
I think that's about right...perhaps 2018...
The material in Lynch's celluloid efforts required a lot of "packing" on a 'shot-by-shot' basis - it may have been frustrating for him, having to spend 10 hours setting up the lighting in the scene, but at least it focused his pacing and created a certain level of audience engagement.
With the DV footage, however, he became a little
too self-indulgent. It felt saggy toward the end, even in a purposefully sprawling piece such as this one.
Even if you don't watch a film for understanding or entertainment, it should still offer engagement of some kind - otherwise you drift of into 'home movie' teritory, which unravels at the very thread of "the construction of film".
Of course, you can always say, "Ah ha! That's why Lynch is such a genius", and that's fine. But for me there's an invisible barrier that cannot be crossed in cinema - it goes something along the lines of, "I will bring to this movie only as much as you do as a director" - ambiguity, surrealism and hyper-reality are fine, just as long as they retain a level of active participation.
When it becomes passive, which 'Inland Empire' does at several points, you begin to wonder whether you'd rather be emotionally disengaged watching this or the action-blockbuster playing next door - at least that has flashing lights and 'splosions


