normal face.
JB's half-born INLAND EMPIRE analysis goes a long way in putting the film back together, and i think it's great that he's done that. NOT because i'm looking at it and going "great, problem solved, we can all go home now" but because he has given me the tools to be able to work with the film and uncover what it's REALLY about.. i now hav a chance to maybe revist it withouta falling asleep long enough to absorb the film for different values other than how it all goes together. a good structural analysis is only a STARTING POINT.
any great film, like those of David Lynch, or those of Kubrick* (another person whose films were simply "put together" and walked away from.. or in the case of EWS seemingly unable to be "put together" completely, and thus apparently worthless), deals with themes, develops an internal language through visuals and sound, uses its performers to communicate emotional elements not transferable through any other means.. all of this adds up to something, and NONE of this is contingent on how the story is "put back together".
*kubrick began making films with a similar twisted narrative structure only because it was the easiest way to elevate the pulp material he had to work with (Killers Kiss, the Killing). his early films are still no more than pulp, however, because once they are put back together they carry very little substance.