I was going to write an interpretation, but any interpretation will be unconvincing because the movie was so completely ambiguous. Ambiguity is the only possible result when you mix symbolism with an almost complete lack of dialogue.<br /><br />Now I don't have a problem with ambiguity per se. That's exactly what I like about some David Lynch films, that they're left open to interpretation and the best argument wins. The difference here is presentation. With movies like this, it doesn't matter how profound the underlying theme is if said theme is presented in a boring uninteresting way. Every single scene in the movie is shown, the point is made, and then the scene continues for some reason. These scenes go on and on with no dialogue, no music, no camera movement, and not even enough light to allow you to entertain yourself with the backgrounds.<br /><br />Some of this structurally unnecessary prolonging is done in an attempt at realism. Though it seems naive to assume that real life boredom will be film-worthy simply because it is real. Other times the prolonged scene is simply an immature attempt to make the audience uncomfortable. For example, scenes eating with prominent chewing noises, the tourist and her lesbianism, mother and her masturbation, and so forth.<br /><br />I just figured out the best interpretation: By being aware of time, life slows tremendously and becomes excruciatingly boring, as this movie illustrates beautifully!