MovieChat Forums > Night Train to Lisbon (2013) Discussion > Philosophic profundity?

Philosophic profundity?

posted 11 years ago by jtdeclercq
3 replies | jump to latest

Seems to me that most of the quotes from Amadeu's book read by Gregorius sounded a bit superficial, or at least somewhat obvious, and not original at all.

We leave something of ourselves behind when we leave a place. We stay there, even though we go away. And there are things in us that we can find again only by going back there. We travel to ourselves when we go to a place. Now we have covered the stretch of our lives, no matter how brief it may have been.

Does this strike one as a baffling insight, which changes Gregorius' life? If so, the poor bugger must have had a boring, superficial life indeed.

Also, the quote is reminiscent of Anaïs Nin: “We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are.” Which, in my opinion, is very insightful.

[–] mothnm 11 years ago

To those of us who have traveled to a lot of places do we have to (according to the film's philosophy) return to collect it if we left something behind? Something happened to us in a place. We took the experience with us when we left. Amadeus didn't leave behind his hope of a life with Estefania since he carried that loss with him. It is all too human to blame the place but the rejection could have happened anywhere and anything reminiscent of the place or conversation would trigger reliving part of the experience.

Another example of the surface, obvious philosophy you didn't like is that after political turmoil that disrupted many lives a woman expresses distress that it seems like God doesn't care. Philosophy and religions have responded to that one in a number of ways. Seems like a dodge to not delve into it, a fear of inciting the wrath of religions and differing philosophies. I know how I would have responded so it would have been interesting and possibly irritating to hear what the film came up with. That dodge was "a bit superficial, or at least somewhat obvious, and not original at all" to quote you.

[–] zeggman 11 years ago

a woman expresses distress that it seems like God doesn't care. Philosophy and religions have responded to that one in a number of ways. Seems like a dodge to not delve into it, a fear of inciting the wrath of religions and differing philosophies. I know how I would have responded

The most honest way to respond is that there is no god.

Certainly all the excuses offered by religion for the undeserved suffering endured by innocents are a collection of increasingly unsatisfying dodges.

The most common, "free will," covers only the evil men do, ignoring disease and natural disaster which are not animated by free will.

All the others I've heard are similarly objectionable.

I actually enjoyed some of the philosophical asides in this movie. I thought they sounded more bookish than cinematic; unfortunately, I can't find time for fiction these days, or I'd put the book on my list.

[–] omendata 8 years ago

I wouldnt bother the book is a bit boring and overly long whereas I found the movie enormously enjoyable from the dual mystery storyline to the sights of Lisbon itself.

The author of the book is a Philosopher of course so naturally he has put his own insights into the script and some of his philosophical meanderings were interesting but nothing really so profound as to make one ponder for hours on it!

Its uncle Frank Kirsty!
Its time to play!