Heidegger, the same as Sartre, didnt like who he was, if you ask me, and spent a lot of time seeking to impress upon others that he was smarter than he was, Sartre wrote at or spoke at length in interviews with adoring almost sycopathantic interviewers about how much he wanted to be an intellectual. Now I'm not a fan of anti-intellectualism anymore than I am of pseudo-intellectualism or intellectualism per se (of all the discussions of it I probably like some of Gramsci's about "organic intellectuals") but I can understand it, I probably have more sympathy for it, sometimes, at least in contrast to what it exists as a rebuke for.
I read a semi-fictionalised account of how Sartre speaks to a waiter in his favourite cafe this month in Philosophy Now, Sartre I felt was insulting and condescending when the waiter gives a very good defence of what is good about his life as a waiter, the roles he plays and its place in a long line or family predecessors and, in all likelihood, successors etc. the whole time Sartre insists this is all beneath the guy and he will get him a position with a newspaper he edits. I really didnt like it but I felt that it reflected Sartre well and a lot of the "too clever" thinkers like him. There is an arrogance about them.
Heidegger, I find the same, when you strip it all away he has not a lot to say, certainly not a lot which hasnt already been said and put in a better way by other thinkers, and this I think is a huge, huge deal for continential philosophers, they've tried desperately to innovate, attempting to be original, sometimes with real meagre pickings and material too. Its a disaster a lot of the time. The sociological and academic and status role of it all I think is pretty glaring. The fact that Heidegger was one of the intellectuals who seems to have bought what the Nazis were selling does not surprise me when I consider his books to be honest.
Marcuse and Adorno I think are two other good examples aswell, their books are pretty complex, long, wordy and lacking in transparency, often pitched to readerships which are pretty young, who're desperate to appear that they understand it all but more often are going to employ the books as props or talking points or table books (they might've read a wiki, or one or two pieces, one positive, one critical to keep ahead of any actual conversation). Contrast that with the right wing's writing style and it is repetitive, over simplified but usually crystal clear, written with a deliberate "pandering" to people already persuaded of the points kind of way. In truth I'm not a big fan of either if you go back to earlier and earlier left wing pieces of writing it is as crystal clear as a lot of the contemporary right wing writing styles. Which I think relates to the, as I've said before, historic loss of nerve and faultering vision or inspiration which the left wing experienced as its clock ran down quickly after its failed revolutions and diminishing hopes became clear.
Now that may sound off topic, you could well be saying great but what's that got to do with existentialism, I think its got everything to do with it. The reason I think it does is because ultimately existentialism, if its not going to be navel gazing, has to face up to the challenges presented in life, whether life is judged absurd and meaningless or not. You cant live the sun, sex, sensualism and football lifestyle of Camus for instance if you're a complete pauper, it appears like its open to everyone but its not, even if you take material prosperity or leisure time out of the equation there's still major cultural issues, Camus' response to absurd, meaningless life is grand if you arent surrounded by criminal, predatory elements or if fundamental social institutions arent crumblings into shite.
Right, now I know that's wall of text, too long, didnt read.