I haven't seen the films but I find the question interesting as a general case of the phil/psych of interpretation. One issue in film analysis is whether the writer and/or director intended to use H as a template or outlook and applied it. Another whether H's influences, irrespective of intent, can be determined or inferred from the film via subsequent reconstruction by modes of analysis.

One can always attemp to superimpose some, I would argue any, system of interpretation. Most of the time our distorted set of (neo)Kantian goggles, the prism of the projection of our unknown selves, manifested in our biases, defences etc are in seemingly automatic mode immersed and interacting in the world. Our motives are evaluated by various rules, for instance, socially imposed intent for the purposes of deterring guilt/liability/responsibility in law, a hypothetical construct to evaluate behaviour in psych or my preference, our mainly unconscious driving mode. To appreciate this, one phil prof encouraged us to view analysis through many sets of goggles, such as the familiar "what would Plato, Nietzsche, H etc say", a practice I found invaluable in law. Drafting a statement of claim or defence, just like film analysis, involves the appreciation and evaluation of vast domains. Because of the preoccupation with our selves, dealing with our anxieties, confronting danger while denying death, we largely interact without a conscious pragmatic outlook. Self deception plays a role here. This is a basic H'n stance which enables us to read a person/situation from various perspectives realizing that the event has an origin, is "caused" in some way but not come about through deliberation. For instance, we can see or evaluate someone's defences or stances (Freudian, Jungian, trait analysis, MMPI, etc.), and yet be certain that the person is unaware of how he/she comes across. Thus no direct influence is necessary for H's evaluation of life/art to be valid.

In my view, H is simply describing the indescribable mysterious present in necessarily obtuse/new/convoluted language. Whether or not one can render it meaningful/interesting/compelling/consistent etc amounts to another artful H'n task/perspective the validity of which may be indeterminable. Here it is not so much determining meaning by a Wittgensteinian analysis of use of language as a tool but finding meaning in a clearing of mind through H's strange set of goggles.

-- Original Message -----

From: "Ross Macleay" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Wednesday, April 23, 2003 11:45 PM
Subject: Being-in-Badlands

> Here's a challenge. Is anyone able to read any Heideggerian influence in,
or
> suggest a Heideggerian-theory-of-art take on, BADLANDS or DAYS OF HEAVEN?
Or
> PILLOW TALK (beyond the telephone's being-ready-at-hand and being
> present-at-hand for DD's Dasein.)?
>
> Ross
>