Skip to content


The 10 Best Movies Influenced by Heideggerian Philosophy

13 July 2015 | Features, Film Lists | by Ben Wilson

The Sacrifice (1986)

Martin Heidegger’s book Sein und Zeit (Being and Time) has been all the rage in philosophy for the last century, with every work since either referring to it or intentionally ignoring its message and impact. While incredibly dense, it is clear that Heidegger’s project was quite pointed, and his criticisms of the last two millennia of intellectual thought are potentially damning. He believed that all thought was in error unless it was based upon a proper notion of man and its existence.

To remedy this, we must return to the pre-Socratics (yes, that means before Plato and his ilk) and reexamine our Being. His project is so complicated that it requires a new language, one intended to transform our world and our understanding.

While impossible to summarize or explain Heidegger in less than a book, I’ll try to lay down the basic points here for those unfamiliar or rusty. First of all, man exists, but is hurdling towards death, or inexistence (i.e. we are all mortal). Man is a Being-in-the-World in that he is aware of his existence, and he can become a Being-towards-Death as soon as he is aware of his potential inexistence (i.e. once he realizes he is mortal).

Coming to terms with this fact allows for authentic Being, in which man knows that he is a Being-towards-Death. Authenticity in turn creates angst, an unfocused fear, as man realizes that he isn’t at home in the world and will soon leave it.

Both society and technology (and virtually everything else) can distract man from living authentically and prevent him from becoming a Being-towards-Death. Finally, as referenced by the title, Being must take the form of time, as existence and inexistence mean nothing without time as their horizon.

Heidegger’s project is so audacious that it finds devotees in all circles, nearly all of which disagree on what he is all about and which aspects of his thought are worthwhile. What follows is a list of 10 films that deal with Heidegger’s Sein und Zeit, either intentionally or unintentionally, and that allow for an interesting debate on his relevance to each film. I limited this list to one film per director.


10. Melancholia (2011)


In this 2011 art film, Denmark’s Lars von Trier presents his second installment of his unofficially titled “Depression Trilogy.” Melancholia follows two sisters, Justine (Kirsten Dunst) and Claire (Charlotte Gainsbourg) through a series of personal and familial trials as a neighboring planet, Melancholia, hurdles towards the earth.

The film begins with a short motif preparing viewers for catastrophe, set to the prelude of Wagner’s Tristan und Isolde, the musical archetype of ambiguity and restlessness. As if the prelude alone isn’t enough to foreshadow what is to come, von Trier even depicts Melancholia subsuming the earth, Justine floating away on a pyre, and birds falling dead out of the sky.

Earth is hurdling towards inexistence. Yet, von Trier’s focus is not death, but rather the angst and uncertainty that Justine and Claire experience in their lives.

Justine, for example, is filled with angst. Her angst is not caused by the earth’s certain demise, as she is the only person to succumb almost happily to death, and later basks in the light of the approaching planet (she even says many times that they will all soon die!). Justine rather is struggling to come to terms with her own existence, and finds all of the societal functions to be distracting and annoying.

Claire, her sister, is trying to stay positive in the face of death, as reports and studies indicate that the earth’s days are numbered. She has several meltdowns, despite her husband assuring her that they will survive, and is almost incapacitated as she realizes she will soon die.

Interestingly enough, it is this realization that is able to save Justine. She only calms and is able to function when faced with certain death and, after telling Claire that Melancholia is coming to end the earth, comforts Claire’s son and plays with him in their last few hours (all of this is depicted in the first fifteen minutes, no less!).

In other words, only when Justine’s inexistence is certain can she overcome the angst accompanying her Being-in-the-world, and only when Claire’s inexistence is certain does she realize that she is a Being-towards-Death and her family will be no more.


9. Ikiru (1952)


Ikiru follows bureaucrat Watanabe (Takashi Shimura) as he searches far and wide for a way to give his life meaning after he has been diagnosed with an “ulcer”, (actually terminal stomach cancer). His first attempt fails miserably, as he enjoys a night on the town, ending in what can be termed “a very sad night of Karaoke.” His second attempt isn’t much better, as he admires a female employee and, after treating her to several dates and luxuries, tries to unearth what that brings joy to her life.

Once he has made her feel quite uncomfortable, he realizes that she is happy because she is able to do things for others. The final third of the film is dedicated to this, as Watanabe sets out to serve those in his community. All the while, he keeps it secret that he is dying, and pours his soul into overcoming the bureaucracy that he is a part of.

From the outset, Watanabe knows he is in a race against time to find meaning in life. In an early encounter in a nightclub, an acquaintance of his remarks that it is tragic “man can never realize how beautiful life is until he is face to face with death.” Watanabe eventually learns how to make his existence meaningful, and his struggle takes form against bureaucracy.

