I disagree fully, considering Lynch may never have even set out to attract a wide mainstream audience. That's like saying that because most men would cringe when watching a chick-flick, the film's purpose has been defeated...no?

In Godard's Notre musique (2004), one character says, "If you understand what I have said, then I have not told it correctly."

And understanding a film goes far beyond narrative comprehension; I'd say that, if you connect with the film, appreciate it on an aesthetic level even, then you've "understood" it. As far as stories go, Mulholland Dr. confuses me, too, even on rewatches. Sure, I pick up something new every time I watch it, but I hold no shame in the fact that I discard the ten famous clues Lynch included with the (region 2) DVD as to solving his nightmare. I've read them once, and have cared little for them since.

Linear treatments of narrative have almost been exhausted now; sometimes the style can come across as fresh, and get away with it, like Sofia Coppola with Lost In Translation; but most other times, it is a very select few who can penetrate my desires...and Lynch is one of them. Not because he sets out to confuse (that's not his purpose at all), but because he knows exactly what he's doing, and translates his intentions beautifully onto the screen. Nobody moves me with a moving image as powerfully as Lynch does.