The Lunchbox

IMDB: 

• 2013

• 
  

  Director:

   Ritesh Batra
  
  

  Writers:

   Ritesh Batra (screenplay),  Vasan Bala (hindi dialogue consultant)

• Cinematographer: Michael Simmonds

Critic Reviews:

• AO Scott (NY Times): “The Lunchbox” has the measured pace and Classical restraint of a romance from the ’30s or ’40s. The comedy is more wry than uproarious, the melodrama gently poignant rather than operatic, and the sentimentality just sweet enough to be satisfying rather than bothersome...But the idea of two lonely souls connecting in a vast, modern metropolis, and remaining strangers even as their intimacy grows, has a durable charm. As do Mr. Khan and Ms. Kaur, islands of melancholy calm surrounded by silliness and noise. ..but they are graceful and dignified in the manner of movie stars in an earlier, less aggressive age, ennobling the ordinary lives they explore. And Mr. Batra makes their story touching and credible, an urban fable of hope in the face of disappointment."
• Louise Keller (Urbancinefile.com):The lunchbox (or rather an Indian version, comprising six stainless steel ramekins stacked on top of each other that lock together in readiness for easy delivery) is the catalyst that connects two strangers, changing the dynamic of both their lives as they begin a fascinating exchange about things big and small. It's a beautiful film that gets to the heart of human behaviour - observant, real and above all involves us in the magnetism that draws two people to each other...While we do see a few shots of scrumptious looking dishes, food is mostly used symbolically and as a tool in the budding relationships between the three central characters. Some may find the ending rather abrupt, although it plays truthfully, allowing the audience to make its own assessment of the story's resolution. This is a charming film that lingers and whose melancholy note sings sweetly.

Plot summary: Two lonely people make an impossible connection via a misdirected lunchbox. They exchange notes through the lunchbox system of Mumbai and become more than friends as they encourage each other to hope for a life beyond their present on-going mundane routine. 

Narrative: third person narration from each character's POV. It is unrestricted and we are given an omniscient view of both their lives as the drama plays out. 

Characters: 

• Sajaan: he is a grouchy old man who is not interested in anything beyond the files he has completed for the last 35 years. 
• Ila: She is a lonely housewife in a loveless marriage. She is willing to try to make her marriage work, but her husband has no interest and she is longing for more. 
• Sheikh: He is an orphan who is willing to say or do anything to get what he feels like he needs to make himself happy, which is to marry his love and have a decent job. 

Implicit meaning: If you are given an impossible chance at making a connections, you should take it. 

Movie Scene: Sheikh joins Sajaan for lunch for the first time. 

• Setting: the office's cafeteria where all the workers sit to eat their delivered lunch boxes. Sajaan always eats alone at the sterile table with his lunch box. He is an island of solitude among all the diners. 
• This scene is significant because Sajaan allows Sheikh to join him for lunch. Sheikh tells him that others have said that he shouldn't expect much from Sajaan. Sajaan sees that Sheikh only has two bananas which is something that earlier Sajaan wrote about to Ila. Sajaan has realized earlier that he is lucky to have more than two bananas for lunch. Sajaan offers Sheikh some of his lunch. It is the first real time that Sajaan has interacted with anyone beyond the notes with Ila. Sheikh sees the note that Sajaan takes out of the lunchbox and says it is a time of emails, but he is writing  a note. Sheikh is as moved by Ila's lunch as Sajaan. Sajaan has finally begun to move beyond his melancholy life. 

Judgment: I has seen trailers for this movie and expected it to be a slow drama. I was not far off, but slow is not the correct word, the film was engaging as it slowly revealed its meaning. I enjoyed how the director gave bits and pieces of the story instead of just throwing everything into fast-paced talking and silly impossible encounters. It was a believable circumstance that brought them together, not some ridiculous plot device so two Hollywood stars could act. I agree with AO Scott, it was much more like a 1930s drama. It also reminded me of a Japanese film, "Shall we dance?". It is a lovely film and I would suggest to any who want more from a movie than just light banter.