Not only is he struggling against the bureaucracy to help his community, but he is struggling to find the meaning of his individual existence in the sea of bureaucracy. Kurosawa’s bureaucracy here stands in for society and the things that can distract man from authentic existence and prevent him from coming to terms with his Being. Watanabe participates in this bureaucracy until he is “face to face with death”, and it is this realization that allows him to live authentically.


8. Primer (2004)


Primer follow four engineers working in a corporation by day and experimenting at home by night. As often happens, experiments with weight-manipulation lead two of the engineers, Aaron (Shane Carruth) and Abe (David Sullivan), to discover a way to manipulate time. And, as any smart Machiavellian engineers would do, they keep this discovery from their friends and go back in time to make money on stocks, predict sports results, and change events from their past.

These efforts go terribly awry and, using what is now termed the “Prestige effect”, create a series of complicated and interwoven timelines in which there are several Aarons and Abes and each new version of their former selves must avoid the other versions of their past selves (or, perhaps more importantly, past colleagues).

The “Prestige Effect” is a theory of time travel that came about after Christopher Nolan’s The Prestige was released. In The Prestige, each time a character manipulates space (or time), he produces another version of himself. In Primer, as Abe and Aaron manipulate time, they are doubled in space, and so there are additional “Aarons” or “Abes”. Not only does this create ethical problems, but it creates problems of personal identity.

Being, it seems, is inextricably tied to time, as Heidegger posited, and thus time is the Aristotelian form of Human life (i.e. it is a characteristic that human life must have). Thus, as time is manipulated, so is Being. This means that not only is a new Being created ontically speaking (which is to say, in very simplified terms, that there is a new physical and mental Being produced), but a new Being is also created ontologically speaking (or existentially), which is aware of its own existence.

This is exemplified by the “rats in the attic” Aaron’s wife believes she is hearing, which is actually a past version of Aaron that the current Aaron has drugged and locked away. Both Aaron’s are aware of their existence, and thus both Aaron’s are Beings-toward-Death produced by manipulations of time. Primer is about a pandora’s box, in which any manipulation of time creates an irreversible manipulation (and multiplication) of Being, and thus existence is permanently altered.


7. The Diving Bell and the Butterfly (2007)

The Diving Bell and the Butterfly

Jean-Dominique Bauby (Mathie Amalric), formerly the editor of Elle Magazine, suffered a paralyzing stroke in 1995 rendering him comatose for 25 days. The film begins as Bauby awakens, and is initially told from his perspective. Gradually viewers begin to realize what has happened, and a neurologist explains that Bauby has “locked-in syndrome”, causing him to be physically paralyzed but mentally fully present.

Gradually he develops means of communication, consisting mostly of him blinking as an assistant points to particular letters or asks simple questions. He begins to relive memories, to fantasize, and to dictate his story so that it can be recorded. He is visited by his children and their mother, telephoned by his mistress, and questioned by his friends, yet in all of these events he finds himself physically unable to cry or communicate at all.

In his view, he is trapped in his own body, which he sees as a diving bell, but his soul is free, as a butterfly. He recalls a friend trapped for four years in Beirut and his aging father trapped in his apartment, and begins to understand their entrapment. Yet, his writings are in stark contrast to his thoughts, which are mostly regrets of his past life and the things he has done.

Bauby’s existential crisis causes these regrets—he came very close to death in his stroke and is now to remain a Being-towards-Death until he finally dies. It’s hard to imagine something more terrifying than being trapped, awaiting your end, and it seems that this entrapment would be truly paralyzing for the soul. Yet, it is this realization, this turn to authentic life that allows Bauby to be free.

He ignores social norms, fantasizes about the nurses and people around him, screams whatever is on his mind to the top of his lungs (despite not being able to make a sound), and lives in radical freedom, a Sartrean paradise in a sense. It is striking how Bauby finds this paralysis to be rewarding, because it forces him to come to terms with his own existence.

He “watch[es] his past recede, reduced to the ashes of memory” and moves beyond his inauthentic self. Because he knows he is soon not to be, he is able to be whatever he wants.


6. Metropolis (1927)

metropolis film

In year 2026, Metropolis is ruled by wealthy industrialists who oppress and abuse its lower class by keeping them underground and working to produce the energy necessary for such a world. Metropolis is ruled by businessman Joh Frederson (Alfred Abel) whose son, Freder (Gustav Fröhlich), enjoys a life of leisure until he decides to see what life is like for the lowest class because he is attracted to one of its members, Maria (Brigitte Helm).

Freder is horrified at what he sees. He begins helping the workers and eventually meets Rotwang (Rudolf Klein-Rogge), an inventor working on a robot to bring chaos to the city. Rotwang captures Maria and disguises his robot to look like her, which he then releases, wreaking havoc on the world and causing the workers to revolt.

