The Kikasola reading highlighted several elements of the Double Life of Veronique that I don’t think I would have been able to identify. For example, specific allusions to symbols. 
This reminded me of the Barnard reading, when he talks about “Bandaxall’s 3 respects in which horizons of individuals are likely to differ”:
  1. “Understand the convention: it is something that a person must know , it is something that must be within their life-world. Unless the convention…is within the interpreter’s culture, ‘as it is within ours’, the interpreter will not know how to understand the image. (p 44)
  2. “Kinds of interpretative skill: patterns, categories, inferences, and analogies that an interpreter can either see or not see in an image. If the interpreter does not posses a certain interpretative skill, then they will not be able to understand a painting in terms of that skill.” (p 44)
  3. “One brings to the picture a mass of information and assumptions drawn from general experience… These presupossitions are part of the lilfe-world, then, in relation to which the image may be understood. (conceptual horizons)” (p 44-45)
While I believe we all possess interpretative skill, I don’t think we “understand the convention” of Kieslowski’s “abstract, non-verbal rhetoric”. For example, allusions to space as cosmicized, or the political situation of poland at the time. One example was that in watching the movie, when Veronique lets the puppet master into her hotel, my assumptions drawn from general experience kept screaming danger, Veronique you will get killed by your stalker… 
What is interesting about this type of rhetoric, in comparison to say an image, is the temporal aspect. In the sense that the understanding, and the sense longing occurs through time in subtle ways. The idea of foreshadowing cannot exist without the time element. How would foreshadowing work in an app? Or in a painting?