Throughout his works, Heidegger warned of the dangers of technology, pointing out that without a robust understanding of our existence, there is no way to understand how we exist in relation to technology. He queried whether technology could be a means to an end, or a human activity, but these definitions cannot tell us the essence of technology.

He was not worried about technology that could cause death, like the machine that explodes upon Freder’s arrival or the robot convincing everyone to revolt, but was rather concerned with how technology can make us forget about death and about our very existence. The world of Metropolis is filled with worker bees, ceaselessly laboring to serve those above them.

They have no notion of what it means to exist or where their existence puts them in the world. It is only catastrophe that awakens them, as the underground begins to flood during their revolt. The idea is that we, too, work frivolously in our daily jobs, obsessing over things that don’t actually matter, and so this dystopian society is actually a possibility.



Pages: 1 2


Other Brilliant Movie Posts On The Web

Like Our Facebook Page and Get Daily Updates
  • yossi


  • Chandradeep

    not Last year at Marienbad? read heidegger..

  • Cebrail Bağdatlı

    the bullshittest post i’ve ever read here.

  • Jackson

    Thanks for the laugh.

  • Bob Brockett

    Heidegger’s philosophical writings are almost comically obscure. That anyone thinks they have made any real sense of that hodge-podge only makes me suspicious. A philosophy is just no good if it doesn’t actually do good in the world. Heidegger’s philosophy didn’t save him from a quick slide into the cesspool of National Socialism, something for which he never apologized, so I’m forced in hindsight to ask, what good is it? Was he a really lousy human being with a good philosophy? How does that work? Sure, he makes a few good points, convoluted almost beyond comprehension, but nothing really original, as similar existentialist-style insights may be found to have been formulated and posited by others earlier. Few famous philosophers can compete with him where it comes to uber-creepiness, however. The guy was downright slimy. I get much the same feeling watching Ted Cruz.

    • lawmanager

      To begin the journey of elevating your capacity for intellectual analysis to the point of being able to grasp the simpler points of Heideggerian philosophy, I recommend mastering the little paperback, Computers and Cognition by authors Fernando Flores and the late Terry Wenograd.

      Good luck! It will be an uphill climb for you but definitely worth the struggle if you’re going to live authentically in this world of Cartesian bullshit.

      • Ian Jennings

        Are you deliberately trying to put him off?

        • lawmanager

          No, I’m not trying to put him off, Mr. Jennings. But, I can see how one could draw that conclusion; and, in retrospect, I’m sure my point could have been made more tactfully than it was.

          The point remains, however, that the work of Ph.Ds Terry Wenograd and Fernando Flores in Computer and Cognition is a good starting place for developing a more insightful taxonomy for understand both Nietzsche and Heidegger. As one travels down that road, eventually they encounter the work of Dr. Flores and other “linguists” in their papers on “Speech Acts” which is an ontological tool for understanding the . behaviors of man in taking care of his concerns as we move through life.

          There is far more to it than what is possible to state here. However, in response to your specific inquiry (as rhetorical as it may have been intended); No. Putting him off was not my intent and I apologize for my verbal sloppiness in creating a message where that might be a reasonable interpretation.

          As a CAVEAT: Due to what I certainly hope is a temporary problem of impaired eye-sight following a routine cataract surgery, I can not see what I just keyboarded. In short, this is not proof read.

  • wlalos

    Only two of these movies are undisputable works of art, and that’s thanks to the talent of their directors, not any underlying philosophy. The rest is trash, (just like the Heideggers writings, though i’d rather don’t blame him).

  • David Emanuel De Souza Coelho

    Metropolis is simultaneous to Sein und Zeit. Besides, Heidegger doesn’t speak about technology in it.

    • sirnaber

      I was going to say the same thing, thank you =)

    • Walter Andrade

      Exactly. Well, Heidegger does talk about techique, wich is technology in some sense and I think “Die Frage nach der Technik” is even translated to English as “The Question Concerning Technology”. But of course that reading the text we realise it is not technology as we think it, but it does can be applied to it.

  • Detlef

    Wow. The first sentence clarifies this bit is just selffulfilling fanboy drivel.
    ‘Either you quote him or you willfully ignore him despite his overwhleming relevance for everything philosophical.” Care to entertain the thought that someone might not feel the need to put your intellectual hero on such a pedestal – and have good reasons for it?

  • David Glidden

    These fine films are not particularly Heideggerian, more existentialist I should say. To find truly Sein und Zeit films take a look at Leni Riefenstahl’s propaganda films for Hitler.

  • Jonathan S

    There is no reference to Heidegger as an influence in Tarkovsky’s book ‘Sculpting in Time’ – although the title might offer a clue – nor in his Diaries. On the other hand the CCCP politburo would not have taken kindly to Tarkovsky citing – or even reading – Heidegger: it would have been detrimental to his career, his health and probably his life.